Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 91 of 609 (482658)
09-17-2008 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Deftil
09-17-2008 10:21 AM


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.)
Understood - but I specifically asked about scientific core concepts in the science class. Why only core scientific concepts and not core concepts that are related to science? It wouldn't be odd to see a chemistry lesson in which a science teacher attempts to explain some of the political problems associated with carbon emissions or global warming. Or a physics teacher might discuss some of the public ramifications surrounding nuclear waste disposal.
In biology, such things as cloning and genetic modifications have social implications that are discussed.
If a physics teacher were to discuss heliocentrism it would seem perfectly natural to discuss the resistance from the church and a simple account of the Galileo incident.
But, perhaps because everybody has become hyper-sensitive to creationism's sneaky tactics or maybe out of fear of legal action...the idea of even mentioning creationism in any context is immediately suspect; it has become something of a taboo, it would seem.
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.
We may disagree on our perceptions, but we agree on the need for caution and weighing things carefully. I think it also wise that we take heed of this advice too, "The policy of being too cautious is the greatest risk of all." -- Jawaharlal Nehru
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.
Entirely. I enjoy barking, but I'd rather not be doing it up the wrong tree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Deftil, posted 09-17-2008 10:21 AM Deftil has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 92 of 609 (482660)
09-17-2008 11:03 AM


You all seem to be divorced from any social context by the scientific method. You seem to have no idea about how your ideas will play out in a classroom, or society at large, because that doesn't figure in the scientific method. You all seem to have no consideration for the decision of the invidual, or parents, or society about what to teach. You all don't seem to acknowledge the integrity of a person to decide what does and what doesn't go in their mind. Therefore for England I suggest to light the 10 pound Darwin notes, and to burn down the schools with them.

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by bluescat48, posted 09-17-2008 1:52 PM Syamsu has replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 93 of 609 (482689)
09-17-2008 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Syamsu
09-17-2008 11:03 AM


You all seem to be divorced from any social context by the scientific method. You seem to have no idea about how your ideas will play out in a classroom, or society at large, because that doesn't figure in the scientific method. You all seem to have no consideration for the decision of the invidual, or parents, or society about what to teach.
So you would go along with the fact that if parents wanted the schools to teach that Hitler was benevelant, or that Stalin was godly, or that the earth was made of chocolate you would agree because the parents want that? (Sounds utterly stupid doesn't it?) The point is that parents or the individual doesn't necessarily know what is right or correct. Science is only science do to the scientific method otherwise it is nothing but blind faith.
Edited by bluescat48, : typos (my tping s#%ks

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 92 by Syamsu, posted 09-17-2008 11:03 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Syamsu, posted 09-17-2008 4:02 PM bluescat48 has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 94 of 609 (482713)
09-17-2008 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by bluescat48
09-17-2008 1:52 PM


Sure I would support the right of parentmembers of the blonde hair blue eyes appreciation society to teach their children as they see fit. Also to do this with shared money of society at large, on the basis of equal money per child. Since the rights too choose are guaranteed it would not promote nazism. Anything is better then being forced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by bluescat48, posted 09-17-2008 1:52 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by bluescat48, posted 09-17-2008 8:49 PM Syamsu has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 95 of 609 (482760)
09-17-2008 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Syamsu
09-17-2008 4:02 PM


Sure I would support the right of parentmembers of the blonde hair blue eyes appreciation society to teach their children as they see fit. Also to do this with shared money of society at large, on the basis of equal money per child. Since the rights too choose are guaranteed it would not promote nazism. Anything is better then being forced.
So then it matters not whether what is taught is true or not as long as the parents can get their children indoctrinated in what ever matter they choose.

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 94 by Syamsu, posted 09-17-2008 4:02 PM Syamsu has not replied

Deftil
Member (Idle past 4455 days)
Posts: 128
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 04-19-2008


Message 96 of 609 (482821)
09-18-2008 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Modulous
09-17-2008 10:34 AM


Re: Michael Reiss Resigns
Holy cow, he had to resign over this? Seems pretty harsh!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2008 10:34 AM Modulous has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 97 of 609 (482827)
09-18-2008 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Modulous
09-17-2008 10:34 AM


Re: Michael Reiss Resigns
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2008 10:34 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2008 9:47 AM Percy has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 98 of 609 (482835)
09-18-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Percy
09-18-2008 7:48 AM


Re: Michael Reiss Resigns
You may have missed it, it was rather stealthy, but I posted a link earlier in the thread to Reiss' original statement. Starting with the phrase you highlight, and continuing it for context:
quote:
I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.
So how might one teach evolution in science lessons, say to 14 to 16-year-olds? Many scientists, and some science educators, fear that consideration of creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom legitimises them.
For example, the excellent book Science, Evolution, and Creationism published by the US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, asserts: "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support."
I agree with the first sentence but disagree with the second. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.
So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.
From Michael Reiss: How to convert a generation
quote:
“An increasing percentage of children in the UK come from families that do not accept the scientific version of the history of the universe and the evolution of species. What are we to do with those children?” he said.
“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 that one really wants them to learn.
“I think a better way forward is to say to them, ’Look, I simply want to present you with the scientific understanding of the history of the universe and how animals and plants and other organisms evolved.” Discussing Creationism in a respectful way made it less likely that children would ignore science or detach from it, he said.
He added that he felt children would not be marked down for expressing creationist opinions in science exams: “As far as I’m aware examinations in science don’t penalise students for giving their personal opinions.”
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 09-18-2008 7:48 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 09-18-2008 10:15 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 101 by bluegenes, posted 09-18-2008 11:35 AM Modulous has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 99 of 609 (482836)
09-18-2008 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Modulous
09-18-2008 9:47 AM


Re: Michael Reiss Resigns
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2008 9:47 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2008 10:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 100 of 609 (482843)
09-18-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy
09-18-2008 10:15 AM


Re: Michael Reiss Resigns
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.
Ok, I did totally forget one cite and gave a completely different one than I meant to for the other, I was posting at work and I ended up having to actually do some work and submitted a little prematurely. Apologies for the confusion.
The first quote is from Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design and the second quote is from UK educator: Teach creationism. You can also hear him talk on the subject here.
What's Myers?
Whose Myers?
PZ Myers.
Not PZ Meyers
Whose wrist is getting slapped? Whose tongue is in their cheek?
Your wrist, my tongue. It's a common misspelling of his name, it crops up a lot on the blog where he posts hatemail.
Anyway, all I was getting at was that it surprises me there weren't more detailed responses to your post about the resignation.
Yeah, his words/actions don't seem to have damaged the reputation of the Royal Society, but the media's headlines have...but he's the only one capable of doing anything about that. It's fairly perverted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 09-18-2008 10:15 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 101 of 609 (482846)
09-18-2008 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Modulous
09-18-2008 9:47 AM


Re: Michael Reiss Resigns
Modulous writes:
You may have missed it, it was rather stealthy, but I posted a link earlier in the thread to Reiss' original statement. Starting with the phrase you highlight, and continuing it for context:
I'm sure Reiss is well intentioned, but let me explain why I emphasised the fact that he is the Reverend Reiss in earlier posts.
Considering the 10% of kids he identifies as being from a YEC background, we could broadly describe three possible eventual results of their exposure to science education in relation to their religions.
(1) They accept the science, and adjust their religions to a version that accommodates it.
(2) They accept the science, and lose all religious beliefs.
(3) They reject all science that conflicts with their beliefs, and remain YECs.
From the point of view of practical science education, the first two are equally desirable.
Where I suggest that a Reverend who is a supporter of science education would differ is that (1) would be his preferred result, (3) second, and (2) third.
The reason I suggest this is that one doesn't become a Reverend without being seriously religious, and without considering belief in God to be about the most important thing in the world. So, it could be that his motives are slightly dubious, but not in the sense of actually wanting to bring his God into the science class in the way that creationists do. His first worry must surely be that the clash of cultures will produce more non-believers from the YEC kids, and therefore an increasingly Godless society.
In other words, he would believe it to be worth spending a lot of time in delicately changing the mindset of the kids, but, horror of horrors, not too far!
The situation here is very different from that in the U.S. because of the relatively low proportion of kids from serious creationist families. However, that will be patchy, because of the high rate amongst families which have arrived in this country over the last few decades from far more superstitious cultures, so some schools will have a creationist percentage way over the national average.
I think the best thing to do is to leave a lot of leeway to individual teachers, so long as guidelines ensure that practical teaching doesn't suffer.
The best way of recognising the problem might be slightly extending teaching which includes easy to understand evidence of the age of the earth, things that can actually be counted like lake varves and ice cores. I'd certainly want varves that contain organic matter that can be neatly cross checked with carbon dating thoroughly explained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Modulous, posted 09-18-2008 9:47 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Syamsu, posted 09-18-2008 4:12 PM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 103 by Modulous, posted 09-19-2008 3:15 AM bluegenes has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 102 of 609 (482878)
09-18-2008 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by bluegenes
09-18-2008 11:35 AM


Re: Michael Reiss Resigns
Thats what liberals are good at, rationalizing towards an optimum. In this case the optimum is science education. But you forget that homo sapiens sapiens, have other purposes in life besides yer optimum. Now go making optimums for the environment, for driving safety, for drug use, for parental care, and generally tear people apart trying to fullfill the optimums. There is still no light in this thread, to fundamentally acknowledge students integrity of mind over the scientific method, which worthless method hasnt even established the free will of the students is real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by bluegenes, posted 09-18-2008 11:35 AM bluegenes has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 103 of 609 (482939)
09-19-2008 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by bluegenes
09-18-2008 11:35 AM


Re: Michael Reiss Resigns
I know what you are saying, but never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization. Double think is very much real. It is possible for a person to think that both science teaching AND belief in God are the most important things without feeling any contradiction.
Given he is but a lowly priest when it comes to God related matters, but was the Director of Education at the Royal society and is Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education amongst other science education related accolades, qualifications and experience would lend me to believe that in practice science education is his life's work even if philosophically speaking he would say that devotion to baby Jesus was more important.
That said, I'm sure the Jesus love may seep across from time to time, colouring this or that. For the most part, I think his desire to better science education is genuine and that his science education glasses are only slightly tinted with the blood of Christ.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by bluegenes, posted 09-18-2008 11:35 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by bluegenes, posted 09-19-2008 4:58 AM Modulous has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 104 of 609 (482943)
09-19-2008 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Modulous
09-19-2008 3:15 AM


Re: Michael Reiss Resigns
Modulous writes:
Double think is very much real. It is possible for a person to think that both science teaching AND belief in God are the most important things without feeling any contradiction.
Undoubtedly, double think is real. However, that still means problems with my 2nd possibility, and would then put it equal with the 3rd, rather than equal first, where the pure, uncontaminated interest of science education would put it.
A school science teacher attempting to promote 2 over three would also have the wrong priority and should be censured, as there's certainly no evidence that compatible theism interferes directly with science understanding.
For the most part, I think his desire to better science education is genuine and that his science education glasses are only slightly tinted with the blood of Christ.
As I said, I'm sure he's well intentioned. I'm only making an educated guess at the tinting, and I don't know enough about him personally to assess the degree of it. His Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the John Polkinghornes of this world are certainly not anti-science, and he's probably in that mold. My maternal grandfather was a Reverend in that church, was born in the 19th century, yet had no problems with Darwinism or other science that I can remember.
To tell you the truth, whether or not we have a future increase in creationism in this country will probably depend more on future immigration policies than on science teaching, the pattern of economic migration in the world being generally from highly religious societies to secular ones. That fact's not much of an advertisement for religion, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Modulous, posted 09-19-2008 3:15 AM Modulous has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 105 of 609 (483298)
09-21-2008 2:25 PM


Teacher on the Frontline
This article was in the NYT section of the Observer today. Seemed very relevant to this discussion.
New York Times
ABE: Firstly apologies to Admin Nosy (see his post below)
It is my view that the teacher in this article is a good example of a teacher who is very able to deal with the difficulties of this topic in a classroom. I think this is exactly the sort of thing Reiss had in mind and that it was therefore unfair the way that this panned out for him.
However I know that I would have not been nearly so competent if faced with this situation when I was a 23 year old newly qualified science teacher. Faced with a student bearing a copy of "10 things to ask about evolution" I would very probably have been caught totally unawares. Nor do I think most science teachers would relish this situation.
In most cases science teachers are members of the communities in which they teach both by residence and, in many cases, upbringing. Many may have some sympathy with the prevalent views of that community whether they fully agree with them or not.
I don't think it is fair to inflict the position of evolutionary advocate on science teachers such that they are forced to become the focal point for the ongoing dispute between religion and science within their communities.
The problem of faith based anti science feelings are problems for the whole of society not solely for individual science teachers. In practical terms allowing this subject into the classroom to any great extent, no matter how the noble the intentions may be, will detract from the teaching of science. Make it clear what is science and what is not with reasoned argument and then get on with teaching that which is.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by AdminNosy, posted 09-21-2008 5:10 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 107 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 06-24-2009 6:02 PM Straggler has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024