|
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) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member (Idle past 287 days) Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: |
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes: 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 So actually this discussion is not about creation. Things coming into existence. It is about what the BBT covers and what evolution covers. So how can you say:
quote: Science has no knowledge of how creation happened. They hide behind, "We don't know". Creationist on the other hand put forth several ways that creation could have taken place. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Syamsu  Suspended Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 1914 From: amsterdam Joined: |
There is no mainstream hard scientific evidence for free will of people. There is no paper on it that definetely establishes its real. So you can teach creation as one of those things science doesnt have a handle on but which many people believe is real regardless. And then you can use the soft-science approach, using weaker standards of evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 245 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Education is no longer their business? Of course it is. Education is their business, so they must ethically work around any impediments that exist to carrying out 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 Most 'creationists', in every day UK life (in my experience), don't really know detailed creationist talking points except a couple of half assed vaguely remembered things that they heard someone mention once or twice. They know they exist, they know that they believe what the bible/Koran says and that's that. It's not about misconceptions, it's about something much more significant than that. Education shouldn't be about saying 'You're wrong. Your parents are ignoramuses and your Imam is a dangerous polluter of young people's minds. The Truth is...'. While I'm not entirely onboard with Reiss's view of it, I accept this much. It might be better to simply say 'I appreciate that the Islamic worldview says this or that, however we are talking about science here today so let's work through the problem from a scientific position'. If a pupil goes further than disagreeing with science and actually demonstrates a common creationist misconception about how radiodating works - then they should be corrected of course. And I don't mean 'I know some muslims think that radiodating is lies' but unequivocal 'No - that's wrong. The details are somewhat beyond the scope of this class, however - in short here is how radiodating actually functions...here is some further reading if you want to learn more'.
Reiss may not be a crackpot, but he is dubious. Dubious in what sense? You disagree with him? He does seem to have a lot of experience in UK science education - I wouldn't be surprised if he is eyeing Dawkins' chair and that the recent flurry of newspaper articles is a prelude to getting known.
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'd imagine he'd acknowledge that some people think that the world is flat, but then go on to explain the specific reasons as to why scientists (and mathematicians before them) reached the conclusion that it is not. As for astrology: I actually studied astronomy at high school as a seperate subject and I believed in atrology (ie had astrology charts, and tables and would do my own horroscopes, birth charts (by hand) and basically the whole hog). Astrology, unless you go ultra deep into it, doesn't disagree with astronomy particularly. But yes, if members of an educator's class have some kind of pre-taken position which is so at odds with the curriculum that the child will probably experience cognitive dissonance, ideally the educator should try and figure out a way to work around this. Naturally - in the real world of standardised tests, class sizes that are too big, disruptive pupils, tiny amounts of time to cover a large amount of material and so and so forth scupper simple solutions one might propose on an internet forum. The 'ignore it completely' smacks me as a simple solution that might be worth revising.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 245 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So actually this discussion is not about creation. Things coming into existence. No, its about predominantly about Creationism, the worldview/conspiracy theory that evolutionary biology is filled with lies and disinformation and it is about how to square that with the education of school children.
Science has no knowledge of how creation happened. They hide behind, "We don't know". Creationist on the other hand put forth several ways that creation could have taken place. This is not a 'evolution versus creationism' or 'General Relativity and Creation ex nihilo' thread so the merits and flaws of each are only side issues. We're talking about education of people with entrenched worldviews that oppose the academic consensus. Let's say you were teaching a child about embryology, specifically the development of a human embryo. You notice that no matter how much detail you go into in class, 25% of your students always answer questions on the test like this:
quote: Let us say that this is the marking scheme. Would you agree that the teacher would have to give very low marks for this kind of response? How should a teacher deal with this? It keeps happening, children are giving answers that correspond with 2nd Century science because the students are told that the beliefs of certain religious thinkers are to be held as inviolable. Does the teacher ignore it? Teach it to the other children as a valid alternative? Admit that certain worldviews may disagree on the details science has uncovered but stress that this is a science class and to get the marks pupils are required to understand and answer questions within a scientific context: if they hold a worldview that causes conflict with science they should speak to their pries/rabbi/imam/school councillor/whomever. Perhaps you have a better alternative? That is the type of topic we are discussing here. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2737 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Modulous writes: bluegenes writes: Reiss may not be a crackpot, but he is dubious. Dubious in what sense? You disagree with him? He does seem to have a lot of experience in UK science education - I wouldn't be surprised if he is eyeing Dawkins' chair and that the recent flurry of newspaper articles is a prelude to getting known. Dubious because he's a religious person trying to extend the influence of religion into the science classes. I would be surprised if he's eyeing Dawkins' chair, and so would Charles Symonyi I imagine! I don't think that the 90% should be slowed down by the 10% in science classes in any way, and that the battle is really a long term one outside the science classes, and it's the battle against the heavy indoctrination of children with mumbo jumbo. The Reverend Reiss might be a good example of how liberal religion can inadvertently protect and promote fundamentalism. I've just this minute read a few of the comments on that Guardian page you linked to, and my description of Reiss as dubious is fairly mild compared to some of the reactions there! {Added by edit} Wow, not to mention reactions elsewhere!
quote: That last one's predictable!
From here Edited by bluegenes, : marked addition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 326 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
How should a teacher deal with this? It keeps happening, children are giving answers that correspond with 2nd Century science because the students are told that the beliefs of certain religious thinkers are to be held as inviolable. There is only so much the teacher, or indeed the education system as a whole, can do. If kids are going to be taught outside of school that certain physical phenomenon are indisputably and unquestioningly the result of unevidenced, unverifiable faith based phenomenon then, almost by definition, there is little that can be done to cause these views to be questioned or seriously challenged. If a hostile and suspicious attitude to science in general also goes hand in hand with this external faith based indoctrination, as is very likely the case, then the challenge you set science educators would seem to be an all but impossible task. In my view the best that can be achieved for such students is to be able to differentiate between what it is that science necessarily includes and excludes. The rest will either follow from that or it will not. An introduction to scientific thinking would therefore be required. This would take the form of a reasoned declaration and related discussion regarding what science is and why it must necessarily be as it is (tested reliable conclusions, testable hypotheses, physically observable phenomenon etc. etc. etc. including examples)Once that has been done a brief statement that recognises that there are indeed alternate beliefs that do not comply with these requirements and that may even contradict the conclusions of science before making it absolutely clear that only scientific answers will be accepted on science tests and exams. In short students are expected to learn science in science classes and will be judged on their ability to demonstrate that they have learnt science in science exams. If it helps to convince the students who most stubbornly resist scientific ideas then it might be worth pointing out that the ability to fully understand the point of view you oppose is a great advantage in actually opposing it . Thus scientific training is of great benefit to even the most ardent critics of science. Nobody is being asked to forego their faith. Students are just being asked to learn science in science classes. This should not be contentious!!! If students want to answer questions in exams with qualifiers such as "According to current scientific theories.........." then that should be allowed (and as far as I am aware is allowed). I don't think too much time should be spent on trying to appease student’s religious sensitivities. There is enough to cover in the science curriculum already.Ultimately all the education system can do is give students the opportunity to learn science. After that you are relying on the individuality and intelligence of the individual students to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions regarding the validity or otherwise of scientific investigation Vs faith based "knowledge". The science classroom is not going to be able to undo all the harm of fundamentalist religious attitudes in society. Nor, in my view, should it try to do so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 245 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Dubious because he's a religious person trying to extend the influence of religion into the science classes. If he was an atheist doing the same thing, would he be equally dubious? I'm not making an accusation, but be careful of prejudices, they can be insidious. I'm as atheist as can be and a little antitheist for good measure, but he raises a good point. I don't see any evidence presented that leads to the conclusion that he's trying to extend the influence of religion in science classes (though I have seen evidence outside of this thread that might somewhat support the hypothesis)- from what I have read it seems that he is advocating that we acknowledge that religion already has significant influence in the science class and is pointing out that ignoring this influence might be detrimental to the education of children. He is talking strategy. I'll grant that the exact details would have to be carefully set out, that there would be cock-ups and problems with any system put in place (like there are with today's system)- but I can't see an inherent problem with the broad idea. A little research pays off though: the reason I consider him dubious is because he has written in a journal titled Biblical Creation, about human life support factors in Genesis, and although I haven't read what he wrote - my experience with these kinds of journals would lead me to believe that it was a work of Christian apologetics.
I would be surprised if he's eyeing Dawkins' chair, and so would Charles Symonyi I imagine! Perhaps - his study seems to me to be somewhat leaning towards 'study {of} the public’s perception of [science]' rather than necessarily contributing to the public understanding, but 20 years significantly contributing to science education in the UK is nothing to be ignored.
I don't think that the 90% should be slowed down by the 10% in science classes in any way, and that the battle is really a long term one outside the science classes, and it's the battle against the heavy indoctrination of children with mumbo jumbo. And I agree. Where we disagree I suspect is whether or not Reiss' or my own ideas would slow down education or not for those 90%. It might be worth reading a book he collaborated on: Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism, I've not read it - but perhaps it would clarify his position above and beyond some press articles? To be honest, I suspect that Reiss and I would strongly disagree on one aspect or probably more on the specifics, but it is hard to ignore his concerns or broad suggestions of strategy when it comes to dealing with it.
The Reverend Reiss might be a good example of how liberal religion can inadvertently protect and promote fundamentalism. He might be, but an argument would have to be made. It is lax of you to simply refer to him as 'Reverend Reiss': he may be a practicing priest but he is also a practicing professor, his correct title is 'Reverend Professor' or at least 'Reverend Doctor'. Another thing that helps fundamentalism though, is playing right into its hands. If science teachers were to ignore creationism and simply be seen to assert that evolution is the way - fundamentalist propaganda that science teachers 'ignore the holes' or 'ignore alternative theories out of fear' will appear more credible to the credulous. Here in the UK, teachers are generally told to not discuss it, unless a pupil brings it up, at which point the pre-Darwin creationist ideas can be contrasted with Darwin's to show how the scientific method works in practice. I feel this is a good starting place, but I also feel that this valuable lesson should not be reserved solely for the occasional class that has at least one pupil who has questions about creationism, and is brave/motivated enough to ask them in a science class. I suggest stating outright that the dominant view of biology both inside and outside the sciences used to be creationism - a predominantly religious doctrine that says that God or gods created the world - but now, the work of Darwin and his predecessors has come to be more commonly accepted as the correct understanding. Religious scholars have rethought old dogma to take into account the changing understandings of the universe according to science. But how did scientists manage to demonstrate to people who strongly believed books such as the Bible were definitive texts on the origins of species? Darwin applied his rigorous attention to detail and collected many types of evidence and wove them together into one grand explanatory framework. A framework that is now central to understanding our modern view of biology. It goes like this... In general, I'm opposed to the sometime touted concept of 'framing', but creationism is going to be tied to evolutionism in the same way that 'time is absolute, the speed of light in a vacuum is relative' will be tied to 'the speed of light in a vacuum is absolute, time is relative' or 'Steady State' will be associated with 'Big Bang' or maybe like 'bad humours/evil spirits' will be connected with 'Germ Theory'. It is useful to discuss the ideas that academics had before they changed their minds, since it helps explain the evidence that managed to change the consensus. It gives us a context, a story to hold to, and stories are excellent ways of learning things. To exclude creationism from this process seems crazy to me. I am not proposing we teach people what AiG wants taught or even the DI, no nonsense about modern creationists and their pseudoscience, just teach what used to be thought and why it isn't the case now. Perhaps with a nod to the fact that there exists some religious people that continue to believe the pre-Darwin ideas, with some modern twists - but that the ideas are not scientifically supported.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 245 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'm pretty much in agreement with everything you just said. If I was modest, I might even say I couldn't say it better myself. But quantity has a quality all of its own, as Stalin once said so I'm giving myself half an extra mark
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2737 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Modulous writes: bluegenes writes: Dubious because he's a religious person trying to extend the influence of religion into the science classes. If he was an atheist doing the same thing, would he be equally dubious? He'd be dead weird, taking you literally. Guessing at what you actually mean, science is already a-theistic, so it's difficult for atheism to intrude on itself.
I'm not making an accusation, but be careful of prejudices, they can be insidious. From long experience, I can tell you that rarely if ever will you meet a "Reverend" for whom religion is not by far the most important thing in life. There's a big difference between informed guesses and irrational prejudices. My guess is that, whether his behaviour is conscious or subconscious, the Reverend differs from both of us in that he does not want the children of fundy parents to lose their faith in God. It would be much more important to him that they remain theists than anything to do with learning science. So, hence the reason for delicacy. The object, you must understand, is that they learn science without losing the most important thing in the world, their faith in God, preferably the Christian version. Quite a bit of the learning of science, for them and the other 90%, could be sacrificed for this all important point. I'll admit to speculative guessing here, but you don't become a Reverend without being very serious about religion, which is why I'm emphasising it, and calling him Reverend rather than his full title. I admit prejudice, but not irrational prejudice. However, let's do some research as you say. He won't be obviously pushy about his religion, otherwise he wouldn't have got his present post. Most of what you say about creationism in science classes seems to be about teaching the history of science, and I'd always assumed that creationism and Paley's I.D. were already included in that. It's how Dawkins' teaches it, as you know, the intelligent watchmaker becoming a blind one. Anything more than that, for me, goes on the religious education course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Teachers should beable to debate issues like the young age of the earth from sources like Walt Brown book In the beginning) is an excellent source of information for an young earth and the creationist point of view.
Another book of interests for teachers to teach the differences like just why do creationists believe its an young earth. Thousands...Not Billions By Donald B. DeYoung, John Baumgardner, D Russell Humphreys, Andrew Snelling, ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=Personally children should be taught the scientific reasons the earth is believed to be an young earth like the evolutionists inability to defend the theory of evolution. Like radiometric decay Primordial polonium halo's GENTRY, and how Gentry more than triple dog dared the academy of sciences to refute scientifically. 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. Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation - Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal - Earth Science Associates +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ How Walt Brown too has challenged the evolutionists for near 30 years to a scientific debate but to limit the debate to the sciences to not include theology. Should not kids know evolutionists that promote evolution are themselves unable to scientifically defend the sciences behind the theory of evolution !!!!!!! One evolutionist is so upset that a written debate will not include religion that he now misleads by saying that Walt Brown has refused to debate him. (Correspondence in our files shows how he no longer wanted a strictly scientific debate after reading the 6th edition of this book.) Dr. Brown has consistently maintained his position for 28 years: The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Then how the Rate boys dating fossil with advanced science and all bones dating young, how evolutionist say no ratio left after millions of years yet how the RATE boys continually have enough ratio in those bones to support the creationist young earth verses an old earth. Explain (teach kids why) no ratio should be present if those bones are old, and how the rate boys deal with insitu C14 contributions as meaningless, but didn't discount it happens, and yet truthfully it all comes out the earth is scientifically young !!!!!!! The book!!!!!! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thousands...Not Billions By Donald B. DeYoung, John Baumgardner, D Russell Humphreys, Andrew Snelling,
Thousands...Not Billions Creation science has been the Achilles heel to Darwinian Evolution its been said it was the paleontologist that challenged Darvins theory from the get go. Interestingly it seems we have two sciences here conflicting Creationist science and evolutionist science. Kids should be taught the Creationists point of view of the fossil record is like an Achilles heel to Darwinian Evolution. Darwin expected the fossil record would vindicate his theory. The fossil record interestingly has vindicated the paleontologists that told Darwin that the fossil record would not vindicate his theory. Why are kids not taught this that the paleontologist of Darwins day have been vindicated. Thus we have Evolutionist today afraid to debate science at the professional level but willing to take to court anyone that disagree's with teaching their lies about science in the public school to court. So we have in America teachers threatened of being sued for teaching truth and not being sued if they continue to teach the lies of evolution as if it were the truth. Such are the days that we are living the evolutionist who are afraid to debate in good faith the sciences. Children should be taught that creationists believe evolutionists are afraid to debate Walt Brown at the professional level. The academy of sciences as professionals are unable to refute Gentry's challenge that it is an young earth is because evolution is not based on science but is based on atheism. Its clothed a bit in the sciences but not enough to win an debate at the professional level. So they bypass the professionals that know its a lie and then brain wash our children that which is a lie as if its the truth! I'm not sure which is worse forcing teacher to teach this nonsense as truth or the kids having to listen to this garbage as if its the truth. Thankfully we have the internet and when I first came on this site thought it was an old earth and you have all taught me its an young earth. I also thought evolution was based on science then find that its only based on myth but clothed in creation science pretending to be evolution science. I suspect thats because there is not science too evolution that is not creation science. Evolution just stole from creation science like mendel a catholic monk proving traits from the bible are expressed by genes in plants. Creation Science from the bible that natural selection in respect to gene pools intermarrying like a gentile and a jew. The creationists bible says the gentiles genetic traits can be expunged after 10 generations if the offspring from thence comes from only the jewish gene pool. This science is whats used in genetic breeding to remove genetic mutations from a new gene pool, etc... Its kind of interesting how natural selection, mutations, genes, was founded from creation science and how its been stolen by those espousing Evolution. The link about Darwin not being vindicated by the fossil record that was supposed to vindicate his theory. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Darwinian Evolution's Achilles Heel: The Fossil Record Options When Darwin first proposed his theory, the most strident opposition came notfrom Christian fundamentalists but rather paleontologists. Surely if Darwin was correct we would see a clear fossil record demonstrating evolution, no? He thought one would see "interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps." He knew that the fossil record was "perhaps the most obvious and serious objection" to his theory but figured that with more time and exploration, the fossil record would vindicate him. After 150 more years of digging, the record still opposes evolution. The verdict is in. One branch of science contradicts another. http://groups.google.com/...e_thread/thread/473b7d564b4495c4 Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by Admin, : Shorten long link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2366 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You are your creation "science" talking points -- you're getting to be a one-trick pony.
And all those points have been rebutted by mainstream science, but you keep posting the same nonsense as though it was real science. Reminds me of Heinlein's line: Belief gets in the way of learning. Why don't you start a thread just on the carbon 14 nonsense you are so fond of quoting? A refutation here would be off topic, but if you have the ability to do just one focused point, such as carbon 14 dating, we could get into it in some detail in a dedicated thread. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And here we see the essential reason why creationism should not be taught in schools.
Because creationist arguments are crap. Crazy, malign, paranoid crap.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5851 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
Because creationist arguments are crap. Crazy, malign, paranoid crap. This is the problem evolution is such crap that the evolutionists are actually paranoid to stand up to the Gentry's, Baumgardeners, Browns. Its not because creationists arguments are crap but an evolutionists would have to be crazy to defend the scientific merits of the theory of evolution!!!!!!!! P.S. The kids should be taught this in the public schools and the teachers should not be threatened of losing tenure for refusing to teach lies as if it was the truth!!!!!!! Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1530 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined: |
How should a teacher deal with this? It keeps happening, children are giving answers that correspond with 2nd Century science because the students are told that the beliefs of certain religious thinkers are to be held as inviolable. As Straggler already stated Science class is about showing you understand what's taught in science, regardless of whether or not you accept it. So if a student persistently answers questions which are some variant of 'god did it' in exams, the teacher has every right to give them a poor mark. But suppose the teacher did consider a students religious leanings and gives more favourable marks, what about the other 75% of students who do make the effort to study hard and understand the science as taught? Would they feel cheated, maybe not putting the same effort into learning the subject in future? After all it is just science, they are only learning 'theories' we don't know any f this for certain, and it could all have been different in the past anyway.What if the religious student obtained a passing mark in science class because of this policy and based on this decide to take it in university. Should the university accept the student, given that they may need to reiterate basic highers or even standard grade level biology, holding back other students; or should they increase the minimum entrance requirements, which would have the side effect of making it harder for student with a genuine interest in science to get in? I realise that these may be worst case scenarios, but it does suggest the more wide-reaching detrimental effects that could potentially occur.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024