Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Deftil
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 6 of 66 (481611)
09-11-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
09-11-2008 5:37 PM


Modulous writes:
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.
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.
Modulous writes:
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?
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?
Modulous writes:
Each way of handling the situation has its own pitfalls, so which is ultimately better?
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.
quote:
The Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, said that excluding alternatives to scientific explanations for the origin of life and the universe from science lessons was counterproductive and would alienate some children from science altogether.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2008 5:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2008 11:22 PM Deftil has not replied
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2008 12:21 PM Deftil has replied

Deftil
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 27 of 66 (481827)
09-12-2008 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Modulous
09-12-2008 12:21 PM


Modulous writes:
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)
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.
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.
The analogy is a little stretched, I agree, but is it wise to rigidly compartmentalize education?
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2008 12:21 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2008 11:32 AM Deftil has replied

Deftil
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 59 of 66 (482025)
09-14-2008 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Modulous
09-13-2008 11:32 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Modulous, posted 09-13-2008 11:32 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2008 10:56 AM Deftil has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024