Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools?

Leon - thanks. I haven't read the report, of course. But it does give both the 8% and the 51% figures in different contexts, the latter on p. 12. Here it is:

http://campaigndirector.moodia.com/Client/Theos/Files/FaithandDarwin.pdf

Dave - absolutely!

Edwin - I find this comment by Nicholas Wolterstorff helpful:

Let me unpack this a bit. Recently I heard a talk in which the speaker argued that teaching intelligent design is incompatible with the nature of natural science; if intelligent design is to be taught anywhere in the curriculum, it must be taught in philosophy classes. In thus arguing, the speaker was making the common assumption that natural science and philosophy both have an essence, a nature; his claim was that discussion of intelligent design is compatible with the nature of philosophy but incompatible with the nature of natural science.

I think of the various academic disciplines very differently. I think of them as social practices, some, like philosophy, with a long ancestry, some, like molecular biology, of recent origin. And I think of these practices as constantly changing due to all sorts of developments both inside and outside the discipline. I hold, thus, that natural science does not have an essence, nor does philosophy. What they have instead is traditions that are constantly changing, sometimes slowly, sometimes abruptly.

So I think the idea that you can restrict the content of science lessons to only science, without a drop of philosophy, history, sociology, etc., doesn't really make sense, and wouldn't be desirable even if it were possible. If the conversation about ID takes place within the context and in the language of the scientific tradition, which it does, then those teachers who have been immersed in that tradition are best equipped to address it.

Of course I'm not saying they should teach that ID is correct; on the contrary, it should be discussed warts and all. Similarly, I would suggest that homeopathy should be on the science curriculum, so that no one leaves school without learning that it is complete nonsense. There is such a thing as pseudoscience and bad science, but there's no need to expect RE (or even PE) teachers to explain those, rather than the science teachers, just because they are not true.

I'm not sure I would take that approach... (re-)read what I wrote above and on http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2010/11/23/is-intelligent-design-science/

Hi Mark,

I'm arguing that ID should be taught for its own sake, because it is something people in our society should know about. As an added bonus, it can be used to teach something about philosophy and sociology of science etc.

I would make the same argument for homeopathy, astrology, etc. (Surely part of the reason homeopathy is so popular is that people learned too little about it at school, rather than too much?)

Of course, as you say, time is limited, so there might not be space for discussion about ID. I don't pretend to have addressed that difficult question. My answer to the question in the title is "I don't see why not", or yes in principle, but I wouldn't feel comfortable in going too much further than that.