There is a similar style of thread proposed by Syamsu, but the core argument is different.
It was originally going to be a 'In the News' piece, but I think it might lead to a debate anyway. The article in question is from the
Grauniad.
quote:
The Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, said that excluding alternatives to scientific explanations for the origin of life and the universe from science lessons was counterproductive and would alienate some children from science altogether.
He said that around one in 10 children comes from a family with creationist beliefs. "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
And essentially I agree, though tackling the problems will not be easy. The science classrooms should not evolve into origins debates, but learning the history of ideas behind every concept in science helps understand how the reasoning works, and why it has come to supplant previous ideas.
The broken system
More to the point: the discussion should start at least by 11 years old (UK education). The idea of spending only a few weeks on evolutionary biology in the five years of high school (now six or even seven years), almost entirely focussed on the final two years seems as sane as spending a comparable amount of time on Newton's laws of motion in Physics (spending all the rest of the time learning the names of experimental aparatus, different types of lever, pulley, fulcrum...essentially the 'anatomy' of physics).
I see no harm in starting science by saying that there are many things people have thought to explain using magic or religious ideas, which have fallen into disfavour as scientific knowledge has increased. The origins of life is one such arena, which has caused significant controversy because it cuts to the heart of many religious beliefs.
Neither do I see any harm in warning school children that it is easy to let preconceptions, and traditional/cultural ideas colour our understanding of how the universe should work which in turn can lead to errors when using the scientific methodology to try and figure out alternative possibilities.
Finally, advising pupils that it is entirely possible to be religious and accept evolution - though it may require changing some very deeply personal beliefs about our place in the universe (I work with several people who were surprised to learn that this is the case despite being in their mid-twenties!). If a pupil doesn't want to do this, they should try to put aside their religious convictions as best they can to try and understand the science independent of their own beliefs.
Reiss' exact plan is unclear, but another science educator is quoted:
quote:
Prof John Bryant, professor emeritus of cell and molecular biology at the University of Exeter, agreed that alternative viewpoints should be discussed in science classes. "If the class is mature enough and time permits, one might have a discussion on the alternative viewpoints. However, I think we should not present creationism (or intelligent design) as having the same status as evolution."
Which I think is a good starting place, with possible overhauls later on down the line.
Dawkinsian tangent:
Finally, since it is in the article (though not entirely on my own topic), Reiss criticizes Dawkins:
quote:
Reiss also criticised Prof Richard Dawkins' argument that labelling children as belonging to a particular religion amounted to child abuse...
Reiss said he understood Dawkins' point, but said: "This is an inappropriate and insulting use of the phrase child abuse as anybody who has ever worked - as incidentally I have over many years with children who have been either sexually or physically abused - knows
I think this might say something about Reiss, since this neglects the fact that Dawkins was (mildly) sexually abused as a boy and also neglects that Dawkins stresses that the abuse was 'mental child abuse' and that finally, Dawkins is of the opinion that some mental abuse can be worse than some sexual abuse.
I include this in my OP because it is attached to the article cited, and will probably come up anyway.
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. What are people's opinions on mentioning teleology as a way of leading to explaining natural selection as a design-argument-buster? On providing historical context on the various beliefs and ideas that preceded Darwinism (not just the religious ones)? And how some of those ideas remain in popular belief?
Each way of handling the situation has its own pitfalls, so which is ultimately better?
Education and Creation/Evolution, please.
™ Version 4.2