New ID Briefing Packet for Educators
| November 28, 2007 | Posted by William Dembski under Intelligent Design |
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.
42 Responses to New ID Briefing Packet for Educators
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I believe kairosfocus lives in Montserrat. News reports I’ve read (from Agence France-Presse) say that the earthquake was felt there but I haven’t seen reports of damage on Montserrat. It’s reported to be a 7.4 magnitude, at a depth that would not be likely to produce a tsunami.
“an also”? Did you miss something off the end of the sentence?
To be honest, I don’t know if intelligence of some sort was behind the Big Bang. I will concede that it’s possible, but I lean towards it being unlikely. I believe of all the identities for a designer of life on Earth, an alien civilization using advanced technology to seed life is by far the most likely. As for the universe as a whole, then if higher intelligence is required in its creation (something I’m not convinced is true) then that intelligence may simply be a property of the multiverse beyond it or any number of different types of entities we have no means of discovering and probably never will.
My atheism came about through the usual means–the study and rejection of Christian tenets like Hell and Salvation (amongst others). While ID is a fascinating concept, I see nothing in it that overcomes my reasons for disbelief (the details are not a topic for discussion here).
I believe of all the identities for a designer of life on Earth, an alien civilization using advanced technology to seed life is by far the most likely.
It seems that if the intelligent use of technology allows a mind to transcend Nature then according to the logic of federal judges they would be unconstitutional aliens. The irony of a debate with the State funded PBS on one side and so on is that both the Declaration and the Constitution could be declared unconstitutional based on the reasoning of federal judges, so why bother having a debate on their mutable/evolving terms? They have made the Constitution a “thing of wax” as Jefferson warned that they would, so any notion of aliens may be said to be just as unconstitutional as God if it limits the power or will of federal judges. Any alien source, whether God or aliens, opens the door to the notion of actual grounds for unalienable rights that do not depend on the decisions or traditions of people capable of pulling rights out of their own penumbras.
As Jefferson said:
(THE NATIONAL ERA
April 21, 1859
Washington, D.C., Vol. XIII No. 642 P. 61)
The majority of the tedious debate about whether ID is “religion” or not emerges from the American judiciary, yet often it is not limited or defined by the text that were designed to limit it so it’s not apparent why anyone tries to frame a debate on its terms. The real issue is whether or not ID is true, not whether or not federal judges support it. Given their attitude towards text and the limitations an ID type attitude could bring to their power it’s not in their interest of accumulating power to agree with ID. You can look for a principled pattern or logic to their judgments but they’re gradually being united by one thing, the accumulation of power in the judiciary. If that becomes more and more transparent then why bother trying to have a debate on their terms, as these pamphlets apparently do?
Note the contrast:
(Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Charles Jarvis (Sept. 28,1820) in 15 The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 276, 277(Andrew A. Lipscomb & Albert Ellery Bergh eds., 1904) )
As compared to emerging traditions in the American judiciary:
112 S. Ct. 2816 (1992) Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (emphasis added)
The American judiciary has evolved traditions which fall entirely outside of the design of the Founders, an emerging tradition in which even the accumulation of their own errors is thought to safeguard progress better than the error correction designed into the system.
… intelligence may simply be a property of the multiverse beyond it or any number of different types of entities we have no means of discovering and probably never will.
My atheism came about through the usual means–the study and rejection of Christian tenets like Hell and Salvation…
If Heaven and Hell were other universes that were part of the multiverse, perhaps even containing evolving forms of aliens/angels, then would you be more likely to treat them as likely?
This may just be me but what you treat as likely and unlikely seems odd to me.
As far as the multiverse I know of at least one atheist who agrees that a notion of near infinite universes seems odd (especially given that the same people tend to reject the notion of only a few more like Heaven and Hell):
(There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind, by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese :136-137)
Is it more likely that an alien civilization of finite or evolving intelligence seeded life on earth or that an infinite Intelligence structured the Big Bang and matter itself based on specification and conditions in which Life could occur?
As to evidence of specification one could begin with almost anything and find many layers of structure fit for Life, for example:
(Nature’s Destiny: How the Laws of Biology Reveal Purpose in the Universe by Michael J. Denton (The Free Press: 1998) :31)
Tyke you stated:
“then if higher intelligence is required in its creation (the universe’s creation) (something I’m not convinced is true) then that intelligence may simply be a property of the multiverse”
Proverbs 8:27
“When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep”,
The numerical values of the universal constants in physics that are found for gravity which holds planets, stars and galaxies together; for the weak nuclear force which holds neutrons together; for electromagnetism which allows chemical bonds to form; for the strong nuclear force which holds protons together; for the cosmological constant of space/energy density which accounts for the universe’s expansion; and for several dozen other constants (a total of 77 as of 2005) which are universal in their scope, “happen” to be the exact numerical values they need to be in order for life, as we know it, to be possible at all. A more than slight variance in the value of any individual universal constant, over the entire age of the universe, would have undermined the ability of the entire universe to have life as we know it. On and on through each universal constant scientists analyze, they find such unchanging precision from the universe’s creation. There are many web sites that give the complete list, as well as explanations, of each universal constant. Search under anthropic principle. One of the best web sites for this is found on Dr. Hugh Ross’s web site (reasonstobelieve.org). There are no apparent reasons why the value of each individual universal constant could not have been very different than what they actually are. In fact, the presumption of any naturalistic theory based on blind chance would have expected a fair amount of flexibility in any underlying natural laws for the universe. They “just so happen” to be at the precise unchanging values necessary to enable carbon-based life to exist in this universe. Some individual constants are of such a high degree of precision as to defy human comprehension. For example, the individual cosmological constant is balanced to 1 part in 10^60 and The individual gravity constant is balanced to 1 part to 10^40. Although 1 part in 10^60 and 1 part in 10^40 far exceeds any tolerances achieved in any manmade machines, according to the esteemed British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (1931-present), the odds of one particular individual constant, the “original phase-space volume” constant required such precision that the “Creator’s aim must have been to an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10^123” or as said another way, “The initial entropy of the universe had to be within one part in 10^10^123!”. If this number were written out in its entirety, 1 with 10123 zeros to the right, it could not be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe, EVEN IF a number were written down on each atomic particle in the entire universe, since the universe only has 1080 atomic particles in it.
http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf
This staggering level of precision is exactly why many theoretical physicists have suggested the existence of a “super-calculating intellect” to account for this fine-tuning. This is precisely why the anthropic hypothesis has gained such a strong foothold in many scientific circles. American geneticist Robert Griffiths jokingly remarked about these recent developments “If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use anymore.”
“The temptation to believe that the Universe is the product of some sort of design, a manifestation of subtle aesthetic and mathematical judgment, is overwhelming. The belief that there is ‘something behind it all’ is one that I personally share with, I suspect, a majority of physicists.” Physicist Paul Davies
“Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially.” Nobel Prize winning physicist Charles Townes
The only other theory possible for the universe’s creation, other than a God-centered hypothesis, is a naturalistic theory based on blind chance. Naturalistic blind chance only escapes being completely crushed, by the overwhelming evidence for design, by appealing to an infinite number of other “un-testable” universes in which all other possibilities have been played out. Naturalism also tries to find a place for blind chance to hide by proposing a universe that expands and contracts (recycles) infinitely. Yet there is no hard physical evidence to support either of these blind chance conjectures. In fact, the “infinite universes” conjecture suffers from some serious flaws of logic. For instance, exactly which laws of physics are telling all the other natural laws in physics what, how and when to do the many precise unchanging things they do in these other universes? Plus, if an infinite number of other possible universes exist then why is it not also infinitely possible for a infinitely powerful God to exist? Using the materialist same line of reasoning, if it is infinitely possible for a infinitely powerful God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, does exist no matter how small the probability is of his existence in one of the multiverses, and since he certainly does exist, according to the strict materialistic reasoning you gave me, Then all possibilities by default become subject to Him since He is by definition Omnipotent. As well logic dictates there can only be one infinitely powerful “Lord” of the multiverses. As well, the “recycling universe” conjecture suffers so many questions from the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) as to render it effectively implausible as a serious theory. The only hard evidence there is, the stunning precision found in the universal constants, points overwhelmingly to intelligent design by an infinitely powerful and transcendent Creator who originally established what the unchanging universal constants of physics could and would do at the creation of the universe. The hard evidence left no room for the blind chance of natural laws in this universe. Thus, naturalism was forced into appealing to an infinity of other ??%9 – estable” universes for it was left with no footing in this universe. These developments in science make it seem like naturalism/materialism was cast into the abyss of nothingness so far as explaining the fine-tuning of the universe.
Proverbs 8:29-30
“When He marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside Him as a master craftsman;”
Job 38:4-7
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone. When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?”
BA77, kudos. It is important to understand that Christ offers a way, not a religion. This way is rooted and grounded in love and depends upon the proposition that all things work together for good to those who love God. Fine-tuning suggests that this proposition may involve something more than fevered optimism: there appears to be a very high level of integration in the universe, which is necessary for life. And as we see from Michael Behe, this is true in the microscopic realm as well. Perhaps, then, faith and reason are not the irreconcilable opposites that Dawkins and his band of merry iconoclasts assert. Fine tuning supports the reasonableness of the way revealed primarily through faith.
Tyke:
“…but while we cannot probe beyond the Big Bang, there is also no evidence that demands that only God existed before or outside our own universe.”
Ok, what else could have existed?
Remember that the big bang was supposedly the beginning of time itself. What can exist out of time that is not itself eternal and self-existent. You answered nothing of my points on self-existence.
Whatever created the universe had to be of infinite power and understanding.
Call it what you will, you’ve only avoided admitting that it is God.
As is typical of atheist arguments, you focus on unprovable conjectures because atheism has no logical foundations. It is mere denial of reality, denial of all evidence.
James M. Gillis
“As I said, perhaps our Universe is just the result of a cosmological science experiment by “Q”s (i.e. alien super-being’s) kid? Unlikely, but certainly possible.”
So where did the alien super-beings come from? Your ‘Q’ idea is merely another God or gods concept. You’re invoking what we have zero evidence for. We have ‘mountains of evidence for the existence of a supreme being. Call him or them ‘Q’ if you wish – you will still end up responsible to him or them. You’ve invented a pantheon of gods. An ages old concept that has been frequently and adequately refuted throughout the ages.
The whole star trek Q concept was pretty lame given the inane actions and words of Q. A rather childish response imo.
“Perhaps it’s comforting to define the first cause as God, but there is no scientific evidence, …”
You merely deny the evidence. It is ludicrous to state there is none. Adding ‘scientific’ to the word means nothing but that you want physical empirical evidence and are thus demanding evidence that is neither necessary or possible under the circumstances. This is called caviling.
- Sir Francis Bacon
“The capability of intelligence to arise may be an innate feature of a multiverse that exists outside time and within which our universe was created.” A lot of self-contradictions in that statement. How can intelligence arise from non-intelligence?
Please demonstrate this logically.
If naturalism (atheism’s science) were true then all rationality is the result of non-rational processes thus cutting it’s own throat.
This isn’t hard.
But again you’re just preaching to your atheist choir. Very old musty tunes we’ve heard a million times from atheists w/o the slightest proof.
All you’ve said allows you to escape looking at the fundamental facts of what we DO know rather than all these quaint little conjectures of yours. All of which either cannot ‘hold water’ under logical scrutiny or are mere escape mechanisms to avoid dealing with the facts.
Atheists tend to see themselves as very smart people, having arrived at disbelief through reason. That’s the self-deception of atheism.
There is nothing reasonable about it. In order to be a true atheist you must posses all knowledge of all evidence and have seen, examined it all, and have traveled through the entire universe or multi-verse. Know anyone that has met these requirements?
Atheism says, “Can’t prove a negative” but thus goes on claiming that proof of the non-existence of God is not possible. But then how can you be a reasonable being if you ardently believe that which you claim can never be proved!? Foolishness to the nth power is what atheism really is. The worst you can do under true reason is agnosticism. Unfortunately even agnosticism doesn’t work under the rules of logic! How can you know that you can’t know?!
Atheism is truly unreasonable and nothing more than a wish that God did not exist – something “like crucify him” comes to mind here.
We don’t like our feeble and so often completely unfounded views of the God we have imagined so we pretend he simply cannot be. Unfounded, illogical views of God are the 1st step to idolatry – the worship of the god we have imagined. It always comes down to the heart, not the head.
Plato
Sorry, but ‘thems the facts’.
Go easy on the poor tyke, he seems to be a philosophical tyro but not close minded.
If atheism is a “disease” or lack of ease in the soul then perhaps it can be cured by reminding the poor soul of the music of the spheres. After all, we all seem to be a bit diseased. Judges have forbid any notion of the music of the spheres from being taught to students as something real/true/”scientific” but perhaps some need to be educated with respect to the anthroprocentric harmony in their lives. It seems that philosophic naturalists argue that students must be taught nothing but methods to build atheism and/or misanthropic principles, yet are surprised that misanthropes may emerge after being educated based on misanthropic principles.
Ironically, there is overwhelming evidence for the anthropic principle which is all apparently being rendered “unconstitutional” based on nothing but unprecedented judicial diktats creating precedents for further errors. If ID is now unconstitutional and anthropic principles are linked to ID then parents must be forbidden from using their tax dollars to educate their children the way that they choose to even if a community wants to give their assent to a position rooted in facts, logic and evidence.
“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” –Thomas Jefferson
So after following all of this I don’t understand why everyone was so hard on Lazarus, since he was saying the very same thing that mynym allanius Borne and Born^Again77 are saying here.
Am I missing something? I’m not an atheist but I don’t want to start a holy war. I’ve always thought the aliens as designer scenario was just sidestepping the existence of God question, and as someone pointed out on the other thread avoiding that question is probably a good thing for us to prevent infighting and focusing on the science. So in that respect I can understand why Lazarus had to go. But on this thread is the same sort of proselytizing and off topic Godding the thread that seemed to be the rationale for banning Lazarus and cdesignproponentsists.
Well, given that I have spent far too much time on this thread already, I will have to call it quits at this point. Also, while having a respectful one-on-one debate with Frost was fun, I am not going to respond to the palpable condescension that has crept in with one or two of the late arrivals to the discussion.
I have merely stated my position and explained why I believe ID is compatible with atheism. And I only said why I don’t believe, I never called any of you here foolish or dumb for having the beliefs you hold.
So I am not going to start responding to the same pathetically lame old accusations that atheists refuse to believe in God through fear and hate. You say you understand atheists, but with every post you reveal more of your willful ignorance on the subject. You are not interested in learning, or even debating it seriously, you just wish to preach (this is Bourn and Born I’m talking about).
Believe what you like about us, but if you cannot show even a modicum of respect then keep your trap shut.
Finally, word of advice when debating atheists. Quoting chapter and verse from the Bible is about as useful as quoting the Koran to prove your point at a Christian apologetics convention. i.e. not at all.
So, thanks again to Frost and the others who chimed in earlier for an interesting debate. It’s the weekend, so time to go off and enjoy doing stuff — including singing some old Christmas classics tonight, ironically enough
(Doesn’t that just make your head spin?)
Merry Christmas (or should that be XMas?
) everybody.
Tyke, I agree with all your points in your previous post; it seems we share common beliefs. I just want to say that there are many supporters of ID that are not religious or believe in the god of the bible (such as myself). Please don’t come away from this discussion with the belief that supports of ID are all religious fundamentalists.
My support for ID has come about directly through the lack of evidence for orthodox evolution and the fact that the only known means of producing high information content is through intelligence. If orthodox evolution could produce what it claimed, I am sure many on this thread would switch allegiances immediately.
Nevertheless, I think it is foolish, because we reject the biblical god, to assume that mankind is not a special product of this intelligence. After all, our intelligence has led us to try and seek out new understandings of our world. It would not surprise me if in the end our lives did not turn out to be as pointless as they currently seem.