Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

If you don't understand the posts you're replying to, please keep out of the conversation. If, by "chucking the whole enterprise" you mean stopping posting your inane ramblings on these threads, I think it would be a very good idea.

Oh ofcourse, calling my posts inane ramblings must be the unavoiable hurting peoples feelings, which seems to be part of the scientific method. Its quite obvious that you all are making science impopular.

Science is the study of the universe based on observation and evidence. Reality is not a question of what people like and dislike. Truth does not adjust itself to your tastes.And why shouldn't inane posts be described as "inane"? If you don't want your feelings hurt, you could just stop making them!

Not at all. I'm proposing that teachers know and apply child psychology, that's the only psychology involved. The rest is about discussing a brief history of ideas both scientific and pre-scientific. 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. 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. 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. 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.

I don't propose we should teach creation myths: I propose that X should be more like 'the world was created by something like God' or that Y might be 'the world had existed forever'.

Will this creation idea be subjected to the "critical analysis" that science excels at (and that creationists want applied to the theory of evolution but not to their own beliefs)?A science class can teach that creationism is a belief held by some number of people, but any details of those beliefs should be subject to critical analysis."Critical analysis" is how science distinguishes between different ideas. To give religious beliefs equal time in science classes, without applying that critical analysis, amounts to affirmative action for ideas that don't belong in science or in science education.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi bluescat48,I am having some problems with this creation, science thing. Maybe you or someone could clarify my thinking. But isn't creation science what is taught in the classroom today?
Just not the Bible version or the many other versions of creationist.Definition of creation from Here
According to Hawking the universe has not always existed. He said: Here

quote:

---

In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.

---

Today the universe does exist.That means that the universe had to come into existence which is creation.Thus the universe had to be created.Creationism is the different views of how this creation took place.Thus the scientific view taught is one view of creationism.Why is the creation view that is presently taught more correct than any of the rest?If they are not all studied how can true knowledge be found?There is also the view that the universe was not created. That it has always been here. String theory, as well as my thoughts fit in this category.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No, creation science is not being taught. It does not go into what CAUSED the big bang, for example.. but rather what our math and observations make us think happened during the early part of the big bang. For evolution, it dicusses how life changes over time.. not how life formed. Abiogenesis concerns itself with how life might have developed from the organic chemistry that was the early environment
of earth. All things based on other items that already existed..

I don't see how differing root causes are an issue. As far as the school is concerned it is not their business to 'cure' people of religious delusions so they are in the same position. Education for both should be about recognising it and finding ways around it. At the moment, the current wisdom is 'ignore that it's a problem and hope for the best' - which is hardly giving the children the best chances is it? Well yes, that would be nice I agree - but it's a long term solution. Meantime, some kids are getting short shrifted in education, and no doubt when they grow up they are likely to pass on their disability. And yes, Prof. Rev. Whatshisface's attitude is part of a larger problem: but I'd rather the next generation was like Prof Rev. Whatshecalled than they were like John Mackay.At least a generation of Prof Rev Reiss' are more likely to breed a generation of sane people than Mackaysians are. Further commentary from Reiss:

quote:

---

"The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support."

​

I agree with the first sentence but disagree with the second. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.

​

So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.

​

However, in certain classes, depending on the comfort of the teacher in dealing with such issues and the make-up of the student body, it can be appropriate to deal with the issue. If questions or issues about creationism and intelligent design arise during science lessons they can be used to illustrate a number of aspects of how science works.

​

Having said that, I don't believe that such teaching is easy. Some students get very heated; others remain silent even if they disagree profoundly with what is said.

​

I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution, while still introducing them to it. While it is unlikely that this will help students who have a conflict between science and their religious beliefs to resolve the conflict, good science teaching can help students to manage it - and to learn more science.

​

Creationism can profitably be seen not as a simple misconception that careful science teaching can correct. Rather, a student who believes in creationism has a non-scientific way of seeing the world, and one very rarely changes one's world view as a result of a 50-minute lesson, however well taught.

---

Don't get me wrong - I appreciate that the situation is precarious, with educational dangers lurking left right and centre, but that goes both ways as far as I can tell. Michael Reiss maybe wrong on some counts and we almost certainly disagree on the finer points - however he isn't a crackpot and his opinions are certainly worth seriously considering.

The way I described it in Message 23, was as thus:

quote:

---

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)

---

Which seems appropriately critical to me, yes?

But if you actually bring any of creationism into the science class and treat it as you would another science subject (with critical analysis) you may do more to alienate your intended audience than you do by keeping it out.I am pretty sure this has been attempted on more than one occasion and those objecting were not those defending science teaching but the creationists. The last thing they want is to have a real examination in the classroom.

Creation science is not science with regards to things being created - otherwise home economics could be viewed as creation science, as could certain art classes! Creation science is a self-chosen monikor describing a pseudoscientific fringe Christian movement. It isn't about being more correct. It is about adhering to certain rigorous standards in line with the scientific method. 'Creation science' does not do this, neither does 'intelligent design theory' so they cannot be 'taught' in the same kind of way one might teach the theory of evolution. They are all studied - some have been studied and have led nowhere and only a few people bother to study them further.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Education is no longer their business? Religious beliefs that do not conflict with observed reality are not their business, but blatant misconceptions are. Reiss suggests that creationism should be seen as a world view, rather than a misconception. It is a "world view", but a misconceived one. If creationism is brought up by kids, a teacher could certainly explain that there is nothing in science that contradicts the idea that a god created the universe, because that's true, but beyond that creationism and I.D. would only come in to history of science (where they should be included). That may not be so different from what you're suggesting.But what I would recommend here in the U.K. is a course which is there to discuss such issues openly, the religion/philosophy class, so that the science teacher, faced with a persistent creationist child, can say "bring up the subject in your R. E. class". I'm actually entirely in favour of full discussion of EvC in U.K. schools, and a special place for it, along with discussion of any ideas the kids can think of, and more! But not in science classes.Reiss may not be a crackpot, but he is dubious.Would he spend time on the flat earth in geography if 10% of kids came from a flat earth believing background, or on astrology when teaching astronomy (and 10% probably do have parents who take their star signs seriously)?

I'm not suggesting gleefully pointing out all the problems with common creationist talking points. I'm suggesting we say "Some scientists used to think the earth was quite young, principally because of Biblical sources: others thought the world has existed forever - let's talk about how the current scientific concesus was reached...first was Lord Kelvin..."

Initially, I disagreed with Modulous. If philosophy is to be taught, let's introduce a philosophy class (which is a good idea in my opinion).Finally, I think elementary school subjects would benefit from some inter-disciplinary teaching, even if only in the first couple weeks.
After all, science began as philosophy, as did math, and I think it is terrible that we do not give kids a feel for this.Many American kids are turned off of science because it feels so impersonal. The way I was taught it, it *was* impersonal!Why not teach it like a history class? Grades 1-5 usually do not sport top-notch science programs anyhow, but rather disjointed bits and pieces: Look, dinasaurs! Look, planets and their orbits. Let's memorize their distance from the sun and earth! Look, this is how flowers work! Let's memorize the names of bones!Maybe it'd be more interesting and cohesive to walk kids through the steps of thought that led to where we are today. Talk the kids through (vastly) simplified Greek thought and logic, do Galileo's experiments with notched boards and billiards. Make kids feel like they are walking directly in the footsteps of those great men and women who have shaped today. All this should include religious theory and all that.I feel that if kids are led by the hand on such an adventure, we'd have a greater appreciation for subjects across the board, as well as for the sciences and math.This is by no means a science class anymore, but a school curriculum, and is in no way revolutionary. My father got this sort of education in a Catholic school taught by Jesuits (or some other sort of monks) in Lebanon in the '50s.-ap-