|
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) | |||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Maybe we could stop replying to messages that don't address the topic?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Hi Johnfolton,
Could you please stop posting to this thread unless you have something to say about the topic? I think you know how to propose new topics. Thanks. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Modulous writes: Why not? Because it would be a 'distraction'? The argument is, that it is a distraction anyway, and that ignoring it does not make it less so. This seems to me the most important point.
I'm not suggesting we say 'creationism is for idiots'. Just 'some people still believe in the pre-Darwinian view of life. It is not a scientifically supported position...though some people may claim it is they are significantly in the minority. As such, given that this is a class about the science of biology - let us learn the science side of things.' I feel pretty much the same way.
Cavediver's proposal seems like an interesting idea - though it may have to be altered for a different academic environment. Perhaps it would fail in the US, but I do not share that instinct with the UK education system. Regarding Cavediver's proposal in Message 16, since I'm not familiar with the British system I can't say if my lack of enthusiasm for it is due to differences between the two systems or is more fundamental, but his seems like a full course on the history, philosophy and current status of creationism. As an elective course I think it would be a great idea, but as a required part of the science curriculum I think it would take an unjustifiably disproportionate amount of the total time available. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
You couldn't have wished for a more timely incident for this thread, and I'm surprised no one else has replied because it deserves examination and discussion. Here's your link again: Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row
The portion of Reiss's speech to the British Association for the Advancement of Science that caused the upset was described this way in the article:
TimesOnline writes: His resignation comes after a campaign by senior Royal Society Fellows who were angered by Professor Reiss’s suggestion that science teachers should treat creationist beliefs “not as a misconception but as a world view”. But this was just one tiny part of a longer speech, and it would help to put it in context, but I can't seem to find a link to the whole speech. The article does go on to quote a little more:
TimesOnline writes: “My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science,” he said. “I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn’t lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson . . . 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.” But while poking around the web for the speech I found that Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers have already chimed in:
I suggest reading what they have to say, but in essence they disagree with Reiss's forced resignation because his suggestion of constructive engagement is already a widely accepted strategy, one that Dawkins and Meyers don't happen to agree with, but that they openly concede is widely accepted. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Okay, now I'm really confused. Two things. First, you give two lengthy quotes from Reiss's speech and in between them say, "From Michael Reiss: How to convert a generation", but neither quote comes from that webpage. Anyway, thanks for the additional quotes, but though I used phrases from them for a Google search I still couldn't find a webpage with his speech. I know you say you posted it in the thread somewhere, but this thread is up to a hundred posts now.
Second, I don't follow you here:
Modulous writes: Percy writes: But while poking around the web for the speech I found that Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers have already chimed in: Yeah, I've already read it - worth hearing their opinions. But obligatory tongue in cheek wrist slap alert. Ready? OK, it's Myers What's Myers? Whose wrist is getting slapped? Whose tongue is in their cheek? Inquiring minds want to know! Anyway, all I was getting at was that it surprises me there weren't more detailed responses to your post about the resignation. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024