+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Intelligent design and the future of science education

Intelligent design and the future of science education

Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America 37(7): 193

The central purpose of science is easily stated--cataloging, describing, and explaining the majestic complexity of nature. As such, the scientific process was established as a way to bring organization and reliability to those very human activities of observation and interpretation. Without question, science has proven to be the most successful philosophical and intellectual system for understanding nature ever created. The origins of this success reside in the way in which the scientific process occurs--errors, mistakes, and logical gaps are essential to the growth of knowledge. The boundaries of our understanding are defined by the magnitude of our ignorance. As scientists we do not like to be wrong, yet, neither do we retreat from the complexity of nature. By using the scientific process we explore our world and expand our understanding. There is no phenomenon of nature that is too complex for our consideration. There is no structure or process that defies our ability to address through the formal structure of science. Nature is complex. New knowledge is gained only with great effort. Yet, nature does not defy us. The concept of intelligent design holds that the complexity of nature cannot be explained by the incremental evolutionary changes of Darwinian evolution. Pointing to so-called units of irreducible complexity, the champions of intelligent design suggest that there are elements of nature that are too perfect, too complex, to be anything other than the product of special creation by a divine intelligence. The greatest philosophical problem associated with intelligent design resides in how it treats uncertainty--how it addresses science's incomplete understanding of nature. The illogical sequence that demands that because modern science does not fully understand the origins of complex systems the only possible process of formation for such systems is divine design turns the essential and necessary driving force of ignorance against science. Holding such a view of a complex structure is an intellectual "give-up." Such have always been the arguments of those who would slow science's progress "we can't know, therefore we shouldn't ask." One of the most significant contributions we can make as science educators is to proclaim anti-intellectual notions such as intelligent design to be the nonsense they so clearly are.

Accession: 019216926

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

Related references

Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action. Journal of Clinical Investigation 116(5): 1134-1138, 2006

Science education. Evolution trumps intelligent design in Kansas vote. Science 313(5788): 743, 2006

Evolutionary theory as a teaching tool in undergraduate science courses for elementary education majors; scientific inquiry versus intelligent design theory and other forms of creationistic science. Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America 37(7): 194, 2005

Intelligent thought: science versus the intelligent design movement. Unknown, 2006

Drugers notebook on science education: teacher education and leadership: keys to the future of science education. Journal of natural resources and life sciences education 25(2): 106-107, 1996

The science question in intelligent design. Synthese 178(2): 291-305, 2011

The Intelligent-Design Movement: Science or Ideology?. Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion 37(1): 7-23, 2002

Intelligent design is not science but is religion and politics. Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America 38(1): 11, 2006

Intelligent design theme of Art of Science exhibit. 2011

Dissent over Descent: Intelligent Design's Challenge to Darwinismby Steve Fuller;The Panda's Black Box: Opening up the Intelligent Design Controversyby Nathaniel C. Comfort. British Journal for the History of Science 42(3): 440-442, 2009

Predicting the next battle over intelligent design in science classrooms. Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America 39(3): 17, 2007

Intelligent design theory, religion, and the science curriculum. Unknown, 2003

Science education and popularization of science in the biomedical area: its role for the future of science and of society. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz 95(Suppl. 1): 71-77, 2001

Intelligent design endangers education. Science 357(6354): 880, 2017

The evolution vs intelligent design debate; a difference in epistemology of science?. Astrobiology 9.5, 2009