|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9189 total) |
| |
Michaeladams | |
Total: 918,943 Year: 6,200/9,624 Month: 48/240 Week: 63/34 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think this is a false dilemma. You can accept that other non-scientific ideas exist without feeling that it's appropriate to discuss them in a science class. I'm not proposing any significant discussion on other ideas - just acknowledgement that there are people who hold ideas that are (sometimes radically) different from the scientific consensus.
Ok, so the way I see it, what is suggested here is that "science class" could be expanded into "science and philosophy class" because most of what is discussed in the above paragraph is philosophy. I think philosophy is awesome, but do we want to mix it with our science class? Philosophy should be taught in science, because science is a methodology on the back of 'philosophy of science'. I am only proposing, however, a brief history of ideas on the subject at hand. People used to believe x because of a.Then they changed that to y because of b. Science has shown that x and y are problematic and that z is a better explanation because of c, d, e and f (whilst also consistent with a and b) Isn't it really correct to exclude non-scientific explanations from science classes? Isn't getting away from these ideas what science was ultimately founded upon, and what has resulted in so much of its success? Wouldn't allowing these things into science class be a step backward? If it were a logic puzzle, maybe you'd be right. But education is more than a logic puzzle, it requires more finesse since it deals with illogical beings called schoolkids. If 10-50% of the class isn't listening because of the football game outside - it might be wise to tell the kids that the football game is interesting, but that they should focus on the class at hand. Sometimes you may even want to talk to kids about the game for a little while so that they feel their teacher isn't an ogrish inhuman monster. The analogy is a little stretched, I agree, but is it wise to rigidly compartmentalize education?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In spite of some of the comments on this thread, creationism is a religious belief, and it, along with associated ideas such as a young earth, have no scientific evidence to support them. Largely agreed. Creationism is a broad religious position generally encompasing three major branches that share a common ancestor allegedly via some guy from Iraq. Though one could be pedantic and refer to Hindu creationism - but I think we can let that slip
So the problem comes down to whether you teach science in science classes and let feelings be hurt on occasion, or whether you censor science for all students in order to protect a small number of students from learning what has been discovered by mainstream science.
I don't agree that there are only two ways to deal with it. My proposal is mostly the first but also recognizing that certain students will simply resist because it goes against their (usually parental) indoctrination. It doesn't serve our purpose (educating children) to ignore this significant hurdle to learning. Having a firm belief that science is wrong and that accepting evolution is akin spitting on the body of baby Jesus, is as much as a learning disability as dyslexia. Can educators afford to simply ignore such a significant learning disability? You say it is a 'small number of students', it may be small - but it is more common than dyslexia in many areas of the world.
Since the Enlightenment, we no longer have to kowtow to religious authority and science is free to go where the data leads. Science education and science are different things, though. We teach convenient 'lies' to children in science education (Bohr's model for example) and students don't exist in a vacuum. Scientific concepts have social ramifications and bulldozing over them simply reinforces the opinion that science is cold and arrogant - increasing the divide and actively harming scientific education in the nation, no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
It really sounds to me that the philosophy you're talking about is more along the lines of psychology and theology though. Not at all. I'm proposing that teachers know and apply child psychology, that's the only psychology involved. The rest is about discussing a brief history of ideas both scientific and pre-scientific.
But we have to beware of a potential decline in the quality of the science education when we consider making any changes. Naturally. And we have to be aware of a potential decline in the quality of scientific knowledge and expertise if the next generation are more hostile to science than the previous one. Such things are downward spirals.
You make a good point though, about trying to present the information to kids in a way that they will be receptive to it. That's important. But I'm concerned that allowing the brief discussion you are referring to might do more to create a slippery slope that gets abused to the detriment of science education than to actually open children's minds to science.
Granted - but any system is open to abuse: America is already on a slippery slope with only the ever present threat of significant legal ramifications protecting children from being taught outright lies in the science class room. As with many things, Britain are behind America by only a generation or two. Other factors may prevent us from slipping so quickly - but clearly the American 'don't talk about religion in any way in science classrooms' policy has not been an overwhelming success. Remember - here in Britain we emphatically do not have seperation of church and state. Meanwhile, my evolution education included theistic evolution, teleology and the like. This happened before 'science' classes and 'maths' classes: this was when we just had one class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Fine. So which of the thousand or so creation myths becomes X. I don't propose we should teach creation myths: I propose that X should be more like 'the world was created by something like God' or that Y might be 'the world had existed forever'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Dyslexia is not a good comparison, as its root causes are physical, and there's no known cure, so education is about recognising it and finding ways around it. I don't see how differing root causes are an issue. As far as the school is concerned it is not their business to 'cure' people of religious delusions so they are in the same position. Education for both should be about recognising it and finding ways around it. At the moment, the current wisdom is 'ignore that it's a problem and hope for the best' - which is hardly giving the children the best chances is it?
The Reverend Whatshisname in your O.P. is part of the problem. Although his particular interpretation of religion may not conflict with science, he will be a supporter of the general idea of religious indoctrination, and the silly bugger should be told that that is the root cause of the problem. What is required is not laws, but a change in culture that recognises that any heavy indoctrination with political ideology or religion is a form of child abuse. Well yes, that would be nice I agree - but it's a long term solution. Meantime, some kids are getting short shrifted in education, and no doubt when they grow up they are likely to pass on their disability. And yes, Prof. Rev. Whatshisface's attitude is part of a larger problem: but I'd rather the next generation was like Prof Rev. Whatshecalled than they were like John Mackay. At least a generation of Prof Rev Reiss' are more likely to breed a generation of sane people than Mackaysians are. Further commentary from Reiss:
quote: Don't get me wrong - I appreciate that the situation is precarious, with educational dangers lurking left right and centre, but that goes both ways as far as I can tell. Michael Reiss maybe wrong on some counts and we almost certainly disagree on the finer points - however he isn't a crackpot and his opinions are certainly worth seriously considering.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Will this creation idea be subjected to the "critical analysis" that science excels at (and that creationists want applied to the theory of evolution but not to their own beliefs)? A science class can teach that creationism is a belief held by some number of people, but any details of those beliefs should be subject to critical analysis.
The way I described it in Message 23, was as thus:
quote: Which seems appropriately critical to me, yes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But isn't creation science what is taught in the classroom today? Just not the Bible version or the many other versions of creationist. Creation science is not science with regards to things being created - otherwise home economics could be viewed as creation science, as could certain art classes! Creation science is a self-chosen monikor describing a pseudoscientific fringe Christian movement.
Why is the creation view that is presently taught more correct than any of the rest? It isn't about being more correct. It is about adhering to certain rigorous standards in line with the scientific method. 'Creation science' does not do this, neither does 'intelligent design theory' so they cannot be 'taught' in the same kind of way one might teach the theory of evolution.
If they are not all studied how can true knowledge be found? They are all studied - some have been studied and have led nowhere and only a few people bother to study them further. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But if you actually bring any of creationism into the science class and treat it as you would another science subject (with critical analysis) you may do more to alienate your intended audience than you do by keeping it out.
I'm not suggesting gleefully pointing out all the problems with common creationist talking points. I'm suggesting we say "Some scientists used to think the earth was quite young, principally because of Biblical sources: others thought the world has existed forever - let's talk about how the current scientific concesus was reached...first was Lord Kelvin..."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Education is no longer their business? Of course it is. Education is their business, so they must ethically work around any impediments that exist to carrying out their business.
Religious beliefs that do not conflict with observed reality are not their business, but blatant misconceptions are. Reiss suggests that creationism should be seen as a world view, rather than a misconception. It is a "world view", but a misconceived one Most 'creationists', in every day UK life (in my experience), don't really know detailed creationist talking points except a couple of half assed vaguely remembered things that they heard someone mention once or twice. They know they exist, they know that they believe what the bible/Koran says and that's that. It's not about misconceptions, it's about something much more significant than that. Education shouldn't be about saying 'You're wrong. Your parents are ignoramuses and your Imam is a dangerous polluter of young people's minds. The Truth is...'. While I'm not entirely onboard with Reiss's view of it, I accept this much. It might be better to simply say 'I appreciate that the Islamic worldview says this or that, however we are talking about science here today so let's work through the problem from a scientific position'. If a pupil goes further than disagreeing with science and actually demonstrates a common creationist misconception about how radiodating works - then they should be corrected of course. And I don't mean 'I know some muslims think that radiodating is lies' but unequivocal 'No - that's wrong. The details are somewhat beyond the scope of this class, however - in short here is how radiodating actually functions...here is some further reading if you want to learn more'.
Reiss may not be a crackpot, but he is dubious. Dubious in what sense? You disagree with him? He does seem to have a lot of experience in UK science education - I wouldn't be surprised if he is eyeing Dawkins' chair and that the recent flurry of newspaper articles is a prelude to getting known.
Would he spend time on the flat earth in geography if 10% of kids came from a flat earth believing background, or on astrology when teaching astronomy (and 10% probably do have parents who take their star signs seriously)?
I'd imagine he'd acknowledge that some people think that the world is flat, but then go on to explain the specific reasons as to why scientists (and mathematicians before them) reached the conclusion that it is not. As for astrology: I actually studied astronomy at high school as a seperate subject and I believed in atrology (ie had astrology charts, and tables and would do my own horroscopes, birth charts (by hand) and basically the whole hog). Astrology, unless you go ultra deep into it, doesn't disagree with astronomy particularly. But yes, if members of an educator's class have some kind of pre-taken position which is so at odds with the curriculum that the child will probably experience cognitive dissonance, ideally the educator should try and figure out a way to work around this. Naturally - in the real world of standardised tests, class sizes that are too big, disruptive pupils, tiny amounts of time to cover a large amount of material and so and so forth scupper simple solutions one might propose on an internet forum. The 'ignore it completely' smacks me as a simple solution that might be worth revising.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So actually this discussion is not about creation. Things coming into existence. No, its about predominantly about Creationism, the worldview/conspiracy theory that evolutionary biology is filled with lies and disinformation and it is about how to square that with the education of school children.
Science has no knowledge of how creation happened. They hide behind, "We don't know". Creationist on the other hand put forth several ways that creation could have taken place. This is not a 'evolution versus creationism' or 'General Relativity and Creation ex nihilo' thread so the merits and flaws of each are only side issues. We're talking about education of people with entrenched worldviews that oppose the academic consensus. Let's say you were teaching a child about embryology, specifically the development of a human embryo. You notice that no matter how much detail you go into in class, 25% of your students always answer questions on the test like this:
quote: Let us say that this is the marking scheme. Would you agree that the teacher would have to give very low marks for this kind of response? How should a teacher deal with this? It keeps happening, children are giving answers that correspond with 2nd Century science because the students are told that the beliefs of certain religious thinkers are to be held as inviolable. Does the teacher ignore it? Teach it to the other children as a valid alternative? Admit that certain worldviews may disagree on the details science has uncovered but stress that this is a science class and to get the marks pupils are required to understand and answer questions within a scientific context: if they hold a worldview that causes conflict with science they should speak to their pries/rabbi/imam/school councillor/whomever. Perhaps you have a better alternative? That is the type of topic we are discussing here. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Dubious because he's a religious person trying to extend the influence of religion into the science classes. If he was an atheist doing the same thing, would he be equally dubious? I'm not making an accusation, but be careful of prejudices, they can be insidious. I'm as atheist as can be and a little antitheist for good measure, but he raises a good point. I don't see any evidence presented that leads to the conclusion that he's trying to extend the influence of religion in science classes (though I have seen evidence outside of this thread that might somewhat support the hypothesis)- from what I have read it seems that he is advocating that we acknowledge that religion already has significant influence in the science class and is pointing out that ignoring this influence might be detrimental to the education of children. He is talking strategy. I'll grant that the exact details would have to be carefully set out, that there would be cock-ups and problems with any system put in place (like there are with today's system)- but I can't see an inherent problem with the broad idea. A little research pays off though: the reason I consider him dubious is because he has written in a journal titled Biblical Creation, about human life support factors in Genesis, and although I haven't read what he wrote - my experience with these kinds of journals would lead me to believe that it was a work of Christian apologetics.
I would be surprised if he's eyeing Dawkins' chair, and so would Charles Symonyi I imagine! Perhaps - his study seems to me to be somewhat leaning towards 'study {of} the public’s perception of [science]' rather than necessarily contributing to the public understanding, but 20 years significantly contributing to science education in the UK is nothing to be ignored.
I don't think that the 90% should be slowed down by the 10% in science classes in any way, and that the battle is really a long term one outside the science classes, and it's the battle against the heavy indoctrination of children with mumbo jumbo. And I agree. Where we disagree I suspect is whether or not Reiss' or my own ideas would slow down education or not for those 90%. It might be worth reading a book he collaborated on: Teaching about Scientific Origins: Taking Account of Creationism, I've not read it - but perhaps it would clarify his position above and beyond some press articles? To be honest, I suspect that Reiss and I would strongly disagree on one aspect or probably more on the specifics, but it is hard to ignore his concerns or broad suggestions of strategy when it comes to dealing with it.
The Reverend Reiss might be a good example of how liberal religion can inadvertently protect and promote fundamentalism. He might be, but an argument would have to be made. It is lax of you to simply refer to him as 'Reverend Reiss': he may be a practicing priest but he is also a practicing professor, his correct title is 'Reverend Professor' or at least 'Reverend Doctor'. Another thing that helps fundamentalism though, is playing right into its hands. If science teachers were to ignore creationism and simply be seen to assert that evolution is the way - fundamentalist propaganda that science teachers 'ignore the holes' or 'ignore alternative theories out of fear' will appear more credible to the credulous. Here in the UK, teachers are generally told to not discuss it, unless a pupil brings it up, at which point the pre-Darwin creationist ideas can be contrasted with Darwin's to show how the scientific method works in practice. I feel this is a good starting place, but I also feel that this valuable lesson should not be reserved solely for the occasional class that has at least one pupil who has questions about creationism, and is brave/motivated enough to ask them in a science class. I suggest stating outright that the dominant view of biology both inside and outside the sciences used to be creationism - a predominantly religious doctrine that says that God or gods created the world - but now, the work of Darwin and his predecessors has come to be more commonly accepted as the correct understanding. Religious scholars have rethought old dogma to take into account the changing understandings of the universe according to science. But how did scientists manage to demonstrate to people who strongly believed books such as the Bible were definitive texts on the origins of species? Darwin applied his rigorous attention to detail and collected many types of evidence and wove them together into one grand explanatory framework. A framework that is now central to understanding our modern view of biology. It goes like this... In general, I'm opposed to the sometime touted concept of 'framing', but creationism is going to be tied to evolutionism in the same way that 'time is absolute, the speed of light in a vacuum is relative' will be tied to 'the speed of light in a vacuum is absolute, time is relative' or 'Steady State' will be associated with 'Big Bang' or maybe like 'bad humours/evil spirits' will be connected with 'Germ Theory'. It is useful to discuss the ideas that academics had before they changed their minds, since it helps explain the evidence that managed to change the consensus. It gives us a context, a story to hold to, and stories are excellent ways of learning things. To exclude creationism from this process seems crazy to me. I am not proposing we teach people what AiG wants taught or even the DI, no nonsense about modern creationists and their pseudoscience, just teach what used to be thought and why it isn't the case now. Perhaps with a nod to the fact that there exists some religious people that continue to believe the pre-Darwin ideas, with some modern twists - but that the ideas are not scientifically supported.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 175 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 175 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024