|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 316 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England 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 Hey it's your thread so your rules apply. back. However while I have my soapbox out.......... I was a science teacher in a previous life. I know many who still are. These are normal people with a wide range of attitudes and beliefs. Their main professional concern is dealing with a series of ever-changing syllabi, exams and guidelines whilst at the same time tackling the low aspirations and lack of enthusiasm, for education in general, of a proportion of their class who see school as little more than day prison. In short, whilst most would agree in principle with the need to keep religion out of the science classroom, it is hardly the burning issue of their day to day lives as teachers. I doubt many have even considered the question to a fraction of the extent that those of us preoccupied enough with such things as to spend our time discussing them from afar on internet forums, have done. It therefore seems grossly unfair to expect, or require, science teachers to be unwittingly thrown into the front line of the eternal debate between religion and science.I don't think many science teachers have the appetite for the issue required to turn their classrooms into the battlefields on which the long campaign to tackle the role of religion in society is to be fought. Nor do I think it does the teachers, the pupils or the education system as whole any good to force educators to be the foot soldiers of such wider principles. If people are being taught disproved irrational nonsense by their parents, churches, community leaders or whoever else then that is a problem for society as a whole. Not just for, or even primarily for, science teachers. If anything we should be protecting the science education of students by keeping this whole debate as far away from the science classroom as is possible instead of making science teaching the focal point of discussions that should be much much wider in context. Thankyou for listening. I'll put my soapbox away now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 235 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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. And I'm not proposing teaching anything else. Ethics and social issues regarding science are part of teaching about science. Merely teaching theory and scientific facts does not seem to me to be a well-rounded science education.
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. Absolutely agree. And yes, it is not (last I checked) outright forbidden to discuss these issues - it is now officially recommended to not bring them up, though.
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. Indeed - yet I don't see Reiss saying anything significantly different. Whatever preconceptions people have to the concept of Creationism in the classroom should be divorced from the actual proposal at hand.
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. I agree with the latter sentiment about stressing that regardless of belief it is possible to still learn about evolution. However, I have met adults who were not even aware that it was possible to marry evolution with religious thought, since it is in fact possible (I remember having the discussion with my mother: Like many boys I loved dinosaurs, but I was an independently minded Christian type. I noted the incongruity of Genesis creation and dinosaurs living millions of years before humans. She explained the CofE's position to me: I was fortunate where others may not be so. I later had a teacher who discussed theistic evolution and the argument of design - but I'm sure many others missed out on this valuable lesson).
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. It is a significantly held position, and it is likely, given the statistics - that school children will encounter people whose religious upbringing leads them to reject a major scientific theory. A significant number will be alienated or cruelly confused by the mixed messages going on.
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? It seems that we are actually stalling and possibly falling. A significant religious explosion has happened recently, and England seems to following, at least partially, in America's footsteps with trust in science going downwards. Added with a fairly sizeable Muslim population and ideas like Creationism are gaining strength.
Can you substantiate this claim please? Can you specifically point out the signs of failure in the current system? No problem.
quote: A tripling of uncertainty in the last 20 years? If the "Don't even mention creationism" system is the best one - then we're surely doomed. Obviously, it is not the only factor in play but I hypothesize that it is significant. I believe other scholars have pointed out the paradox of a country which attempts to separate church and state so vigorously has such high religiosity and fundamentalism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 235 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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. More than a right, a duty.
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? It would be highly unfair massively ludicrous and totally outrageous. Recent moves in America indicate that this might one day soon be an issue they have to deal with.
I realise that these may be worst case scenarios, but it does suggest the more wide-reaching detrimental effects that could potentially occur. Indeed they could. But unless you are making an oblique political argument that by acknowledging the existence of creationism we will find ourselves giving equal marks to creationist answers, I don't see your point. I'm not proposing giving credit to creationism. I'm just saying that its existence be acknowledged and the mental roadblocks it will present for those students be tackled so that they can actually learn about evolution, and the rest of science, without feeling the relationship is necessarily antagonistic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 235 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I agree and disagree. I concede that your points are very strong, and I think we have both put elucidated where our positions differ. Maybe some other time I'll have put more thought into the 'Teachers as foot soldiers in the culture wars' line of reasoning and will be able to grace it with thoughtful commentary for future debate.
Until then...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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!!!!!!! And that was crazy, malign, paranoid, and illiterate crap. This is why people like you aren't allowed to write school textbooks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Social Issues and Creation/Evolution forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22934 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
This thread is being tugged in two different directions. There's the topic of the opening post, which asks if and how non-scientific ideas should be addressed, and then there's the claim that creationism is real science that is being systematically excluded. I don't think the latter issue is on-topic.
Concerning this from the opening post:
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 was at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto last week and overheard a conversation between one of the volunteers and a patron. The volunteer was explaining potassium/argon dating, and then uranium/lead dating, and the patron asked if there wasn't some way that radioactive decay could be accelerated, clearly a creationist question. The volunteer replied that he wasn't aware of any and the conversation ended, but this exchange illustrates how easily simple scientific exchanges can shift onto pseudoscientific issues, and this can happen in the classroom as easily as anywhere else. It seems like it would be awkward to just refuse to address or acknowledge creationist challenges when they come up, and I hope most science teachers don't do that, but they shouldn't allow are detailed presentation or discussion of creationist positions, either. As Modulous suggests, these are opportunities to explain the evidence and rational for scientific positions. This is because it is science that we teach in science class. Science attempts to understand the natural world and is constantly checked against reality, and it just isn't possible for invalid scientific models to survive. New models that are superior to old ones cannot be denied their place in the sun. If creationists have better scientific theories than traditional science then they will produce better results and quickly out-compete existing theories. There's no way to prevent this from happening. That creationist theories have convinced less than 1% of scientists and less than 0.1% of biologists is because their theories are not accurate representations of reality. When creationists start producing theories that out-compete and replace current ones, then those theories will be the ones that get taught in science class. ---Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
This is why people like you aren't allowed to write school textbooks. Here's a short video link about the movie EXPELLED that the evolutionists are paranoid. Think the first video is Eric, then Kent then the short preview of the movie expelled. Hovind got a phD through a correspondence class in education. Kent talks about creationists like William Dembski losing their teaching aspect of his job, others losing their jobs, tenure etc ... for just questioning evolutionary theory. Is there any truth being taught in acadamia worth teaching in respect to evolution from the colleges these days. If the teachers can not question any points in respect to evolution how can a student question the validity of evolution. This is not science but yet its whats happening in acadamia here in america. Look what has been done to Dembski, and the other teachers that Kent talks briefly about the problem with professors if they even question evolution. Enjoy, http://www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=51 Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3893 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Hi Mod - I'm not sure if my early post Message 16 in this thread was suffciently without merit to deserve comment, or that you simply overlooked it Either way, let me know what you think as I think it also fits into your discussion with straggler.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22934 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
I think you're addressing the wrong topic. This thread isn't about alleged evolutionist censorship of creationist views, but about whether well known views that are considered unscientific should be addressed in science class.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
For Debate: 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.
Creation / evolution is at times like modern medicine / alternative medicine. When I asked a heart surgeon if he ever preforms chelation therapy instead of heart surgery to see his reaction.I found he was unable to discuss in good faith an alternative idea because of how much he studied to become a heart specialists. I told him he was wrong and should consider it and his response was who in the heck are you to tell me about chelation therapy. He might be a good heart surgeon but the medicine of the 21 century might well include alternative medicine like chelation therapy. What an attitude of superiority!!!!!!! This is kind of what the creationists like Dembski are up against this refusal to discuss in good faith alternative ideas. This heart surgeon might well of been an intelligent man but his attitude of who in the heck do you think you are is the same attitude that is wrong with the teaching of the sciences in the public arena these days. I think shunning the idea is more like what how the evolutionists deal with people not under their authority like Gentry, Snelling, Baumgardener, Brown. The evolutionists have an attitude of bullying teachers but against the professionals that are not under their authority they shun because they would lose against the young earth folk! The creationists like Brown simply challenges any professional scientists to a debate on the sciences where attitude simply will not be tolerated. Gentry simply challenged to be refuted publicly but they shun those that they can not shut up with their attitude. P.S. I think its this attitude on the part of the heart surgeon is this same attitude that evolutionists use on any teacher parent that disagree's. However those they can not bully like Brown, Snelling, Gentry, Rate boys, Answers in Genesis folk, etc...they simply refuse to debate at all. It sounds a bit like Hypocrisy perhaps thats what evolution actually is when they bully teachers/parents/ students yet unwilling to stand up and prove their hypothesis of an old earth has any merit in a debate of their equals. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2356 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The evolutionists have an attitude of bullying teachers but against the professionals that are not under their authority they shun because they would lose against the young earth folk! The creationists like Brown simply challenges any professional scientists to a debate on the sciences where attitude simply will not be tolerated. The debate is long since over. Your side lost. These issues are not decided in a public debate in front of an audience, as the creationists prefer. In that venue debating techniques and slick presentation can be important. Rather the debate has already been held in the scientific journals and your side lost long ago. In fact, the issue of a young earth was conceded by about 1818 by the early geologists who were trying to prove genesis and the flood. That is why creation "science" is not welcome in schools. It is all creation and no science. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4440 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Creation / evolution is at times like modern medicine / alternative medicine. When I asked a heart surgeon if he ever preforms chelation therapy instead of heart surgery to see his reaction. I found he was unable to discuss in good faith an alternative idea because of how much he studied to become a heart specialists. I told him he was wrong and should consider it and his response was who in the heck are you to tell me about chelation therapy. He might be a good heart surgeon but the medicine of the 21 century might well include alternative medicine like chelation therapy. What an attitude of superiority!!!!!!! I don't have any idea what chelation therapy is, but evidently it isn't recognized by any Medical association or your your heart surgeon would not have given you that answer. Unproven alternatives don't make in in organized medicine. Sounds more to me like you have the attitude of superiority. Edited by bluescat48, : missing sentence 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Think the first video is Eric, then Kent then the short preview of the movie expelled. Hovind got a phD through a correspondence class in education. Kent talks about creationists like William Dembski losing their teaching aspect of his job, others losing their jobs, tenure etc ... Uh, I'm sorry, but Kent Hovind? Kent Hovind??? Ignoring for the moment that he's currently imprisoned for tax evasion because his ideas were totally bogus. Along with his trusting wife whose main violation appears to be having trusting the utter bullshit that he was feeding her. How could anyone believe anything that Kent Hovind says? He continues (granting that he can no longer do so, though his poor son may be acting for him in absentia) to use that tired old Brown claim that apparently even Brown will no longer use that the addition of a leap second roughly once every 18 months means that the earth's rotation rate is slowing down by one second every 18 months. Well guess what? The earth's rotation rate is not slowing down at that rate, despite Kent Hovind's claim (which is actually originally Walter Brown's claim that Hovind continued to repeat in complete and utter ignorance of the truth and of the actual science involved -- OK, I assume that he was ignorant that that claim is false, whereas it is quite possibly that he has been deliberately lying about it. The people who actually measure that rate, the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS), will tell you that the real rate is actually thousands of times slower. I mean, the IERS directly measures that rate, whereas Hovind and other creationists who use this false claim proceed from a completely ignorant misinterpretation of what a leap second actually is and means. Dude, tell me the truth. Do you really believe that the application of a leap year every fourth year means that the earth's revolutions around the sun are slowing down by one day every four years? When it really is a result of the earth's revolutionary rate around the sun not being an integral number of days, but rather being about 365.2524 days per year. DUH??? That false claim was refuted over 25 years ago! And yet it's one of Hovind's current claims. Duh??? So why did your exhaulted Kent Hovind, the self-professed expert on math and science (based solely on his having taught those subjects in the high school that he himself was running -- I cannot help but pity those poor students of his) so abysmally ignorant of the facts? Not mere opinion, but the facts? Do you truly think that his blithering ignorance should be taught in science class? Or shouldn't the actual facts be taught? Hovind also made completely ignorant claims about the rate at which the sun is burning up its mass (a little less than 5 million tons per second), that that would have resulted in such an incredibly large change in the sun's mass that it would have caused the ancient sun to have been so incredibly more massive that it would have sucked the earth in. Well, a little bit of simple math (remember, Hovind would repeatedly boast that he was an expert in math, so why was a little bit of simple math beyond him?) shows that the total amount of mass burned up in 5 billion years would amount to a mere few hundredths of one percent of the sun's total mass. Hello??? That is an insignificant change in the sun's mass. Restore that lost mass to the sun and how much would it "suck the earth in"? Less than 100,000 miles. How would that affect the earth's climate? Hovind keeps harping on the fine balance represented by the earth's distance from the sun, but does he actually know anything about it? Obviously not. How much does the earth's distance from the sun vary during the year? Our orbit is elliptical, after all. Well, it turns out that our distnace from the sun varies every year by three million miles. That's right, 3 million miles. Guess when we're closest to the sun. You would guess in August and September, right? No, we're closes to the sun right after New Year's Day. That's right, right in the coldest time of the year for the Northern Hemisphere. By comparing mean temperatures of Europe vs Australia for both times of the year, I've estimated that a difference of 3 million miles distance from the sun amounts to a few degrees Fahrenheit difference (a better study does need to be done). If 3 million miles don't make that much difference, how much difference could less that 100,000 miles have made? In addition, a number of statements made by Kent Hovind indicate that he believes that the sun "burns its fuel" through a process of combustion on its surface. Despite the fact that he had uncritically used the rate of mass loss due to the fusion reaction in the sun's core, simply because that is the rate that was given in a textbook. So he used a rate stated in a textbook (that 5 million tons per second) with absolutely no understanding of where it had come from. His is the kind of crap that you want to be taught in the science classroom? OK, he should be given the opportunity to support his claims. Well, I gave him that opportunity. He responded by saying that he had gotten that rate from a textbook and he "refuted" my questions for him to support his claim by pointing out (paraphrasing, though I do have his actual emails on this) that "look at the sun; it's obviously burning!". He is also quoted by some far right religious nuts (who believed that the Galileo probe crashing into Jupiter's atmosphere was intended to further the Illuminati's Anti-Christ goals by igniting Jupiter into a second star) as believing that a sun burns through combustion. And furthermore that combustion results in the total loss of the fuel being burned -- which is in complete contradiction of the entire field of chemistry. And his main response to my requests that he support and/or explain his claims about that solar mass loss. Guess what it was. He attacked me for my choice of email address (DWise1, which is actually based on how at work I had labeled multiple MacIntosh diskettes with my user name and a sequential number) and twice tried to pick a fight with me over my email address. In other words, he went out of his way to avoid supporting or explaining his own claims. Which clearly indicates that he was fully aware that his claims were total bullshit but he wanted to continue to deceive the people who didn't know better to ask him, "WTF?" That is the kind of absolute crap that you want to have taught in the science classroom? The general public is already abysmally ignorant of science. Why do you want to make the situation so much worse?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22934 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Maybe we could stop replying to messages that don't address the topic?
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024