Intelligent Design and Education Paper

Some of you might be interested in this short article from the February 2006 issue of Trends in Cognitive Sciences:

Lombrozo, T., Shtulman, A., & Weisberg, M. (2006) The Intelligent Design controversy: lessons from psychology and education. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(2), 56-57.

Here's the first paragraph, to whet your appetite:

The current debate over whether to teach Intelligent Design creationism in American public schools provides the rare opportunity to watch the interaction between scientific knowledge and intuitive beliefs play out in courts rather than cortex. Although it is tempting to think the controversy stems only from ignorance about evolution, a closer look reinforces what decades of research in cognitive and social psychology have already taught us: that the relationship between understanding a claim and believing a claim is far from simple. Research in education and psychology confirms that a majority of college students fail to understand evolutionary theory, but also finds no support for a relationship between understanding evolutionary theory and accepting it as true [1,2]. We believe the intuitive appeal of Intelligent Design owes as much to misconceptions about science and morality as it does to
misconceptions about evolution. To support this position we present a brief tour of misconceptions: evolutionary, scientific and moral.

More like this

Chris of Mixing Memory points out this paper by Lombrozo, Shtulman and Weisberg: "The Intelligent Design controversy: lessons from psychology and education." The findings are not surprising to me, but I think they raise some essential points about the nature of the fight. Numerous studies have…
Originally posted on the old blog on 3/12/2006 My contribution to Darwin Day was pretty weak for a staunch supporter of science. Sure, I think the name is a bad idea, and want to rename it "Evolution Day," or at least something other than Darwin Day (I thought about maybe suggesting "Variation…
A little over a year ago, I wrote a post describing some research showing that there are cognitive barriers to understanding evolution. There I listed three specific factors: Intuitive theism, in which our intuitions lead us to make design inferences about complex kinds or under conditions of…
From a 2006 debate: Next, [moderator] Carey asked about teaching alternatives to evolution - such as creationism and intelligent design - in public schools. … PALIN: “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. “Healthy debate is so important and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a…

I like their conclusion (emphasis mine):

A proper understanding of evolutionary
theory and its consequences requires more than
a few lessons in biology.
It also requires lessons from
philosophy of science about what constitutes a scientific
theory and an empirical test, and lessons from moral
philosophy about the difference between empirical claims and moral claims. Perhaps this is what ought to be taught
alongside evolution in America's public schools.