Is there any reason to "Teach the Controversy?"

Proponents of intelligent design (ID) are notorious for trying to use the phony scientific "controversy" about evolution as a way to open public schools to teaching religion. (There is even the notorious "wedge" document). Is there any way in which they are right?

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, but that does not mean it is wrong. One of the arguments for the existence of a god is known as the teleological argument, which basically argues that the best explanation for things that appear intricately designed (like humans, for example) is that they are. In our everyday life, this tends to be true. If I find a cavern that looks suspiciously like it was shaped to the needs of people, it probably was. On the other hand, it could just be an accidental similarity. The argument offers no proof, just an appeal to (a somewhat incorrect) argument from personal experience.

It might surprise you to know that I do think that the crux of the "controversy" of intelligent design and evolution should be taught.

I do not mean, of course, that intelligent design should be taught as a scientific objection to evolution, but merely as part of the education in understanding what science is. Most high school student's don't really know much about what is science and what is not, and I am arguing that they should take a full course in the philosophy of science, just that further explanation, preferably with useful examples like intelligent design would be helpful. Even incorporating a basic discussion of the idea of falsifiability would be useful. How many students would later be duped into believe that intelligent design is a science if they discussed the nature of the intelligent designer and included possibilities like the Flying Spaghetti Monster or aliens?

Furthermore, to steer away from such a hot topic, the same idea of falsifiability could be first approached by discussing the concept of entropy before the concept evolution. The second law of thermodynamics (put simply) states that the entropy (simply defined as disorder) of the universe will increase. Since, in our daily lives, most disorder has a cause, for example a cat or younger sibling messing up a room, we can make a similar argument that something must be causing disorder. I think students should then be introduced to the Greek goddess Eris (the goddess of chaos and disorder, known to the Romans as Discordia). Would they think She is responsible for the Second Law of Thermodynamics? She certainly would seem a likely suspect. This is when you could introduce a concept like falsifiability.

I think the juxtaposition would be especially effective. Not only do you introduce students to a (supposedly) absurd concept that is similar to the argument for intelligent design, without even letting intelligent design get a foothold, but the ordered (designed) world that the intelligent design proponents describe is already in need of an explanation for the apparent lack of design and randomness. Not a hard challenge for IDers, but enough to make people think twice. Either way, approaching the problem of treating non-scientific theories as science from a different angle (and then showing where it's applicable in the current climate) would help students learn to think like a scientist should.