Posted on 01/29/2006 7:58:42 AM PST by SirLinksalot
For those interest in the Intelligent Design movement.
ID is part of an university lecture on the University of Bern in Switzerland.
Prof. Dr. Gerd Graßhoff has organized a lecture series entitled : “Philosophy of Biology”
Here is the link :
http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/lehre/winter06/philo_bio/event?id=145
For this curriculum, the suggested reading (Lesson 8) is an article by the German evolution-critic and ID-proponent Reinhard Junker (he has a creationist background).
And note who is on the reading list --- The famed author of DARWIN's BLACK BOX and ID proponent, Prof. Michael Behe:
http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/lehre/winter06/philo_bio/unit?id=795&ev=145&t=0
The great thing about this course is it is not one sided. Part of the curriculum also includes evaluating ID-critical arguments from Clare Stevens, etc.
ID is also part of the questions asked in the examinations. See here :
http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/lehre/winter06/philo_bio/fragen4.pdf
Have a look at question six: It demands from students, that they understand irreducible complexity, what it means and what it does not mean.
In fact, question’s eight (and IMHO seven) is pointing towards the possible connection between ID and its similarity to the pattern of life.
IMHO, this course, if successfully introduced and followed ( from a major Swiss University at that ), could form a pattern which could be emulated by schools here if the local school board favors it ( as long as the Feds and the ACLU butt out of the way ).
It appears to be an elective at the university level.
No problem.
You have mistaken a lecture for an entire course, I'm afraid. Yes, this course in "Philosophy of Biology" does include a discussion of I.D. in one lecture. That wouldn't be surprising in a course on philosopy.
I think you'd be surprised, though, at the rest of the lectures and the supporting literature recommended to the students.
If they want to teach philosophy of ID, FSM, or Elmer Fudd the Divine, I have no problem with it. Teaching it as scientific theory is another matter.
Even though I view ID as fake science and bad religion, it is appropriate in this context:
1. It is called philosophy, not science. (It is bad philosophy also, IMHO, but at least they are not pretending it is science).
2. It is an elective.
3. It is at the college level.
Look, we have courses in the US on the sociology of TV sitcoms. Teaching ID in that context can't be all that bad. It's when they compare ID to, well, biology or physics that I have a problem.
In Taoism there is a similar system, which includes Metal and Wood but excludes Air.
The Panchamahabhuta, or "five great elements," of Hinduism are Prithvi or Bhumi (Earth), Ap or Jala (Water), Agni or Tejas (Fire), Vayu or Pavan (Air or Wind), and Akasha (Aether, in both it's elemental and mythological senses).
Japanese traditions use a set of elements called the 五大 (go dai, literally "five great"). These five are earth, water, fire, wind, and void. These came from Buddhist beliefs; the classical Chinese elements (五行) are also prominent in Japanese culture.
In a course specifically on the philosophy of biology, one could imagine covering Lamarckism, and even mention Lysenkoism (ie Michurinism - and mention how in 1948 in the Soviet, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience", because it interfered with dearly held preconceptions of certain morons). ID is a natural fit for such a course.
Agreed. This doesn't bother me. But I don't think I need to ping the list.
FYI, Bern isn't the only University that teaches Intelligent Design.
Arizona State University Professor of Evolutionary Biology John Lynch admits he teaches something on the topic of intelligent design. I don't know what it is he teaches about it but this is not the point.
A lot of high school biology profs inform students that teaching evolution at the high school level is done in some measure to prepare students for what they will eventually encounter at the college level when they take up a course that requires biology as a pre-requisite.
Fine, I'll take this as a given -- College Preparation. This is a very reasonable position IMHO.
But this gives rise to the next question, if they’re also teaching ID at the college level and in a state university at that, what justification is there for banning the mere mention of ID and that hundreds of scientists hold this view at the high school level ?
If teaching ID at the college level is to be expected ( e.g., University of Arizone), shouldn’t we be preparing high school students for what they’ll encounter in college with regard to ID in the same way we prepare them for evolution ?
SEE HERE FOR PROF. JOHN LYNCH's admission :
http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2006/01/i_admit_it_i_teach_intelligent.php
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.