Modulous writes:
Not at all. I'm proposing that teachers know and apply child psychology, that's the only psychology involved.
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.
Modulous writes:
The rest is about discussing a brief history of ideas both scientific and pre-scientific.
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:
quote:
I see no harm in starting science by saying that there are many things people have thought to explain using magic or religious ideas, which have fallen into disfavour as scientific knowledge has increased. The origins of life is one such arena, which has caused significant controversy because it cuts to the heart of many religious beliefs.
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:
Neither do I see any harm in warning school children that it is easy to let preconceptions, and traditional/cultural ideas colour our understanding of how the universe should work which in turn can lead to errors when using the scientific methodology to try and figure out alternative possibilities.
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:
Finally, advising pupils that it is entirely possible to be religious and accept evolution - though it may require changing some very deeply personal beliefs about our place in the universe. If a pupil doesn't want to do this, they should try to put aside their religious convictions as best they can to try and understand the science independent of their own beliefs.
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:
Reiss' exact plan is unclear, but another science educator is quoted:
quote:
Prof John Bryant, professor emeritus of cell and molecular biology at the University of Exeter, agreed that alternative viewpoints should be discussed in science classes. "If the class is mature enough and time permits, one might have a discussion on the alternative viewpoints. However, I think we should not present creationism (or intelligent design) as having the same status as evolution."
Which I think is a good starting place, with possible overhauls later on down the line.
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.
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.
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.