How to teach ID?

[H'ethetheth]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1174965#p1174965)
Perhaps the solution to the whole creationism debate is to make it a manditory part of the curriculum. Specifically, it should be part of a program to teach critical thinking skills to students. I'd be happy to put it and evolutionary theory to equal scrutiny.

This thread made me wonder; if the unthinkable should happen and ID becomes part of education in schools somewhere, what is there to teach?
It appears to me that ID theory doesn't actually contain anything, it mainly just says that evolution is wrong.
For instance, have they specified some mechanism for design beyond regular physics?
Do they know what the supposed purpose of the design is, other than creating more specimens of the same design? Is it perhaps the worship of the intelligent agency?

Can anyone from an endangered country shed some light on this?

[Melendwyr]

Step 1: Hold up the teaching material with the creationist additions.
Step 2: Drop it into the nearest wastebasket.
Step 3: Continue as normal.

That's pretty much the only way a science teacher can teach ID.

[H'ethetheth]

Step 1: Hold up the teaching material with the creationist additions.
Step 2: Drop it into the nearest wastebasket.
Step 3: Continue as normal.

That's pretty much the only way a science teacher can teach ID.
In that case I shall welcome the teaching of ID around the world with glee.

However, I'm asking this under the assumption that ID proponents actually propone⁽¹⁾ something.


⁽¹⁾Yes, propone.

[Pastor Bentonit]

OK, I happen to know what in ID(C) there is to teach, and here it follows in all its glory:

Some time(s) during the history of the earth/universe, an unspecified, intelligent entity did something. Now move on, nothing here to see.

There.

[H'ethetheth]

OK, I happen to know what in ID(C) there is to teach, and here it follows in all its glory:

Some time(s) during the history of the earth/universe, an unspecified, intelligent entity did something. Now move on, nothing here to see.

There.
I suspected as much. A couple of hours of googling and reading didn't get me farther than that either.:dio:

[dann]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1174965#p1174965) "Specifically, it should be part of a program to teach critical thinking skills to students. I'd be happy to put it and evolutionary theory to equal scrutiny."
Can anyone from an endangered country shed some light on this?Well, one of the biology teachers at my high school said that she couldn't imagine teaching evolution without including creationism. I don't think that they should be put to equal scrutiny, however, but as long as it's possible, i.e. as long as creationism isn't mandatory, the best way of fighting it is to introduce students to the arguments presented by advocates of Intelligent Design/Creationism.
It's an entirely different matter if/when ID becomes mandatory, mainly because the adherents of these ideas don't really want them to be taught alongside but instead of evolution.

[hammegk]

Well, one of the biology teachers at my high school said that she couldn't imagine teaching evolution without including creationism. I don't think that they should be put to equal scrutiny, however, but as long as it's possible, i.e. as long as creationism isn't mandatory, the best way of fighting it is to introduce students to the arguments presented by advocates of Intelligent Design/Creationism.
It's an entirely different matter if/when ID becomes mandatory, mainly because the adherents of these ideas don't really want them to be taught alongside but instead of evolution.
Here is the text that the Dover PA school board wanted to be read to 9th grade biology students:

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

"Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People,' is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

"With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

That was all the teaching to be required, sfaik.

[eri]

OK, what about 'Of Pandas and People' then? Anyone read it? Does IT have any 'evidence', or is it just an attack on science?

And what gaps are they referring to? Missing links? If you have one thing changing into another, how can you possibly hope to find every single step in that chain, especially when it's so hard to fossilize something?

[Darat]

OK, what about 'Of Pandas and People' then? Anyone read it? Does IT have any 'evidence', or is it just an attack on science?

And what gaps are they referring to? Missing links? If you have one thing changing into another, how can you possibly hope to find every single step in that chain, especially when it's so hard to fossilize something?

Have a look at the evolution of the book: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/sixslides.PDF . Considering that all it seemed to require was that "creationism" to be replaced with "intelligent design" then I would say that "Pandas.." remains a theology book.

[Mojo]

OK, what about 'Of Pandas and People' then? Anyone read it? Does IT have any 'evidence', or is it just an attack on science?Well, it was certainly subjected to rigorous peer review (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm189)! ;)

After all, if you aren't your own peer, who is?

[delphi_ote]

That was all the teaching to be required, sfaik.

Why should that particular fictional book be recommended to all of the students in a science class? If you're going to point them to an absolute pant load anyway, you might as well point them directly to the bible.

[H'ethetheth]

Well, it was certainly subjected to rigorous peer review (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm189)! ;)

After all, if you aren't your own peer, who is?Hehehe, the inanity of ID keeps slapping you in the face once you start asking questions.

Nice, though I didn't expect it would get this bad this afternoon. :hypnotize

[hammegk]

Why should that particular fictional book be recommended to all of the students in a science class? If you're going to point them to an absolute pant load anyway, you might as well point them directly to the bible.

I agree it was idiocy to add paragraph 3, viz:

"The _____________ Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

would be a statement more preferable to me.

[delphi_ote]

I agree it was idiocy to add paragraph 3, viz:

"The _____________ Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

would be a statement more preferable to me.


What is the purpose of the statement? Do we read one before we teach the students about gravity, thermodynamics, and The Holocaust as well?

[hammegk]

I think "... Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part..." specifically limits the statement's intended use. :)

[Pyrrho]

My cynicism suggests that what this is really about is textbook contracts. Kind of like when you take a class in college and you have to shell out 50 bucks for the professor's own book.

[eri]

Thanks for the link! I didn't realize we had access to the courtroom transcripts. Now there goes my night ...

[Pastor Bentonit]

To understand the "scientific" content of the textbook mentioned in the above statement, "Of Pandas and People" (or whatever, next edition will be renamed), read Dr. Kenneth Miller´s expert statement (http://www.aclu.org/evolution/statements/miller.pdf) to Kitzmiller vs. Dover. OPaP is essentially YEC bunk, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", where applicable.

[emperorchaos]

To understand the "scientific" content of the textbook mentioned in the above statement, "Of Pandas and People" (or whatever, next edition will be renamed), read Dr. Kenneth Miller´s expert statement (http://www.aclu.org/evolution/statements/miller.pdf) to Kitzmiller vs. Dover. OPaP is essentially YEC bunk, with "intelligent design" substituted for "creation", where applicable.

Thanks for providing the link to Dr. Miller's statement. I found it very informative.

To be honest I haven't been folliwng the whole Dover, PA Intelligent Design thing, though I myself am a proponent of evolution and have participated in many debates myself. (I'm know for saying Australopithecus afarensis a lot. I like the way it rolls off your tongue. Go on try it it everyone.)

Thanks again.

[delphi_ote]

I think "... Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part..." specifically limits the statement's intended use. :)

Being that it's fairly obvious I meant the statements would be tailored to each respective theory, I'm going to interpret your post as, "I'm a troll with nothing to contribute. Please give me the attention I can't find in my sad, sad life."

[hammegk]

Being that it's fairly obvious I meant the statements would be tailored to each respective theory,
Sorry, but I didn't find it obvious.


I'm going to interpret your post as, "I'm a troll with nothing to contribute. Please give me the attention I can't find in my sad, sad life."

Alternatively, what wording would you propose to preface teaching gravity, thermodynamics, and The Holocaust? Or are you the troll?

[delphi_ote]

Sorry, but I didn't find it obvious.

Being that you can construct a direct substitution with almost any text editor, your pretense of ignorance is weak at best.

The _____________ Academic Standards require students to learn about The Holocaust and eventually to take a standardized test of which The Holocaust is a part.

Because The Holocaust is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the genocide of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

[wastepanel]

I think that some of you need to research ID before you comment on it. You are assuming that ID contradicts or refutes Darwin's Theory of Evolution. All ID says is that God started everything and moves the evolution process along.

What would actually be funny is that if creationism is taught in schools, there are thousands of theories of creationism for Christianity alone. Some "refute" Darwin's theory, others accept all science. I think if it were allowed to be taught, you'd have the religious community cannabilizing itself in an attempt to get their theories into the books.

[hammegk]

:jaw-dropp


delphi_ote: Are you David Irving?


In any case do you actually care to propose that:

"Because The Holocaust is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the genocide of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany to individual students and their families."

and

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families."

are analogous? I do agree that the victors write the history books, as always. However, The Theory of History ... interesting concept, and yup, there indeed are plenty of gaps. Evidence? That's another matter.

[H'ethetheth]

Being that you can construct a direct substitution with almost any text editor, your pretense of ignorance is weak at best.

The _____________ Academic Standards require students to learn about The Holocaust and eventually to take a standardized test of which The Holocaust is a part.

Because The Holocaust is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the genocide of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."
Other than the fact that after reading this kind of statement to a class before every single course will bore the crap out of schoolkids, I don't see anything wrong with keeping an open mind towards any theory.
However, it should also be stressed that for some theories, "well-tested" means: "there's an unholy buttload of evidence for it".
Which is also the case in the (in my opinion somewhat dramatic) example you've chosen.

[drkitten]

I think that some of you need to research ID before you comment on it. You are assuming that ID contradicts or refutes Darwin's Theory of Evolution. All ID says is that God started everything and moves the evolution process along.

This is flatly contradicted by the writings of the various ID proponents, including the Discovery Institute, and the authors of Of Pandas and People. See the recent Dover trial for examples galore, particularly in the testimony of Drs. Forrest and Behe.

[drkitten]

In any case do you actually care to propose that:

"Because The Holocaust is a theory, [...]"

and

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, [...]"

are analogous?


If he doesn't, I do. Down to the identity of the proponents of the various forms of denial.

[H'ethetheth]

I think that some of you need to research ID before you comment on it. You are assuming that ID contradicts or refutes Darwin's Theory of Evolution. All ID says is that God started everything and moves the evolution process along.

What would actually be funny is that if creationism is taught in schools, there are thousands of theories of creationism for Christianity alone. Some "refute" Darwin's theory, others accept all science. I think if it were allowed to be taught, you'd have the religious community cannabilizing itself in an attempt to get their theories into the books.Ah, finally! On topic again.
So, God moves the process of evolution along. That's all fine and dandy, but in two spare afternoons of reading what ID actually has to say, I haven't read but the haziest conception of how and why this intelligent agency accomplishes this.
So there you are, standing in front of a class of eager high school children, explaining: "Well children, the theory of Intelligent Design states that it is possible to empirically discern "designedness".
You can establish the designedness of something if you can't think of any way it came into existence that is not ludicrously improbable. However if someone else comes up with a way you hadn't thought of that isn't ludicrously improbable, you are free to ignore them, because what they're telling you is just a theory, and has "gaps for which there is no evidence".
Designed things, as you know, are of course designed by some intelligent actor and subsequently built sometimes.

Well, that's that. Next week it's botany children".

ETA: In case I didn't get my point across: 'Gap' is the magic word here. As far as I can tell ID is replacing the gaps by an abyss.

[delphi_ote]

If he doesn't, I do. Down to the identity of the proponents of the various forms of denial.

That's precisely why I used it as an example. Just because some group of intellectually dishonest people deny a given theory for political reasons doesn't mean we should entertain their doubts prior to teaching said theory.

[delphi_ote]

As a preemptive strike: Yes. Political reasons.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/images/tree_large.gif

[hammegk]

If he doesn't, I do. Down to the identity of the proponents of the various forms of denial.
Are you saying the Creation Institute bunch are Holocaust deniers? All non-Darwinists?

And that the pictures of the living survivors in camps and other hard evidence are fakes ? I agree the personal accounts are anecdotal.



I also admit I have no idea what delphi_ote's picture of a tree means to him. It means nothing to me.

[drkitten]

Are you saying the Creation Institute bunch are Holocaust deniers?


I am not, but I am saying that the Creation Institute bunch and Holocaust deniers are similar political groups. (Mostly conservative, white, fundamentalist Protestants).


I also admit I have no idea what delphi_ote's picture of a tree means to him. It means nothing to me.

I'm not surprised. Reading comprehension has never been a strength of yours, as evidenced by the asininely stupid question you asked me.

[hammegk]

I am not, but I am saying that the Creation Institute bunch and Holocaust deniers are similar political groups. (Mostly conservative, white, fundamentalist Protestants).
I see. Do have some actual basis for that statement other than you apparently wish it to be so?


Reading comprehension has never been a strength of yours, as evidenced by the asininely stupid question you asked me.
Which question of mine have you found most asininely stupid?

And 'yo mama, too .... ;)

[eri]

Delphi's tree (which I believe I saw in one of Shermer's books) is an illustration of the idea of social Darwinism - the theory basically being, since we all evolved by random chance, there's no one to whom we are responsible as human beings - do whatever the hell you like, there are no consequences. I've heard Duane Gish use this argument quite often. Basically, they claim that Darwin and the theory of evolution are to blame for everything from crime to homosexuality to rock music.

[delphi_ote]

I also admit I have no idea what delphi_ote's picture of a tree means to him. It means nothing to me.

It's not mine. It's a well known creationist illustration portraying evolution as the root cause of social problems. This is why I say their effort to "chop down the tree" is a matter of political belief. They irrationally believe a scientific discovery is the cause of all of society's ills.

The Holocaust Denier would lable the tree trunk "Jews," but the absurd "reasoning" remains the same.

[drkitten]

I see. Do have some actual basis for that statement other than you apparently wish it to be so?


Yes. See the writings of Dr. Forrest, on the one hand, and Lipstadt, on the other.

Oh, I forgot. Reading comprehension again. Perhaps they will come out with a comic book version for you sometime soon....

[Mojo]

In any case do you actually care to propose that:

"Because The Holocaust is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the genocide of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany to individual students and their families."

and

"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families."

are analogous? OK.

I'm keeping politics strictly out of this.

YES! These are analogous.

There is abundant evidence supporting the theory of evolution by natural selection, just as there is abundant evidence for the holocaust.

Deny either, and you begin to look a bit like Irving.

Edited to add: You can try this with gravity or relativity as well, if you like. You'll still end up looking bloody silly.

[Melendwyr]

Let's not forget the other 4.5 million people killed in the holocaust, please.

Also, it's obvious hammegk is a Holocaust-denier-denier.

[delphi_ote]

I'm keeping politics strictly out of this.

The only aspect of politics I'm bringing into this discussion is that the GOAL of both movements is political. Neither has anything whatsoever to do with science and discovery. They have an agenda that forces them to ignore the mountains of evidence that counter their beliefs.

[hammegk]

Yes. See the writings of Dr. Forrest, on the one hand, and Lipstadt, on the other.
Barbara Forrest? Deborah Lipstadt? You state their efforts demonstrate "the Creation Institute bunch and Holocaust deniers are similar political groups. (Mostly conservative, white, fundamentalist Protestants)"?

Do you think either knows or cares what Creation Institute types politics are? I don't. I'd agree some conservative, white, fundamentalist Protestants will be creationists, but Holocaust deniers as well?

Try again with something that would actually back your assertion.



Oh, I forgot. Reading comprehension again. Perhaps they will come out with a comic book version for you sometime soon....
I read just fine, and also can smell smoke when people are blowing it, like you,

[wastepanel]

This is flatly contradicted by the writings of the various ID proponents, including the Discovery Institute, and the authors of Of Pandas and People. See the recent Dover trial for examples galore, particularly in the testimony of Drs. Forrest and Behe.

That's the ironic part. Do a google search of "creationism", and you'll find a piece about all the different versions of "accepted" creationism theories. Some believe the earth is flat, others believe that the world is not as old as the carbon dates it. Others believe that science is correct, but God is unproven. The IDers involved in these disputes want the mention of God. That is the point of my post. If (hypothetically) they won the court battle, what version of creationism/intellegent design do you teach? Wouldn't this place each community in charge of teaching its own theories? If they taught all, the teaching of theories would take the entire year. I admit I do think there is a God, but I feel that without proof it cannot and shouldn't be taught in school. I think there would actually be a giant uproar between Christians because each segment believes something else. And, as I said, the religious community would cannabilize itself in an attempt to teach its "version".

I would also argue that the best situation for science is for the religious community to attempt to teach creationism. By keeping the issue off the table, this issue has blown up in alot of communities. What religions would be included in the discussion of creationism? How could they exclude any religion? What theories would be discussed? Could any compromises be reached? Wouldn't that go against the religious doctrine? I don't think it could ever be taught without exposing the ignorance of each theory and possibly destroy religious sects, and they'd be stuck back at "God created the world...".

[H'ethetheth]

Ah, I think I may have misunderstood the gist of your earlier post. In fact, reading it back, I completely made your point, while thinking I was arguing against something.

Sorry about that.

[wastepanel]

Ah, I think I may have misunderstood the gist of your earlier post. In fact, reading it back, I completely made your point, while thinking I was arguing against something.

Sorry about that.

No problem. I actually get that alot. Must be my writing skills.

[DevilsAdvocate]

This thread made me wonder; if the unthinkable should happen and ID becomes part of education in schools somewhere, what is there to teach?
It appears to me that ID theory doesn't actually contain anything, it mainly just says that evolution is wrong.I've been thinking about this question for a while. It is the best question raised about ID.

I simply cannot find anything to actually teach. It seems to just be, "an alternative theory is that an Intelligent Deisgner made living things the way that they are." Of course that Intelligent Designer could be a God or gods, green aliens, ancient machines, etc. The ID theory does not show what the Intelligent Designer is or how it works.

One on-topic post metioned "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins". I haven't read the book, but I read some reviews. It seems mostly just to question Evolution theory. I've also watched a number of TV programs about ID theory. Again, they essentially just provide evidence that Evolution is wrong. There seems to bit little or no further substance to ID theory that could be taught or used for sceientific exploration. The answer to any more in depth biological question would be "because that's the way the Intelligent Designer made it." While that is a plausible scientific theory, it leads no where and doesn't seem to have anything else to teach about ID theory.

I reieterate the question for anyone that can answer: What would be taught of ID theory other than evolution may be wrong and life forms may just be what they are as a result of Intelligent Design. Anyone? :confused:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Someone around here said recently that you should ask for an ID curriculum that does not mention evolution.

~~ Paul

[Darat]

...snip..

The ID theory does not show what the Intelligent Designer is or how it works.

...snip...

It's even more sparse then that, according to one of the leading proponents of ID (Behe) it makes no predictions at all about the mechanisms that the IDer used and it makes no predictions about any characteristics or abilities of the IDer.

You'd almost think that they weren't interested in even discussing what was and is the "Intelligent Designer".

[StoatBringer]

OK, I happen to know what in ID(C) there is to teach, and here it follows in all its glory:

Some time(s) during the history of the earth/universe, an unspecified, intelligent entity did something. Now move on, nothing here to see.

There.

I like to put it like this :
An Unknown Being created the universe, using a Unknown Process, for Unknown Reasons

Yep, that certainly adds to the sum of human knowledge. :D

[Darat]

I like to put it like this :
An Unknown Being created the universe, using a Unknown Process, for Unknown Reasons

Yep, that certainly adds to the sum of human knowledge. :D

Or perhaps just for the sake of accuracy

An unknown agent (but could have been God) that was not designed created the universe, using unknown processes, for unknown reasons, some 6000 years ago,

[delphi_ote]

Or perhaps just for the sake of accuracy

An unknown agent (but could have been God) that was not designed created the universe, using unknown processes, for unknown reasons, some 6000 unknown number of years ago,

SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! We're not supposed to say that! Otherwise people won't believe our talking heads are really scientists!

[lwsichsldt]

There is no competition between the theory of evolution and ID, by the way is ID already past the theory stage and has become the final answer, because the theory of ID it is based on faith and believe and not on scientific facts like the theory of evolution is.
ID should be teached in school but only in Religion or Philosophyclass (we have these in Germany), since it has nothing to do with science.

[Complexity]

Don't.

Just say no.

"Intelligent Design" is intellectually despicable and its proponents are disingenuous vermin and fools. No person of quality would consider putting this poison before students in a classroom.

[Eos of the Eons]

ALL of the ID classroom materials in existence poo poo evolution with strawmen. ALL of them. They say "evolution says x", then they say "x" is wrong because...

When you actually know something about evolution you can see quite clearly that it would NEVER say "x".

Strawmen strawmen strawmen, that are made up to just make evolution look ridiculous. That leaves their ID as the only default "right" answer. It's "teach the controversay"
Within the last decade or so, just such an alternative theory has emerged. Darwinian theorists have long acknowledged that biological organisms "appear" to be designed. Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, a leading Darwinian spokesman, has admitted: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."4 Statements like this echo throughout the biological literature. Francis Crick, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, writes, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."5 Nevertheless, Darwinists insist that this appearance of design is illusory since the mechanism of natural selection entirely suffices to explain the observed complexity of living things.

http://arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm


Other suggested teacher resources for "Teach Strengths & Weaknesses of Evolution"
http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Teacher.Resources.htm
Evolution: A Theory In Crisis (Book)


So how do you teach something that is only there to make another topic look stupid by taking things out of context, among other things? It's up to you. You might just have to teach evolution properly first (which is hardly ever done in school since most teachers are some sort of religious half the time and don't care to learn it themselves [that was my experience in school]).

I think most teachers would welcome ID. They can say "evolution is stupid" and be done with it. Then they can say "goddidit". End of story. Let's look at asexual plant reproduction for the rest of the semester.