Does Teaching Intelligent Design Benefit Science Education?

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2007/10/28/Battle_of_Ideas_Debating_Darwin

University of Warwick Professor of Sociology Steve Fuller argues that teaching Intelligent Design in collaboration with evolution would benefit science education in the long run.

-----

"Debating Darwin: Should evolution be taught as the only truth?" at the 2007 Battle of Ideas conference hosted by the Institute of Ideas.

The debate over creationism has sprung up as the latest flashpoint in the battle between secularism and religion. While the US has seen extended conflict over the theory of evolution - from the 1925 'Scopes Monkey Trial' to the recent Dover, PA court case – new challenges to Darwinism under the guise of intelligent design (ID) have arisen in the UK.

While few seriously endorse the literal biblical story of creation, ID on the other hand claims to highlight Darwinism's shortcomings on scientific grounds. Evolution is 'just a theory' after all - surely in the spirit of encouraging critical thinking we should ‘teach the controversy’? Science is about questioning received truths rather than establishing certainties for all time. Does this not permit a more flexible approach to science education, where debate is encouraged? Further, the sheer complexity of evolutionary theory leads ID advocates to claim it is best to cultivate a critical eye in pupils, rather than have them take as truth a misunderstood Darwinian theory.

Is science, or 'scientism', just as fundamentalist as religion, arrogantly claiming to know everything, or are doubts such as these a reflection of scientists' failure to make the case properly for what science does have to offer? Is this merely another case of the 'balance fallacy' – the mistaken belief that even falsehoods should be given air time? - IoI

Steve Fuller is Professor of Sociology at the University of Warwick, UK. He received his B.A. summa cum laude (History and Sociology) from Columbia University (1979), MPhil. (History and Philosophy of Science) from Cambridge University (1981), and PhD (History and Philosophy of Science) from University of Pittsburgh (1985). He is the founder of the research program of social epistemology - which is the name of a quarterly journal he founded with Taylor & Francis in 1987, as well as his first book Social Epistemology

Steve's work has appeared in 15 languages, and he has been a visiting professor in the US, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Japan and Israel. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society for the Arts, Fellow at the Economic and Social Research Council, and is listed in Who’s Who in the World. In 2007 Warwick University awarded him a 'higher doctorate' (DLitt) for distinguished contributions to scholarship.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• creationists
• creationism
• id
• evolution
• darwinism
• scientific
• method
• god
• creator
• christ
• religion
• religious
• fundamentalism
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[thejugglenaut91]

you gotta give them some hope to live right?

This guy needs to learn science before talking about it in such a bullshit way.

[clothearednincompoop]

Iheardanawfullotofwordsbutdono­trememberanyofthem.

Did he blabber anything important?

[lolgepwnt]

In this video: Some moron denying science in a video posted on the internet.

[huronwarriors]

To Answer His Question: Scientists conduct studies, apply math, and use strenuous logic and striking skepticism because it is Empirical evidence, which is the basis of science. Being testable means being empirical, being untestable means being non-scientific. Until you can find a way to empirically test something it is and always should be considered non-scientific. I believe in some sort of intelligent designer but until I can test it it is not scientific it is religious.

[MrKGatl]

@PerfectlyBlack If there is a designer, how can you call it intellegent. 99% of everything it designed has failed. That includes stars that have die and exploded, and species that havent made it. What a terrible designer. The problems is that there is absolutely no evidence of a creator. We have scientific explainations that offer better solutions. The very idea of a god or designer is the ultimate something from nothing.

[PerfectlyBlack]

@nfarboody How could it NOT be intelligently designed? The idea that it's not stems from the mindset that we are the highest form of life that exists and we don't know that.

We are less than specs in a Universe that we think is AT LEAST 13+ billion years old. We've existed in this form for what miniscule portion of that 13+ billion. Just because most religious texts are just etho-centric history books filled with bad history doesn't mean that there is no GOD.

[PerfectlyBlack]

@thejugglenaut91 Isn't sociology a science of studying group phenomena? I don't think you are really speaking to his point. He was a bit convoluted in his presentation, but he was essentially just saying that the scientific community's view of religion is so laden with hubris that it defeats it's own purposes sometimes. I think that Neil Tyson puts it best when he talks about people being too big headed about their knowledge of approximately 4% of the known universe.

[HarrysSecret]

This guy is the stereotype for boring middle aged American males.

I can't fap to this.

[rokkvi1]

What a moron this guy is, not worth my time, I´m not watching till the end

[nfarboody]

@IamDUFF We can make an incredibly accurate timeline of the big bang, its 13.7 billion years ago to within 1%. We have actual snap shots of the universe at 300,000 years old. All this seems a lot older than 6,000 years old. Maybe you should get a degree in the science you want to criticize so you actually know what youre talking about.

[nfarboody]

@IamDUFF A collection of bones? Are you serious? Because if you're trolling I commend you. The evidence of evolution is not just in the myriad of fossil records (which are not bones) but most convincingly in genetic records that detail how we relate to the animal kingdom. It actually forms a family tree believe it or not. I think you should go back to "studying" science. There is a lot in cosmology and astrophysics that contradicts the bible as well.

[balhoto]

@DasKrabbe Genial answer.. The only good in these videos are the answers...