Creationism and Intelligent Design

Until recently, little attention has been paid in the school classroom to creationism and almost none to intelligent design. However, creationism and intelligent design appear to be on the increase and there are indications that there are more countries in which schools are becoming battlegrounds over them. I begin by examining whether creationism and intelligent design are controversial issues, drawing on Robert Dearden’s epistemic criterion of the controversial and more recent responses to and defences of this. I then examine whether the notion of ‘worldviews’ in the context of creationism is a useful one by considering the film March of the Penguins. I conclude that the ‘worldviews’ perspective on creationism is useful for two reasons: first, it indicates the difficulty of using the criterion of reason to decide whether an issue is controversial or not; secondly, it suggests that standard ways of addressing the diversity of student views in a science classroom may be inadequate. I close by examining the implications of this view for teaching in science lessons and elsewhere, for example in religious education lessons and at primary level where subject divisions cannot be made in so clear-cut a manner

Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue?

I begin by examining the natures of science and religion before looking at the ways in which they relate to one another. I then look at a number of case studies that centre on the relationships between science and religion, including attempts to find mechanisms for divine action in quantum theory and chaos theory, creationism, genetic engineering and the writings of Richard Dawkins. Finally, I consider some of the pedagogical issues that would need to be considered if the science/religion issue is to be addressed in the classroom. I conclude that there are increasing arguments in favour of science educators teaching about the science/religion issue. The principal reason for this is to help students better to learn science. However, such teaching makes greater demands on science educators than has generally been the case. Certain of these demands are identified and some specific suggestions are made as to how a science educator might deal with the science/religion issue. © 2008 Taylor & Francis

Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution

W arykule tym Michael J. Behe pokrótce przedstawia ideę inteligentnego projektu, kładąc szczególny nacisk na własną koncepcję nieredukowalnej złożoności układów biochemicznych. Wskazuje na nieporozumienia i odpowiada na różne zarzuty wobec swojej koncepcji, wysuwane pod adresem podanych przez niego przykładów nieredukowalnej złożoności, takich jak wić bakteryjna, kaskada krzepnięcia krwi czy pułapka na myszy, która jest mechanicznym odpowiednikiem biochemicznych układów nieredukowalnie złożonych. Behe rozmyśla ponadto nad przyszłością teorii inteligentnego projektu.In the paper author presents briefly the idea of intelligent design, with the special emphasis on his own concept of irreducible complexity of biochemical systems. He points out the misunderstandings and addresses various objections to his concept, especially regarding his examples of irreducible complexity such as bacterial flagellum, blood clotting cascade or mousetrap which is a mechanical counterpart of irreducibly complex biochemical systems. Author is pondering also over the future of intelligent design theory

Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics

Autor jest zwolennikiem teorii inteligentnego projektu, która - w jego ujęciu - głosi, że pewne systemy biochemiczne zostały zaprojektowane przez jakiegoś inteligentnego projektanta. Rozpatruje kwestię falsyfikowalności tej teorii. Stara się usunąć nieporozumienia związane z pojęciem nieredukowalnej złożoności (nieredukowalna złożoność to cecha, dzięki której - według Behe'ego - można poznać, czy dany układ biochemiczny został zaprojektowany). Autor zastanawia się też nad słusznością postulowania naturalizmu metodologicznego w naukach przyrodniczych i opowiada się ostatecznie za stanowiskiem przeciwnym.Author is a proponent of intelligent design theory which states that some biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent designer. He considers the issue of falsifiability of this theory and tries to remove misunderstandings regarding the notion of irreducible complexity (irreducible complexity is a feature thanks to which, according to the author, one can recognize whether a given biochemical system was designed). Author takes into consideration also the issue of soundness of postulating methodological naturalism in science and opts for the opposite position