|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3892 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
quote: [My emphasis] I find this bit scarily pathetic - "I think we should not" !!! - although tone is difficult to transmit through the written word, this should read "Never should we" whether creationism is discussed or not. As others have pointed out, evolution is science and creationsim is not. Period. In my mind, there should be an introductory lesson that discusses as many origin stories as possible, and then describes how evolution/abiogenesis/geology/cosmology arise simply through application of the scientific method and that the results do seem to run counter to the origin stories. Emphasise that "Last Thursdayism" is the great get-out clause, and that it is still possible to believe any of the origin stories, while still studying, learning, and understanding evolution and the other sciences. Also point out that many (majority of) adherents of the multitude of religions behind the various origin stories actually accept science's take on origins, and relax the literal reading of their texts to allow this. Explain the fallacious and weak-faith-inspired reasoning behind intelligent design, and offer a faith-based theistic science approach as the obvious choice for those religiously inclined. This should be presented as a cross-discipline lesson involving the science departemnts, geography (for the geology element), history, and religious education (if they have one) - and why not have a member of each department present to take just a few questions - no big debate. One double lesson (80 minutes) should be sufficient. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I think the rule is that science may not teach about the value of things. So just stick to that rule, filter creationist knowledge with that rule, not teaching the parts which talks about the value of things, and then its generally not religious. So I think you can teach about the universe being created, and ending with judgement, because that does not say anything about the value.
And lets not forget that it was the social-darwinists who violated science the most by proving, and differentiating inherent worth of human beings. The worst possible education ever in Hitlerschools where they taught Darwin, where they posited values of the Germans as scientifically established. That is what is to be avoided in class. Saying you need to have objective evidence for everything as you do, just leads people to make up objective evidence for worth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5840 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
In spite of some of the comments on this thread, creationism is a religious belief, and it, along with associated ideas such as a young earth, have no scientific evidence to support them. And evolution is not a pagan religion and associated ideas of an old earth are just based off assumptions of the atheistic religion of an old earth. Why teach its an old earth when this is only a pagan myth not a scientific fact given Gentry has proven its a young earth. Sorry, science is not in the "feel good" game. Science should not teach students pagan religious beliefs that the earth is an old earth if they can not publicly refute Gentry's Primordial polonium halos. Creation sciences should be taught that include, biology, genetics, natural selection, mutations, natural sciences, geology, soil science, math, computers, mechanical engineering but just omit any reference to an old earth stuff because saying its an old earth without refuting Gentry is proof that evolution is not grounded in science but grounded in myth! Myths might well make you feel good but thats not science either refute Gentry or take all references of an old earth out of the sciences, science is not a feel good game but about teaching our children the truth!!!!!!! Quit lying saying Gentry has been publicly refuted here is the link that Gentry seeks to be refuted publicly !!!!!!!! Enjoy, JF ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Challenge to the National Academy of SciencesThe Academy has vehemently opposed creation science, even claiming that the evidence for creation has been scientifically invalidated. We have repeatedly challenged the Academy to publicly explain where the polonium-halo evidence for creation has ever been scientifically invalidated. For over 15 years, they have refused to even try, for they know that their statement is insupportable when it comes to the polonium-halo evidence. We have posted here letters and other documents pertaining to our challenge to the National Academy of Science. Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
If you let science be free, then science will indeed be free, and people will not be free, but subjugated by science. Science is a real thing of itself, you seem to not comprehend this. So basically you are letting loose a beast which evidently hurts peoples feelings.
It is better to let students see that there are all kinds of evidence, some strong, some weak, but evidence never the less. Im sure that as a scientist not all evidence is up to standard. You have to use reasonability, leaps of faith too. Simply posit the ether for instance as the medium through which gravity flows in space. Now that turned out not correct, but was it was scientific enough to start with, evidence enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4438 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Creation sciences should be taught that include, biology, genetics, natural selection, mutations, natural sciences, geology, soil science, math, computers, mechanical engineering but just omit any reference to an old earth stuff because saying its an old earth without refuting Gentry is proof that evolution is not grounded in science but grounded in myth! Myths might well make you feel good but thats not science either refute Gentry or take all references of an old earth out of the sciences, science is not a feel good game but about teaching our children the truth!!!!!!! There is no such thing as creation sciences. Where is the evidence for such. Where is the experimentation. Creation science is not science, it cannot be falsified, it is based on belief(faith) not on evidence.
if they can not publicly refute Gentry's Primordial polonium halos. try the following url
"Polonium Haloes" Refuted Edited by bluescat48, : spelling & syntax There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4438 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
According to the ideas of the Enlightenment..that Men will choose Truth for themselves..will seek it out and embrace truth on their own without any interference from anyone..especially the State..Darwinism and Evolution seem to have some credibility problems that browbeating and belittling school children are not going to solve. When people are alowed to make their own decisions based on evidence then enlightenment occurs. It can be stifled by indoctrination at a level of learning when it it is easy to control what the learner is learning. Most of the religious have been indoctrinated from early childhood long before they will learn about evolution. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
try the following url We don't argue with other sites here. You need to bring the information, summarized as you understand it to here. This should be in a separate thread - a new one or: wow an almost 6 year old thread that never finished!
polonium halos Please present your information there. Edited by AdminNosy, : missed a word and author was wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 233 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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. 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.
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? 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) 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? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 233 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In spite of some of the comments on this thread, creationism is a religious belief, and it, along with associated ideas such as a young earth, have no scientific evidence to support them. Largely agreed. Creationism is a broad religious position generally encompasing three major branches that share a common ancestor allegedly via some guy from Iraq. Though one could be pedantic and refer to Hindu creationism - but I think we can let that slip
So the problem comes down to whether you teach science in science classes and let feelings be hurt on occasion, or whether you censor science for all students in order to protect a small number of students from learning what has been discovered by mainstream science.
I don't agree that there are only two ways to deal with it. My proposal is mostly the first but also recognizing that certain students will simply resist because it goes against their (usually parental) indoctrination. It doesn't serve our purpose (educating children) to ignore this significant hurdle to learning. Having a firm belief that science is wrong and that accepting evolution is akin spitting on the body of baby Jesus, is as much as a learning disability as dyslexia. Can educators afford to simply ignore such a significant learning disability? You say it is a 'small number of students', it may be small - but it is more common than dyslexia in many areas of the world.
Since the Enlightenment, we no longer have to kowtow to religious authority and science is free to go where the data leads. Science education and science are different things, though. We teach convenient 'lies' to children in science education (Bohr's model for example) and students don't exist in a vacuum. Scientific concepts have social ramifications and bulldozing over them simply reinforces the opinion that science is cold and arrogant - increasing the divide and actively harming scientific education in the nation, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
The problems science has with creationism, is the same problem it has with free will.
Anyway what specifically would be taught.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2355 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The problems science has with creationism, is the same problem it has with free will. Anyway what specifically would be taught. Creationism would have to be taught as "Some folks believe... but science has found no evidence to support that belief." This would amount to an affirmative action program initiated only because creationists have more votes on a school board somewhere, or bigger lawyers, rather than being a legitimate part of science. And everyone would know it. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Deftil Member (Idle past 4704 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4438 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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) Fine. So which of the thousand or so creation myths becomes X. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2726 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Modulous writes: It doesn't serve our purpose (educating children) to ignore this significant hurdle to learning. Having a firm belief that science is wrong and that accepting evolution is akin spitting on the body of baby Jesus, is as much as a learning disability as dyslexia. Can educators afford to simply ignore such a significant learning disability? You say it is a 'small number of students', it may be small - but it is more common than dyslexia in many areas of the world. Dyslexia is not a good comparison, as its root causes are physical, and there's no known cure, so education is about recognising it and finding ways around it. A better comparison would be kids who are heavily indoctrinated with some kind of political ideology which could interfere with their understanding of subjects such as history or economics. This is rarely as important, because the beliefs are not usually held with the same degree of emotional attachment (heaven and hell aren't at stake!) but it's a similar thing. Another one can be kids who are heavily indoctrinated with racism in their homes, and who arrive at school with weird misconceptions about some of their classmates. In these cases, the problem is the parents and society as a whole, and it is not in the capabilities of school science teachers to solve it. Sure, an advice package on how to deal with a problem might be an idea, the kind of thing they might have to deal with kids who are racist, but that's all. The Reverend Whatshisname in your O.P. is part of the problem. Although his particular interpretation of religion may not conflict with science, he will be a supporter of the general idea of religious indoctrination, and the silly bugger should be told that that is the root cause of the problem. What is required is not laws, but a change in culture that recognises that any heavy indoctrination with political ideology or religion is a form of child abuse. So, this isn't a problem that can be solved instantly, but it doesn't require a major cultural shift in this country, because the overwhelming majority of parents will agree with my point about heavy indoctrination. If the children who have been abused suffer, then the abusers should be loudly blamed, and that includes people like the clergyman in your O.P., who involve themselves in education while supporting the principle of psychological child abuse. Some of your teaching suggestions are fine, but they should take place in the religious education/philosophy class, something I think should be given more importance. And all the major creation beliefs should be taught to all kids in that class, meaning that in this country, far more kids will get an exposure to the Genesis story than are now at home/church, so the Christians can hardly complain. Religion has had and is having an enormous influence on the world, and should, combined with philosophy, be considered a subject as important as geography, for example. It's here that I would like to see kids actively encouraged to have the kind of evo/creo debates we have here, as well as theist/atheist/agnostic debates. I've heard that religious conflict is now being included in some R. E. courses, and so it should be!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5839 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
I think teaching students about a belief in creation as being comparable to political ideology, or dyslexia would make students hate science. I have firsthand experience of it now, reading what you all write im rather inclined to chuck the whole enterprise.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024