Another Course on ID
by MikeGeneRoth designed the course to "look at intelligent design on three levels: as an argument for the existence of God, as an alternative to evolution in science, and in the context of the current debate over evolution and religion." According to Roth, it is important to understand that ID is not something recently installed on today's front page like an ice block to cool the seething evolution-creation debate. Rather, "intelligent design has a long history. The idea originated well before Darwin's work in the 1850s," Roth said"¦"¦.. The response generated from Roth's class has been overwhelmingly positive among students and faculty. "Various school administrators have told me that they heard positive things about the course from students who enrolled in it," Roth said. It appears that students who participated received a better explanation of intelligent design than they expected. "I gathered from the enthusiasm and interest with which they discussed matters that they were engaged with the topic," said Roth.
April 29th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Are students taking Roth's course going to leave thinking ID is anti-evolution? One of the topics is: ID as an alternative to evolution in science.
I wonder if Roth is going to inform his students that ID isn't anti-evolution but is a teleological perspective on how evolution occurs?
Comment by Jack — April 29, 2006 @ 1:47 pm
April 29th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Interesting: it looks like Professor Roth's course is surprisingly similar to mine in both approach and coverage (not to mention reading list). Knox College, however, is very different from Cornell, and so it's not particularly surprising that the students who participated in the course were more inclined toward a theological approach. I am very much hoping that my course at Cornell this summer will have the same impact on all of the participants, and that we will all conduct ourselves in as open and respectful a manner as has apparently happened at Knox.
This is what academics should be about: presenting all sides of an issue, complete with supporting references and open discussion between all interested parties. I believe that when this is done evolutionary theory comes out stronger than ever, and with some "problem areas" illuminated and addressed. While I do not personally think that ID theory is valid as a scientific enterprise, I believe that it has done a great service for evolutionary biologists by providing a clear demarcation between natural science and "natural theology" (a la Paley, Behe, Dembski, and Johnson). In addition, ID theory has spotlighted a sadly neglected area of evolutionary theory "“ the concept of "teleonomy" and the problem of adaptive teleology "“ in a way that I believe will ultimately benefit not only evolutionary theory, but also cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, and the development of artificial intelligence.
And so, to quote a well-known "philosopher" of the last century
"Let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend!"
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — April 29, 2006 @ 9:31 pm
April 30th, 2006 at 12:57 am
Allen - You're kidding right? Mao may have said that, but his actions and motives were very different. Good luck with your course.
Comment by David — April 30, 2006 @ 12:57 am
April 30th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Allen: "I believe will ultimately benefit not only evolutionary theory, but also cognitive psychology, evolutionary psychology, and the development of artificial intelligence."
I've become somewhat of an amateur evolutionary psychologist myself - enjoy.
Comment by MikeGene — April 30, 2006 @ 9:16 am