Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,507 Year: 6,764/9,624 Month: 104/238 Week: 21/83 Day: 4/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 76 of 609 (482179)
09-15-2008 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by dwise1
09-15-2008 2:57 AM


Re: Creation Science
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.
Your kind of proving the point that you don't believe creationists have ideas and when you discuss them you will only allow ridicule young earthers. If the acadamy of sciences is unable to refute Gentry move on, its a young earth. Lets move science forward teach the earth is young in the science classes, if the professionals can not refute Gentry science should move forward. Basically without the old earth the theory of evolution any micro evolution principles were they not basically stolen from the bible. Why lie to our kids tell them the truth that the evolutionists stole their theory from the bible but then switched young to old and refused to honor the bible as the source of their micro-evolution principles. That they switched the common creator to a common ancestor and on and on till evolution is a pack of lies that can not be defended in a scientific debate of their equals.
P.S. Kent stands on principles think it was Lyndon B. Johnson that started a reinterpretation of these issues like the 501(c)(3) stuff to silence the church. If the evolutionists can not stand up and defend their own idea in a scientific debate of your equals then its time to replace evolution with those that are able to stand up and defend their ideas in a scientific debate.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2008 2:57 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2008 12:59 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 78 by bluescat48, posted 09-15-2008 1:15 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 09-15-2008 1:16 PM johnfolton has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 6077
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 77 of 609 (482210)
09-15-2008 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by johnfolton
09-15-2008 10:14 AM


Re: Creation Science
With all due respect, that's the biggest load of paranoid nonsense that I've read for quite a while.
The basic question is what should be taught in science class. The obvious answer is that it should be science. Sorry, but "creation science" just does not qualify. And it isn't out of rejection of other ideas as you imagine, but rather because "creation science's" claims have been examined and found to be not only wrong, but also in most cases outright attempts at deception. Not only that, but most of the claims currently in use by "creation science" were soundly refuted decades ago, making their continued use a further example of deception being practiced by "creation science".
For example, Gentry's claim was refuted in the late 1980's when it was shown that his "Genesis rock" was actually an igneous intrusion into metamorphic rock (ie, a recent addition to very old pre-existing rock). Hovind's leap-second claim was refuted in the early 1980's, a few years after Walter Brown had come out with it.
The ridicule that "creation science" receives is richly deserved. For decades we've been listening to its claims and have checked them out and found them to be utterly false and wrong in so many ways (including in how they misrepresent their sources). We have tried to discuss those claims with creationists and have repeatedly met with resistence and refusal on the creationists' part. You completely ignored what I told you about my experience with Hovind. I was honestly trying to get information on his solar-mass-loss claim and he absolutely refused to support his own claim. Well, if that's what creationists think of their own claims, why should we think any more of them?
"Creation science" claims are wrong and they've been known to be wrong for decades, so why include them in the science classroom? The only honest way they could be included and treated would be to present them and then to explain what's wrong with them. The disadvantage is that valuable classroom time would be wasted. The advantage would be that the students would be able to hear something that the creationists would never give them: the truth about "creation science" claims.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by johnfolton, posted 09-15-2008 10:14 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Syamsu, posted 09-15-2008 5:26 PM dwise1 has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4447 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 78 of 609 (482218)
09-15-2008 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by johnfolton
09-15-2008 10:14 AM


Re: Creation Science
Why lie to our kids tell them the truth that the evolutionists stole their theory from the bible but then switched young to old and refused to honor the bible as the source of their micro-evolution principles.
O Really. Please give me the chapter and verse. I must have missed that one.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by johnfolton, posted 09-15-2008 10:14 AM johnfolton has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22953
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 79 of 609 (482219)
09-15-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by johnfolton
09-15-2008 10:14 AM


Re: Creation Science
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by johnfolton, posted 09-15-2008 10:14 AM johnfolton has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 80 of 609 (482220)
09-15-2008 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by johnfolton
09-14-2008 10:07 PM


Re: Attitude !!!!!!!
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!!!!!!!
What a masterly piece of satire on creationism.
Oh, wait, you're serious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by johnfolton, posted 09-14-2008 10:07 PM johnfolton has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5848 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 81 of 609 (482263)
09-15-2008 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by dwise1
09-15-2008 12:59 PM


Re: Creation Science
Then instead of creationism why dont you review the more religionfriendly mainstream theories that posit freedom of some kind. Emergence, anticipation, etc. They use many of the same words that creationists use like creation, design, choice etc. That way you can teach creation and its science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by dwise1, posted 09-15-2008 12:59 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Straggler, posted 09-15-2008 5:43 PM Syamsu has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 324 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 82 of 609 (482267)
09-15-2008 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Syamsu
09-15-2008 5:26 PM


Re: Creation Science
What is the purpose of science? Discovery.
The aim of science is to discover the processes, mechanisms, building blocks and principles upon which the natural world is formed and develops.
Without discovery science is pointless. We do not invent the natural world we discover it. We do not value our theories on their ability to interpret. We value them on their ability to discover. To reveal the truths of nature.
In any science class worth having in which ID, creationism, astrology, fortune telling or any other irrational, ideological faith based nonsense is discussed it is the duty of the teacher to point out that none of these have ever led to single discovery or new addition to the sum total of human knowledge. Ever.
A science class should be instilled with the idea that discovery is the main aim of science and that theories that fail in this respect are worthless, potentially subjectively derived and ideologically based suppositions, that are unscientific and are thus of no scientific value at all.
Wouldn't you agree?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Syamsu, posted 09-15-2008 5:26 PM Syamsu has not replied

Deftil
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 83 of 609 (482330)
09-16-2008 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Modulous
09-14-2008 10:56 AM


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.
That's what you're claiming, but at this point I'd say that's begging the question.
Ethics and social issues regarding science aren't really necessary parts of science education in school age children. Anything more than briefly mentioning these contrversial issues will only serve to disrupt the learning of the core scientific concepts we want children to absorb at that age.
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
This isn't the job of K-12 grade science classes. It isn't currently, and I'm not sure it should be. For children of this age, I think it would only prove to be a distraction to bring religious matters into the classroom. Both you and I feel that it would be nice if people believed that evolution doesn't have to be inconsistent with religious thought, but it doesn't then follow that it should be taught in K-12 science classrooms.
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.
Well... it's also likely, given the statistics, that school children will BE people whose religious upbringing leads them to reject a major scientific theory. And will be the children of people with such views. So specifically telling them that creationism doesn't have the same status as evolution may alienate them, and piss off their parents.
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.
You might be making a very good point, but I keep seeing it from a different angle. We're currently surrounded with science. I'm using science to debate with you across an ocean. There's got to be more people than ever employed in science and technology fields. The LHC is now firing up. It's the largest scientific experimental tool of all time, and the U.S. has been involved in a large part of the efforts. Despite many people's reluctance to give up some of their luxuries in life, and to accept blame for the deterioration of our global environment, science has helped many to really take a look at the effects their actions have on the environment. Currently, both U.S. presidential candidates are Christians, that believe in evolution. I'm not seeing the "stalling" and "falling" that you do.
Deftil writes:
Can you substantiate this claim please? Can you specifically point out the signs of failure in the current system?
No problem.
The fact that the U.S. ranks so lowly on acceptance of evolution is duly noted, however, if we are working towards improvement within the U.S., then the levels of acceptance over time are more relevant. Your cited article mentions this:
quote:
The investigation also showed that the percentage of U.S. adults who are uncertain about evolution has risen from 7 percent to 21 percent in the past 20 years.
but only briefly, and I don't feel with sufficient clarity.
Here are some Gallup poll results I found regarding the issue and that deal with the same period of time:
quote:
"Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? (1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process. (2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process. (3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so."
Guided by      God had       God created
Date        God %        no part %   in Present form    Other/Unsure

5/8-11/08 36 14 44 5 11/97 39 10 44 7

Gallup Poll - Origin of Human Life [PollingReport.com]
As you can see, it shows that the percentage that believe in creationism has stayed the same, but the percentage that thinks God had no part in human development went up 40%.
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.
As I think the stats I've offered show, the tripling of uncertainty in the last 20 years is a dubious stat, and most likely a false representation of what's actually occurred. I won't be convinced changes to the current system are warranted until I see reliable evidence that there is a problem, and a rise in hostility to science.
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.
I might be confused but that doesn't sound like a paradox. It might be a bit ironic, or suprising, but it isn't really a paradox IMO. And knowing the history of the U.S. and the context under which it was declared that church and state should be separate, it happens to make plenty of sense to me.
Sorry, I'm adressing this comment of yours out of order, but...
Whatever preconceptions people have to the concept of Creationism in the classroom should be divorced from the actual proposal at hand.
I apologize for still not being completely clear on this, but what exactly are you proposing? That we tell kids that some people (including the kids themselves and their parents) have non-scientific beliefs that make them less receptive to science and that they should still accept science? Are you saying that we should actually allow creationism in the classroom so that we can point out that's it's a non-scientific concept that shouldn't color their worldview? It just sounds to me that ideas like this are asking for trouble, in the America I live in anyway.
Edited by Admin, : Clean up table.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2008 10:56 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2008 7:02 AM Deftil has replied

Meddle
Member (Idle past 1528 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


Message 84 of 609 (482413)
09-16-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Modulous
09-14-2008 11:08 AM


Re: creation science
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.
Hmm... don't think I was making any oblique political arguments. More like I was suggesting a few more hypothetical scenarios, and maybe got a wee bit carried away. In retrospect, I probably should have addressed this post to ICANT, or not posted at all.
Anyway, I get the gist of what you are suggesting in trying to get science to address alternative view points in such a way that the children don't feel they have to make a choice between science and their faith. But if you do this in science class, won't their beliefs just be highlighted as being wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2008 11:08 AM Modulous has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 85 of 609 (482603)
09-17-2008 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by cavediver
09-12-2008 3:27 AM


Sorry about not replying cavediver. I read it, but couldn't think of anything to add.
However, I think we should not present creationism (or intelligent design) as having the same status as evolution.
Yeah, the only way I could make this not sound a bit limp-wristed is for the 'not' to have been emphasized.
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.
PZ Myers weighed in on the issue and tells us what he teaches his Freshmen. It was a nice outline, but it missed the fact that Freshmen studying biology at university are mostly composed of people that want to learn more biology and that the proposal would bring this discussion into the realms of compulsory education.
Are double lessons only 80 minutes these days? I remember double biology lessons - I hated 2 hours of copying text by rote and drawing diagrams of the loop of Henle. Anyway, your proposal sounds good. I don't know if 80 minutes is quite enough - but I've never done a lesson plan so I'll bow to your better qualified estimate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by cavediver, posted 09-12-2008 3:27 AM cavediver has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 86 of 609 (482634)
09-17-2008 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Deftil
09-16-2008 12:01 AM


That's what you're claiming, but at this point I'd say that's begging the question.
Ethics and social issues regarding science aren't really necessary parts of science education in school age children. Anything more than briefly mentioning these contrversial issues will only serve to disrupt the learning of the core scientific concepts we want children to absorb at that age.
Who are 'we'? And why is it that 'we' want only to teach core scientific concepts?
Here in the UK there is a section on bioethics. I=I say it is important for future scientists and for those who take no further science education, to be at least slightly educated in the social issues so that they can make informed decisions in the future.
I'm not suggesting doing much more than briefly discussing the issues, anyway. Making people aware that they exist, that in depth discussion of them may be better served in a RS (religious studies) or PSE (Personal/Social education) class and the like is all I'm suggesting.
This isn't the job of K-12 grade science classes. It isn't currently, and I'm not sure it should be. For children of this age, I think it would only prove to be a distraction to bring religious matters into the classroom. Both you and I feel that it would be nice if people believed that evolution doesn't have to be inconsistent with religious thought, but it doesn't then follow that it should be taught in K-12 science classrooms.
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. It only need take up a few hours total (if that! 15 minutes may well be enough to get the basic point accross).
Well... it's also likely, given the statistics, that school children will BE people whose religious upbringing leads them to reject a major scientific theory. And will be the children of people with such views. So specifically telling them that creationism doesn't have the same status as evolution may alienate them, and piss off their parents.
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.'
You might be making a very good point, but I keep seeing it from a different angle. We're currently surrounded with science. I'm using science to debate with you across an ocean. There's got to be more people than ever employed in science and technology fields... I'm not seeing the "stalling" and "falling" that you do.
The people who did all that were educated 25+ years ago, so it hardly serves as a valid indicator of current trends does it? I'm sure the amount of money has increased, but as a percentage of GDP? I can't find many stats, but those I can show a downward trend over the past 20 years in the US.
Perhaps an interesting side thread, exploring this in more depth?
As I think the stats I've offered show, the tripling of uncertainty in the last 20 years is a dubious stat, and most likely a false representation of what's actually occurred.
Why do your stats show other stats are dubious? Indeed, in the study associated with the statistics I posted, they discuss the statistics you posted.
I apologize for still not being completely clear on this, but what exactly are you proposing? That we tell kids that some people (including the kids themselves and their parents) have non-scientific beliefs that make them less receptive to science and that they should still accept science? Are you saying that we should actually allow creationism in the classroom so that we can point out that's it's a non-scientific concept that shouldn't color their worldview? It just sounds to me that ideas like this are asking for trouble, in the America I live in anyway.
I thought my OP was fairly clear on the kind of thing I'm proposing. I have no concrete opinion as to specific details beyond the OP and a few ideas bounded around spread across various posts. 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.
I used to love biology until I went to high school. It was years afterwards before I regained that love. I am not suggesting this is evidence, but I do know something of what it is to be alienated from a subject because of differing philosophies of pupil and teacher.
Sorry, I'm adressing this comment of yours out of order, but...
No worries, allow me to do likewise:
I won't be convinced changes to the current system are warranted until I see reliable evidence that there is a problem, and a rise in hostility to science.
I'll see what I can draw up for you some time if you require further data. I haven't got the resources to hand to search in depth.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Deftil, posted 09-16-2008 12:01 AM Deftil has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 09-17-2008 8:21 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 88 by Deftil, posted 09-17-2008 10:21 AM Modulous has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22953
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 87 of 609 (482643)
09-17-2008 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Modulous
09-17-2008 7:02 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2008 7:02 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2008 10:33 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Deftil
Member (Idle past 4713 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 88 of 609 (482654)
09-17-2008 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Modulous
09-17-2008 7:02 AM


Modulous writes:
Who are 'we'?
People who want children to get a good education.
And why is it that 'we' want only to teach core scientific concepts?
We'd like to teach them all human knowledge if we could, but we can't, so we stick to core ideas because they are most important (hence them being referred to as the "core" concepts.) As I've said, I think getting involved in controversial topics will serve as a disctraction taking time and focus away from what's important.
I'm not suggesting doing much more than briefly discussing the issues, anyway. Making people aware that they exist, that in depth discussion of them may be better served in a RS (religious studies) or PSE (Personal/Social education) class and the like is all I'm suggesting.
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. It only need take up a few hours total (if that! 15 minutes may well be enough to get the basic point accross).
Well when you talk about it like this you don't make it seem so radical. I think it's currently as undistracting as it can be in a country with so many religious people/ Christians.
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.'
That just sounds long for "creationism is for idiots". LOL Well, that's how I think a lot of the American fundmanetalist (parents) would view it anyway.
I'm sure the amount of money has increased, but as a percentage of GDP? I can't find many stats, but those I can show a downward trend over the past 20 years in the US.
I'm not sure. I wouldn't be surprised if it's gone down as a percentage of GDP over the past 8 years though. Might look more into it later.
Why do your stats show other stats are dubious? Indeed, in the study associated with the statistics you posted, they discuss those statistics.
Mine are better! j/k Yours were from something of a side comment from an article about the research, but the Gallup poll showed the specific question, the full distribution of answers, and the sample size . I felt it was good enough to call the correctness and the relevance of your stats into question.
Further, that article you linked is great, because it shows the distribution of answers instead of only including the amount of those who are "unsure" about evolution. Looking at the stat, it seems bad for evolution reception in the U.S. - A tripling in the number of people that are unsure about evolution! But it also states that
quote:
the percentage of adults overtly rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%
Public Acceptance of Evolution
So, according to the same stats, 20 years ago almost half of Americans rejected evolution, while now 39% do. From that point of view, things seem more promising.
The article states that
quote:
A dichotomous true-false question format tends to exaggerate the strength of both positions.
This is only a tendency to do something to both sides equally, so it doesn't invalidate the stats derived from the Gallup Poll. Again, they show an increase in those that think evolution proceeded unaided by God (10% to 14%), and a decrease in those that were unsure about evolution (7% to 5%).
Again, I don't perceive things as going as badly as you do. I see possible room for improvement, but the effects of any potential changes have to be evaluated very carefully. Disadvantages have to be weighed against advantages.
I'll see what I can draw up for you some time if you require further data. I haven't got the resources to hand to search in depth.
If you did, I think that would be great. It's always useful to really identify what's going on, to see how much of a problem there is, and to analyze the source and impact of the problem so as to understand the best way to solve it. I think you agree of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2008 7:02 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2008 10:50 AM Deftil has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 89 of 609 (482655)
09-17-2008 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Percy
09-17-2008 8:21 AM


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.
And unfortunately I'm unfamiliar with the US system
Here each lesson is usually between 40-55 minutes long, and at GCSE level (14-16, the last two years of compulsory education: getting your GCSEs is the equivalent of 'graduating' from high school) you usually do between 8-12 different subjects. Some periods are double lessons, and are just two consecutive periods dedicated to one subject (I'm not trying to be patronising, I'm assuming total ignorance to try and avoid missing anything).
Cavediver is proposing that 1 of those double lessons (so 80minutes to 2 hours) be a cross-discipline lesson and since evolution lends itself well to such a lesson and since it is a subject that is proposed to cause problems it sounds like a great lesson to give. The time spent seems minimal, but I think it might be better to increase the amount of time spent on it (there is too little emphasis on discussing how various subjects can tie together, they are fanatically compartmentalised).
The real downside is that the class size would have to be very large since so many teachers will be tied up dealing with it. I can't see tying up all those teachers 10-15 times at one point in the term would be better than teaching the whole year (erm, grade I guess you'd call it) in the assembly hall just once a year.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 09-17-2008 8:21 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 90 of 609 (482656)
09-17-2008 10:34 AM


Michael Reiss Resigns
Here
quote:
The Royal Society’s embattled director of education resigned last night, days after causing uproar among scientists by appearing to endorse the teaching of creationism.
Michael Reiss, a biologist and ordained Church of England clergyman, agreed to step down from his position with the national academy of science after its officers decided that his comments had damaged its reputation.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Deftil, posted 09-18-2008 7:06 AM Modulous has not replied
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 09-18-2008 7:48 AM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024