This thing in Australia is out of control. Five separate articles today in the Sydney Morning Herald on the controversy over the teaching of ID -
“In a Class of Their Own“
A fairly even-handed account of various views on teaching ID, but with a very imprecise definition of what ID is -
“Its followers say some organisms are so complex they can only be explained by the hand of an intelligent designer. Some explicitly say God is the designer, but most advocates steer clear of religion and portray it as legitimate science that deserves to be on the science curriculum.”
“The official view from the curriculum authority, the NSW Board of Studies, is that intelligent design has no place on the science curriculum, because it simply is not science.”
“Stephen O’Doherty, the head of Christian Schools Australia, which has 56 affiliated schools in NSW, says students should be able to discuss the notion that there is an “unexplained scientific hole in evolutionary theory”. “To have that discussion in class is good and leads to questions like ‘how does scientific method work?’ and ‘what is science?’,” he says.”
William Gardner, the principal of the Southern Highlands Christian School, says a good education is about developing students to “ask good analytical questions” whether in visual arts or science.
“The state education minister, Carmel Tebbutt, who has statutory authority over both public and private schools, dismisses it as “not scientific, not evidence-based”. “
“Bryan Cowling, the principal of Thomas Hassall Anglican College at West Hoxton, says it is a “mischievous” attempt to reopen the evolution versus creationism argument. His teachers are committed Christians and he expects them to be aware of the issue so they can answer students’ questions. But he won’t sanction the teaching of intelligent design in science lessons. “I simply work on the premise that God is the creator but how he did it, well that’s an issue for science,” Cowling says. “It’s mischievous really in trying to distort science … by trying to blur it into philosophy or religion.”"
“As Many Views as Denominations“
A summary of different positions on ID within the Christian community, highlighting (correctly I believe) the difference between Creation Science and ID.
“Cut Funds to Myth Advocates: Greens“
“Millions of dollars in government funding should be stripped from private schools that teach the intelligent design “myth” as science, the NSW Greens have demanded.”
“Intelligent design says that some organisms are so complex they must have been created by an intelligent designer, instead of evolving through natural selection as Darwin proposed.”
“Is There Hypocrisy Behind the Attack on Intelligent Design“
A reflection on the fact that a challenge to conventional thinking (e.g. evolution) is consistent with postmodernism –
“It deliberately contests conventional wisdom — in this case Darwin’s theory of evolution — and isn’t that what the post-modernists, who have been circling our education system for a generation, want?”
Also contains a more accurate characterization of ID than most articles -
“Intelligent design proponents insist they are not simply reworking creationism, and they explicitly reject the Biblical notion that God created the earth in six days, and that our world is a mere 10,000 years old. As Allen Orr wrote recently in The New Yorker, intelligent design also accommodates much of Darwin’s evolutionary theories.”
“How Design Supporters Insult God’s Intelligence“
An incoherent rant about opposition to evolution. Claims, incorrectly, that opponents of evolution deny the predictability of statistical processes. Utter nonesense.