|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 6/3 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4715 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I think this is a false dilemma. You can accept that other non-scientific ideas exist without feeling that it's appropriate to discuss them in a science class.
Ultimately, the topic of debate then is, whether abject refusal to discuss that other people have other ideas is ultimately worse than accepting that other ideas exist, acknowledging them, and then explaining the scientific ideas. Modulous writes:
Ok, so the way I see it, what is suggested here is that "science class" could be expanded into "science and philosophy class" because most of what is discussed in the above paragraph is philosophy. I think philosophy is awesome, but do we want to mix it with our science class?
What are people's opinions on mentioning teleology as a way of leading to explaining natural selection as a design-argument-buster? On providing historical context on the various beliefs and ideas that preceded Darwinism (not just the religious ones)? And how some of those ideas remain in popular belief? Modulous writes:
I'm somewhat open to the idea that explaining things in a child-and-religion-friendly manner might be wise, but my concern is that this could serve to dilute the actual scientific information in the education, and that it may be a slippery slope that eventually allows for strictly religious ideas to be taught as if they are as scientifically viable as the actual scientific theories.
Each way of handling the situation has its own pitfalls, so which is ultimately better? quote:Isn't it really correct to exclude non-scientific explanations from science classes? Isn't getting away from these ideas what science was ultimately founded upon, and what has resulted in so much of its success? Wouldn't allowing these things into science class be a step backward?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4715 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Modulous writes:
I'm firmly in favor of the idea of teaching children some philosophy of science in science class, but only basics such as the scientific method and why we use it. It really sounds to me that the philosophy you're talking about is more along the lines of psychology and theology though. I understand that you're just saying it might be wise to set the table up for these kids to be receptive to science, but I'm skeptical how far we can safely go in that endeavor before the actual science gets compromised and put out of perspective.
I'm not proposing any significant discussion on other ideas - just acknowledgement that there are people who hold ideas that are (sometimes radically) different from the scientific consensus. Philosophy should be taught in science, because science is a methodology on the back of 'philosophy of science'. I am only proposing, however, a brief history of ideas on the subject at hand. People used to believe x because of a.Then they changed that to y because of b. Science has shown that x and y are problematic and that z is a better explanation because of c, d, e and f (whilst also consistent with a and b) If it were a logic puzzle, maybe you'd be right. But education is more than a logic puzzle, it requires more finesse since it deals with illogical beings called schoolkids. If 10-50% of the class isn't listening because of the football game outside - it might be wise to tell the kids that the football game is interesting, but that they should focus on the class at hand. Sometimes you may even want to talk to kids about the game for a little while so that they feel their teacher isn't an ogrish inhuman monster.
Certainly not at the expense of the children's education. But we have to beware of a potential decline in the quality of the science education when we consider making any changes. The analogy is a little stretched, I agree, but is it wise to rigidly compartmentalize education? You make a good point though, about trying to present the information to kids in a way that they will be receptive to it. That's important. But I'm concerned that allowing the brief discussion you are referring to might do more to create a slippery slope that gets abused to the detriment of science education than to actually open children's minds to science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4715 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Modulous writes:
Of course you have to use child psychology to effectively teach children, but in science class, it's SCIENCE you have to teach them effectively.
Not at all. I'm proposing that teachers know and apply child psychology, that's the only psychology involved. Modulous writes:
To the degree necessary, I feel this is already done. I briefly learned about those things in my science class. But let's go back to your OP:
The rest is about discussing a brief history of ideas both scientific and pre-scientific.quote:To a degree, this was done in my science classes, but you have to be careful how you say this, b/c if anything, you might alienate some kids with this kind of statement. quote:I really think you can already do this as long as you don't spend an inordinate amount of time on it. Spending a lot of time on it would make it philosophical, and best to discuss in another class. But I don't think these above 2 points by you really constitute what most people think of when allowing "Creationism in science classrooms" is brought up.
quote:I do not think we should tell anybody that it's possible to be religious and accept evolution. Some people's religious beliefs are such that they can't accept evolution, and they are entitled to their beliefs. I think however, that the point that can be made is that regardless of their religious beliefs, then can learn about evolution. But I don't think that point falls under allowing "Creationism in science classrooms" either because it's still in reference to making them learn evolution, a.k.a. non-creationism.
quote:Now, if THIS is taken to mean that creationism should be allowed to be presented as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet, then THIS would actually qualify as allowing creationism into science classrooms. I do not see it serving any need to teach kids in science class that the non-scientific idea of creationism is out there, but that it doesn't have the same status as evolution. Again, the idea is non-scientific and doing this type of thing might serve to alienate some. Naturally. And we have to be aware of a potential decline in the quality of scientific knowledge and expertise if the next generation are more hostile to science than the previous one. Such things are downward spirals.
I'm not that old, so I don't speak from first hand experience, but my notion was that current generations are more receptive (less hostile) to science than any previous generations. Is this incorrect? If it's not incorrect, then why should be go fixing something that isn't broken?
Granted - but any system is open to abuse: America is already on a slippery slope with only the ever present threat of significant legal ramifications protecting children from being taught outright lies in the science class room. As with many things, Britain are behind America by only a generation or two.
Some systems are more prone to abuse than others.
Other factors may prevent us from slipping so quickly - but clearly the American 'don't talk about religion in any way in science classrooms' policy has not been an overwhelming success.
Can you substantiate this claim please? Can you specifically point out the signs of failure in the current system?
Remember - here in Britain we emphatically do not have seperation of church and state.
Getting a well rounded education is good, and something I'm generally for, but I am still REALLY skeptical of actually letting creationism in science class. I am however for more philosophy classes at the high school level.
Meanwhile, my evolution education included theistic evolution, teleology and the like. This happened before 'science' classes and 'maths' classes: this was when we just had one class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4715 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Ethics and social issues regarding science are part of teaching about science. Merely teaching theory and scientific facts does not seem to me to be a well-rounded science education.
That's what you're claiming, but at this point I'd say that's begging the question.Ethics and social issues regarding science aren't really necessary parts of science education in school age children. Anything more than briefly mentioning these contrversial issues will only serve to disrupt the learning of the core scientific concepts we want children to absorb at that age. However, I have met adults who were not even aware that it was possible to marry evolution with religious thought, since it is in fact possible
This isn't the job of K-12 grade science classes. It isn't currently, and I'm not sure it should be. For children of this age, I think it would only prove to be a distraction to bring religious matters into the classroom. Both you and I feel that it would be nice if people believed that evolution doesn't have to be inconsistent with religious thought, but it doesn't then follow that it should be taught in K-12 science classrooms.
It is a significantly held position, and it is likely, given the statistics - that school children will encounter people whose religious upbringing leads them to reject a major scientific theory. A significant number will be alienated or cruelly confused by the mixed messages going on.
Well... it's also likely, given the statistics, that school children will BE people whose religious upbringing leads them to reject a major scientific theory. And will be the children of people with such views. So specifically telling them that creationism doesn't have the same status as evolution may alienate them, and piss off their parents.
It seems that we are actually stalling and possibly falling. A significant religious explosion has happened recently, and England seems to following, at least partially, in America's footsteps with trust in science going downwards. Added with a fairly sizeable Muslim population and ideas like Creationism are gaining strength.
You might be making a very good point, but I keep seeing it from a different angle. We're currently surrounded with science. I'm using science to debate with you across an ocean. There's got to be more people than ever employed in science and technology fields. The LHC is now firing up. It's the largest scientific experimental tool of all time, and the U.S. has been involved in a large part of the efforts. Despite many people's reluctance to give up some of their luxuries in life, and to accept blame for the deterioration of our global environment, science has helped many to really take a look at the effects their actions have on the environment. Currently, both U.S. presidential candidates are Christians, that believe in evolution. I'm not seeing the "stalling" and "falling" that you do.
Deftil writes:
No problem. Can you substantiate this claim please? Can you specifically point out the signs of failure in the current system? The fact that the U.S. ranks so lowly on acceptance of evolution is duly noted, however, if we are working towards improvement within the U.S., then the levels of acceptance over time are more relevant. Your cited article mentions this:
quote:but only briefly, and I don't feel with sufficient clarity. Here are some Gallup poll results I found regarding the issue and that deal with the same period of time:
quote:Gallup Poll - Origin of Human Life [PollingReport.com] As you can see, it shows that the percentage that believe in creationism has stayed the same, but the percentage that thinks God had no part in human development went up 40%.
A tripling of uncertainty in the last 20 years? If the "Don't even mention creationism" system is the best one - then we're surely doomed. Obviously, it is not the only factor in play but I hypothesize that it is significant.
As I think the stats I've offered show, the tripling of uncertainty in the last 20 years is a dubious stat, and most likely a false representation of what's actually occurred. I won't be convinced changes to the current system are warranted until I see reliable evidence that there is a problem, and a rise in hostility to science.
I believe other scholars have pointed out the paradox of a country which attempts to separate church and state so vigorously has such high religiosity and fundamentalism.
I might be confused but that doesn't sound like a paradox. It might be a bit ironic, or suprising, but it isn't really a paradox IMO. And knowing the history of the U.S. and the context under which it was declared that church and state should be separate, it happens to make plenty of sense to me. Sorry, I'm adressing this comment of yours out of order, but...
Whatever preconceptions people have to the concept of Creationism in the classroom should be divorced from the actual proposal at hand.
I apologize for still not being completely clear on this, but what exactly are you proposing? That we tell kids that some people (including the kids themselves and their parents) have non-scientific beliefs that make them less receptive to science and that they should still accept science? Are you saying that we should actually allow creationism in the classroom so that we can point out that's it's a non-scientific concept that shouldn't color their worldview? It just sounds to me that ideas like this are asking for trouble, in the America I live in anyway. Edited by Admin, : Clean up table.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4715 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Modulous writes:
People who want children to get a good education.
Who are 'we'? And why is it that 'we' want only to teach core scientific concepts?
We'd like to teach them all human knowledge if we could, but we can't, so we stick to core ideas because they are most important (hence them being referred to as the "core" concepts.) As I've said, I think getting involved in controversial topics will serve as a disctraction taking time and focus away from what's important.
I'm not suggesting doing much more than briefly discussing the issues, anyway. Making people aware that they exist, that in depth discussion of them may be better served in a RS (religious studies) or PSE (Personal/Social education) class and the like is all I'm suggesting.
Well when you talk about it like this you don't make it seem so radical. I think it's currently as undistracting as it can be in a country with so many religious people/ Christians.
Why not? Because it would be a 'distraction'? The argument is, that it is a distraction anyway, and that ignoring it does not make it less so. It only need take up a few hours total (if that! 15 minutes may well be enough to get the basic point accross). I'm not suggesting we say 'creationism is for idiots'. Just 'some people still believe in the pre-Darwinian view of life. It is not a scientifically supported position...though some people may claim it is they are significantly in the minority. As such, given that this is a class about the science of biology - let us learn the science side of things.'
That just sounds long for "creationism is for idiots". LOL Well, that's how I think a lot of the American fundmanetalist (parents) would view it anyway.
I'm sure the amount of money has increased, but as a percentage of GDP? I can't find many stats, but those I can show a downward trend over the past 20 years in the US.
I'm not sure. I wouldn't be surprised if it's gone down as a percentage of GDP over the past 8 years though. Might look more into it later.
Why do your stats show other stats are dubious? Indeed, in the study associated with the statistics you posted, they discuss those statistics.
Mine are better! j/k Yours were from something of a side comment from an article about the research, but the Gallup poll showed the specific question, the full distribution of answers, and the sample size . I felt it was good enough to call the correctness and the relevance of your stats into question. Further, that article you linked is great, because it shows the distribution of answers instead of only including the amount of those who are "unsure" about evolution. Looking at the stat, it seems bad for evolution reception in the U.S. - A tripling in the number of people that are unsure about evolution! But it also states that
quote:Public Acceptance of Evolution So, according to the same stats, 20 years ago almost half of Americans rejected evolution, while now 39% do. From that point of view, things seem more promising. The article states that
quote:This is only a tendency to do something to both sides equally, so it doesn't invalidate the stats derived from the Gallup Poll. Again, they show an increase in those that think evolution proceeded unaided by God (10% to 14%), and a decrease in those that were unsure about evolution (7% to 5%). Again, I don't perceive things as going as badly as you do. I see possible room for improvement, but the effects of any potential changes have to be evaluated very carefully. Disadvantages have to be weighed against advantages.
I'll see what I can draw up for you some time if you require further data. I haven't got the resources to hand to search in depth.
If you did, I think that would be great. It's always useful to really identify what's going on, to see how much of a problem there is, and to analyze the source and impact of the problem so as to understand the best way to solve it. I think you agree of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4715 days) Posts: 128 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Holy cow, he had to resign over this? Seems pretty harsh!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024