I started a thread about this a year and a half ago, but maybe something has changed or there are new resources available. Does anyone know if there are any good intelligent-design-based science curricula out there, as opposed to a random Big Bang OR 6-day creation approach? I don't think I believe in 6-day creation and so I don't want to use books that stress that exclusively, but I would love to see books that point out God's hand in the universe's wonders nonetheless.
Maybe this could help? http://intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ Or this? http://www.intelligentdesign.org/resources.php
There's a real dearth of good books that reveal the handiwork of God in creation. Hopefully, over time, this will change. I would refer you, though, to the Biologos site - founded originally by Francis Collins (leading scientist and evangelical Christian). It's a thoughtful and sympathetic organization that I strongly recommend. I just wish they had a curriculum for children. As for the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, it's been disproved and really should not be taught. That's not to say that there's no intelligence behind our world or that there's no designer, because we know that there is, but the theory called Intelligent Design has been disproved - totally and utterly. Maybe I can explain. The theory is based on two fundamental claims: (i) That there's no fossil record for intermediate species. This is patently untrue because many thousands of examples have been found. Indeed, scientists argue vehemently in some conferences about whether a particular fossil, for example, is a mammal-like reptile or a reptilian mammal. They are true intermediates. The claim of ID is wrong. (ii) That certain items found in living creatures are irreducibly complex. In other words, there's no way these items (the human eye is often quoted as an example) could have evolved step by step. Every example given of an irreducibly complex item has, in recent years, been shown to exist in nature in reduced forms, and it's indeed possible now to see how the complex item was build from more simple components. Again, the claim of ID is wrong. So, from a purely scientific perspective, the theory (really, it should have been called a model or a hypothesis) has been proved wrong. It's one of many theories through the years that could not pass the test of time (even Newton's laws were eventually proved wrong, so there's no shame in that - it's the nature of progress). Evidence has a habit of proving many good ideas wrong, and that's life (literally in this case!?).
