Thanks so far to all the input.
To clarify the paper, it's mainly focusing on the debate over education on the topic. And, to specify it even more, about the place of ID/creationism in science education. Mostly I'm talking about public schools because private institutions have a much different set of values and aren't restricted (more or less) in how they teach the subject. The audience is university-level, but it's not like I'm publishing it or anything. I'm just trying to cover how the varying angles on how these ideas should be presented (or not presented) in public schools.
As far as ID goes, the specific brands of ID aren't really what I'm picking through. The concept of ID as being the hypothesis that everything on Earth was designed by a greater (supernatural or alien) force is all that I really need to look at.
sandy_mcd wrote:August wrote:ID is ... an informational theory about the science of design detection.
What are the highlights of ID so far; i.e., the top 2 or 3 papers or ideas?
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. More significantly, it doesn't appear to be published in major journals, so establishment science doesn't seem to take ID very seriously.
I think this is one of the biggest issues with Intelligent Design being regarded as a science and taught as such, at least currently. The scientific community does not really recognize ID as a science or a possible alternative to evolution mostly because it violates or cannot fulfill most qualities of a science. You cannot test it, challenge it, question it, find evidence for it, etc. except on a purely philosophical level, and that is why it's not in any kind of scientific journals; you can't do scientific research on the subject.
August wrote:2) Should Intelligent Design, creationism, or any other counterpart/rival to evolution be taught in schools as a science alongside evolution?
That statement is not accurate, as it assumes that ID stands in opposition to evolution. It only stands in opposition if you import metaphysical motives to either or both.
I somewhat disagree with this. Evolution is the standard by which the vast majority of biology stands on. ID is a direct "replacement" so to speak for evolution in that it attempts to explain the phenomena that evolution describes without evolution. Hence, they are competing hypotheses. They literally cannot coexist without seriously twisting one or both ideas. Yes, there are certainly outside motives going on in the media and on forums, but that has risen do to the fact that these hypotheses do not work together.
Also, to those who feel that evolution ought not to be taught in public schools, what should be taught or explained instead? There is a great deal of biology at higher levels that is based heavily or completely on evolution. Perhaps you could be clearer on the parts of evolution that you consider to make it too philosophical or unscientific to have be removed from mandatory science education? Not trying to shoot anyone down without an argument, just trying to clarify the point. It's a good discussion point, I just need more than what has been presented to write about it.
Once again, thanks, this is going great.