New ID Briefing Packet for Educators

_{William Dembski

November 28, 2007

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Check out Discovery Institute’s “The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators.” As part of its response to the PBS-NOVA documentary “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design,” Discovery Institute just released this packet (for free download, see below). The packet contains numerous resources for educators to effectively teach about biological origins in public schools. These resources include:

1) An introductory letter helping teachers to understand the debate and to avoid the pitfalls in the PBS-NOVA’s educational resources;

2) An FAQ answering common questions about evolution and intelligent design, discussing definitions and evidence for both theories.

3) The truth about the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

4) A summary of the law regarding teaching evolution in public schools.

5) A list of authorities that support teaching the controversy over evolution.

6) A detailed discussion of some of the scientific controversies that can be taught regarding Darwinian evolution.

7) References of peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting intelligent design.

8] A list of internet resources on intelligent design and evolution.

Read more about the educators packet here.

Download color version of the PDF here.

Download B/W printable version of the PDF here.

Comments

Well, I read the material. I’m not too crazy about the color and artwork not because it is not nice looking but because it makes the subject seem a little propaganda like but its ok given that everyone seems to be doing this today. I would have preferred something looking like the imagery used in the movie documentary Unlocking The Mysteries of Life http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5585125669588896670&q=intelligent+design&total=2186&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 because it makes the issue look a little more realistic scientific and serious but artwork is a matter of personal taste. This artist made it look very school like and on the cute side with the bright solid color scheme as if they were trying to make it look less scary. However, the real meat- the points raised in the material are excellent and really speak to the main issues concerning the position that ID has found itself in both politically and legally.Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

A bit of orthographic nitpicking . . . On the front cover of the newly available packet, the topmost image is a faux dictionary entry for "intelligent design." Problem is, the phonetic spelling of both words is incorrect. The second syllable of "intelligent" is "tel" not "te." The ampersand is not part of the international phonetic alphabet. The third syllable should be "li" and in the fourth syllable the vowel sound is a schwa (I don't trust the browser to correctly reproduce the schwa symbol). Likewise, the first vowel sound in "design" is also a schwa and the second is a long i (a lower case i with a line over it). Not a very intelligent design for a publication intended for educators. MichaelMichael Tuite_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT}

I couldn't agree with that quote more. Materialists/Darwinists are always denying the bigger picture of what science is telling us, just to defend their sacred theory. Cutting edge research is clearly indicating that "materialism, in all its forms, in all disciplines of foundational science, is not only wrong but blatantly wrong in its assertion of natural information generation (From cosmology to biology and everything in between). Indeed there is a veritable gold mine of breakthroughs waiting to be discover once science properly addresses the "physical reality and transcendent nature" of complex specified information (CSI) and utilizes these discoveries to the benefit of man. Quantum non-locality by itself gives strong indication to what awaits discovery in science, as far as information is concerned. Especially since large complex molecules have been manipulated by non-local effects, thereby demonstrating the non-local transference of "complex" information. For science teachers to be forced to teach only evolution to our children, and to not be allowed to raise the serious objections to "purely materialistic" explanations that now exist, is to seriously impede the development of our children progress in their future pursuit of scientific truths.bornagain77_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

Dog_of_War: quote>I think the resource packet shows that ID proponents are really the ones who are interested in education.quotebornagain77_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Back to the topic that Dr. Dembski posted on: I think the resource packet shows that ID proponents are really the ones who are interested in education. Look at all the interdisciplinary information in there. Not only is there material correcting the PBS misinterpretations but there are also points about contemporary events and sociopolitical ramifications (Dover) and for those that can read between the lines, there's a little journalism and biased argument/logic to be learned as well. All in all, a good resource--and for all the right reasons.Dog_of_War_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

angryoldfatman, I like your analogy but I must avidly disagree. Capitalism is no different than communism or socialism it is just less restrained. So economies as a whole would basically all have to be considered relevant. Also capitalism does not exist in the pure ideal sense unfortunately as even the US has socialist policies. Capitalism is the result of not only individual interests but an idea that was in fact developed and deigned by intelligent designers (people). Now if you take the people individually and look at what they do and contribute (drive to work, work, invent, learn, teach, etc) the result of their individual contributions is not greater or equal to the specified information/ability inherent in their minds or bodies. Even an inventor of the cure for caner has more ideas or knowledge than he/she can contribute to the economy. The result is a system that seems to get everything out of its parts (as capitalism is said to be the most efficient economy) but the truth is that more can be invented, more can be done- the resources a human being has within itself can never be fully expended especially in his/her activity in the economy. In this case the parts are more complex than the apparatus that results from them. This is why capitalism is by and large more productive and efficient than socialism and communism. Therefore, the SC in the people must be accounted for and we are back to square 1. Also an economy is not a case of SC because it is a system or pattern that is imposed upon the world metaphysically. A living cell is not because it is its own entity and thereby fits the definition of SC which requires not just improbability but also an arbitrary objective pattern. As far as the definition of intelligence goes I think we have a good enough grasp to go somewhere with it. I am curious how atheists deal with ID given the current status of intelligence as laid out in IC and SC. Now, I feel you do however raise a good point. What if an atheist accepted the argument based on the fact that it all “added up” so to speak, but in the back of their minds they only accepted it because they thought intelligence is not yet fully understood and when it all comes out it will be acceptable to them as non-god-like. In this case they accept ID formally or in a positivist sense but not realistically. This is an interesting predicament, which could break atheists down into idealists and realists. Idealists ,counter-intuitively, would accept ID because it is just an ideal or fertile point of view in a Wittgenstein sense. Idealist ahteists would disagree with the truth of the theory but would accept it as a theory. The realists might reject it altogether however because they would apply the conclusions of ID to absolute reality and therefore depending on how obligated they felt towards their metaphysical disposition, would reject the idea despite it being fully develped yet becuase of the possible threat it might pose. Those rejecting ID I would deem “Religious Atheists.”Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Frost122585, you might possibly approach it from the angle that we really don't fully understand what intelligence is yet. For example, the closest observable analog we have for Darwinian systems producing novelty is the capitalist/free market economic system (or so I've been told by Randian atheists). This type of economic system is not controlled by any overarching, centralized intelligence, and yet produces more and more diverse goods and services of which few (if any) are wasted. There is intelligence in the system however - in the component agents themselves. Can one component agent (or even a small group of agents) comprehend the entire system? No. When they assemble themselves into a collective, however, the entire dynamic changes. A hyperintelligence is found to be an emergent property.angryoldfatman_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT}

Interesting, I get the gist but I am more curious about the information/intelligence aspect of ID. Intelligence trancending matter-and how an atheist might deal with this. I think my categories are correct, a liberal or reasonable atheist would fallow the evidence and say "yeah it looks like intelligence played a role but there is no evidence or bias towards a particualr type of God therefore its ok by me" but a religious atheist would say "no way nothing can transcend matter especially a higher intelligence because that is nothing but a God."Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

The Intelligent Universe (by Gardner) describes a type of ID that could be supported by athiests. I don't remember the details, but I think it was based on Wheelers ideas that time is cyclic and that intelligence created itself. I'm pretty sure tha author has several peer reviewed papers supporting his ideas. Although the author goes out of his way to say that he doesn't support ID (a couple of "ID = religion" comments), the main ideas of the book are supportive of ID.dl_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

I dont know it seems to me that you are beating around the bush. If Atheists dont bleeive that any intelligence designed SC or IC than I dont see how it it. I mean I have said I think a liberal Atheist could be sypathetic but a "Religious Athiest" might find the idea of a higher Intelligent cause to be a God. I am not tlaking about after its proven im talking about where the theory is now as supported by the current evidence. Ill be very interested to see Dembski's answer if he chooses to weigh in which I really hope that he does as this could be a good question in regards to the educational potential of ID in public schools. After all Dembski is the philosopher and he designed much of the theory.Frost122585_{November 29, 2007
November
11
Nov
29
29
2007
12:23 AM
12
12
23
AM
PDT}

In my opinion, it's possible for ID to be compatible with atheism. It's conceivable that the designer is not supernatural. That said, if ID were proven true, most arguments used in support of atheism would collapse. A higher intelligence? Random chance isn't enough? That is why you'll find very few atheists interested in ID. They believe that life created itself, with nature selecting some to survive. There is no room for a intelligence in an accidental process.vrf_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PDT}

Dr. Dembski I would like you to know that I am a big fan of your work and have read both The Design Revolution and No Free Lunch. I will soon read the design inference. Sorry for reading them in reverse order. Admittedly NFL is a little beyond my educational level but nonetheless I battled through it and found it very intriguing. In fact I loved it. Now I have a comment and a question. I love this site and its style but i find that you need to have a place where people can chat about ID in general. I can only do this on the article pages and they are becoming clustered with all kinds of comments totally unrelated to the subject of the article. This makes it very difficult to read comments and comment on things pertaining explicitly to the article itself. I hope you will be able to se what I am saying. I am not criticizing the layout of this site. I truly enjoy your articles. My question is this. I have been debating whether or not atheism is compatible with ID. I have said that it is but only if an atheist can accept the idea of information originating from an intelligent source that transcends matter. I have said that liberal atheists could accept ID but Religious Atheists (my term) could not. By religious atheists I am referring to those people who would find the idea of a higher intelligence to be a form of a God. Is this correct and if not could you shortly clear up my misunderstanding?Frost122585_{November 28, 2007
November
11
Nov
28
28
2007
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply