Check my tok presentation

I have to do a TOK presentation tomorrow. Is this speech below (I have a powerpoint too) adequate?:

Should Intelligent Design or Creationism Be Taught?

In my presentation, I will cover the knowledge issues that concern whether “Intelligent Design or Creationism should be taught” This is an issue that has come to the fore recently around the world (and especially in Hong Kong) due to the increased interest surrounding the debate as a result of this year being the 200th anniversary of Charles’ Darwin’s birth. We all know that Darwin is the author of On The Origin Of Species, where he outlined the at-the-time revolutionary theory of evolution.
I’d like to look at what creationism, intelligent design and evolution are first. Creationism is the belief that the Universe, the Earth, humanity and all life within it were created (in the form they are in now) by a deity (most often the God of Christianity). In the western world, where the controversy seems to be more high-profile, Creationism is based on a literal reading of the relevant chapters of the book of Genesis in the Bible.
Intelligent Design is slightly different. It is the assertion that (I quote from the Discovery Institute, the leading think-tank behind the advocacy of intelligent design) "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".
The theory of evolution postulates that the life-forms on earth have arrived at their current state through natural selection. Life on earth emerged from a common ancestor. Every new generation brings slight random changes in genetic material, and the changes caused by these will become widespread among the population if favourable in the environment. Over time, this process gradually leads to entirely new types of life. This process is responsible for the many diverse life forms in the world today.
The debate over the teaching of these three ideas focuses on issues such as the definition of science (and of what constitutes scientific research and evidence, which is an issue of knowledge in terms of language), science education (whether the teaching of the scientific consensus view should be ‘balanced’ by also teaching fringe theories) and free speech (an ethical and language issue), and even the separation of Church and State
Nowadays, in most schools around the world, evolution is taught as the process by which life developed on earth. This is because it has been accepted almost unanimously by scientists and educators as the correct explanation.
However, there are a number of critics who plug for Intelligent Design and creationism to be taught as an alternative or the primary theory. The controversy mainly exists in the USA, where the teaching of creationism has been banned since the Edwards vs. Aguillard trial in 1987. Since creationism ascribes the creation of the Earth to a deity, it means that by definition it has to preach some sort of religion. Most secular governments rule that education and religion should be kept separate, and so it is illegal to teach.
ID and Creationism proponents that argue for evolution not to be taught argue that evolution is a theory, not a fact. This statement is an example of the use of language, one of the 4 ways of knowing, to create uncertainty. To us laymen, a theory is something that is an unproven guess, while in the colloquial sense a fact is something that is definitely true. However, in the area of knowledge of natural sciences, which is the major area the debate takes place; these two words have a different meaning.
A fact in science is something that has been proven to occur through observation, a piece of empirical data that is verifiable. In a wider sense, a fact is a hypothesis so firmly supported by evidence that it is assumed true. Evolution is a fact because through scientific observation it has been found that there are changes in populations do occur, from fossil evidence, gene sequences and more.
Evolution is also a theory. This is an example of where the evolution followers have made it harder for themselves through ambiguous use of language. This is because the word evolution means two different things - a fact (described above) and a theory.
A theory is a well supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations/facts and can be used to make testable predictions. Thus there is a theory of evolution, known as the modern evolutionary synthesis, which states the reasons that evolution occurs e.g. natural selection.
It is true and we need to keep in mind that evolution is not proven. However, “proof” as such is not found in natural sciences, only in formal sciences (e.g. mathematics). Thus, that is not a valid point.
Some ID proponents call for ID to be taught along with evolution as a plausible explanation for life on Earth. However, evolutionists disagree because they believe it is not a science. They have arrived at this sentiment because intelligent design as a theory has a number of attributes that do not fit with the scientific definition of a theory that I predicted earlier. Firstly, it is not based on factual observations. Secondly, it does not make falsifiable claims. This means it does not qualify under the definition of a theory which states it has to make testable claims. There is no way to make a testable prediction of which results can be observed about a supernatural intelligent designer. Because it is not a scientific theory, it is rubbished as a pseudoscience by critics. It should also follow that ID should not be taught as a scientific theory, and so not taught in science lessons.
Other critics conclude that ID is just a mask for creationism. They has merit in that most leading scientists say that they believe the “designer” to be the Christian God, which makes the theory creationism again. In fact, the non-specifying of the deity is the only thing that separates ID from creationism. The core concepts the theories are based on are the same, such as irreducible complexity (the argument that some biological structures are too complex to have evolved from something simpler through processes such as natural selection) and specified complexity. In fact, the first leading book on ID, Of Pandas and People, was originally written on creationism. After Edwards vs. Aguillard, the editors changed every mention of the word “creation” to “intelligent design”, and “creationists” to “design proponents”. In one part of the book, the find-and-replace did not work properly creating the word “"cdesign proponentsists", which many critics have humorously labelled “the missing link between creation and ID”. Obviously, this must reduce the credibility of the theory – is it really ethical to present the same theory with slightly different terms and still hawk it as a different, more scientific idea?
We also need to know that ID and Creationism cover slightly different areas to evolution. Evolution explains only what happened to life on earth once it got here, while ID and Creationism attempt to explain how the first life-forms actually arrived on earth, which is the study of abiogenesis, which according to Wikipedia is “the study of how life on earth could have arisen from inanimate matter” – the creationists and IDers say it is due to a deity.
To conclude, it would seem that all the points I made point to the fact that ID and creationism are bogus pseudo-science explanations for the origin of life that should have no place in the classroom. However, this is not completely true. I believe that ID and creationism should not be taught in science classes, as they do not qualify as scientific theories due to reasons I outlined earlier. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution (which is scientific and should be taught on science classes), but the point of science is to keep observing and keep searching for evidence. As such, the lack of evidence for any theory should not hinder the search for new evidence to attempt to prove it, nor should the prevalence of evidence for another theory hinder the search for evidence to disprove it. In fact, through the very definitions of the words “fact” and “theory” that say evolution is the correct explanation, there is a high possibility for it to be proved wrong.
Because of this, I believe that it is fine to teach ID and Creationism as possible theories in philosophy classes, if only to illustrate that science is not always perfect. They may also be given passing mention in science classes, again to illustrate the same principle. Furthermore, the ethical issue of free speech comes into play here. Anything can be said as long as it is not offensive, and because of this there is no justification to completely block the mention of Intelligent Design and creationism anywhere. However, aggressive teaching of ID and creationism should be blocked to younger students, as younger students will find it more difficult to appreciate the finer points and be capable of the reasoning to know why these two ideas are not very viable. In a university setting however, there should be no bar to teaching these theories, as the students are adults who can make their own minds up.

What would it get out of 20?

maybe

like 8-9?

I would say a D (11-12)
There is simply not enough real-world examples and they must be strong and fully analysed in TOK terms.
Where's ur personal thoughts/experience to this issue, that pulls down ur D mark.

Reply 4

BobbinJane

Tick tock, on the clock
But the party don't stop, no.

Hope it helps.

Reply 5

pwad

haha tok what a joke! most of the best presentations in our class go a C which is depressing, teacher was sooo harsh. only one girl who i thought would get an A got a B- (which was highest grrade) so good luck with that!