Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

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. 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? I'm somewhat open to the idea that explaining things in a child-and-religion-friendly manner might be wise, but my concern is that this could serve to dilute the actual scientific information in the education, and that it may be a slippery slope that eventually allows for strictly religious ideas to be taught as if they are as scientifically viable as the actual scientific theories.

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.

---

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?

I'm firmly in favor of the idea of teaching children some philosophy of science in science class, but only basics such as the scientific method and why we use it. It really sounds to me that the philosophy you're talking about is more along the lines of psychology and theology though. I understand that you're just saying it might be wise to set the table up for these kids to be receptive to science, but I'm skeptical how far we can safely go in that endeavor before the actual science gets compromised and put out of perspective. Certainly not at the expense of the children's education. But we have to beware of a potential decline in the quality of the science education when we consider making any changes.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.

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. To the degree necessary, I feel this is already done. I briefly learned about those things in my science class. But let's go back to your OP:

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

I really think you can already do this as long as you don't spend an inordinate amount of time on it. Spending a lot of time on it would make it philosophical, and best to discuss in another class.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.

quote:

---

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. 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.

---

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.But I don't think that point falls under allowing "Creationism in science classrooms" either because it's still in reference to making them learn evolution, a.k.a. non-creationism.

quote:

---

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.

---

Now, if THIS is taken to mean that creationism should be allowed to be presented as an explanation for the diversity of life on our planet, then THIS would actually qualify as allowing creationism into science classrooms. 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. 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? Some systems are more prone to abuse than others. Can you substantiate this claim please? Can you specifically point out the signs of failure in the current system? Getting a well rounded education is good, and something I'm generally for, but I am still REALLY skeptical of actually letting creationism in science class. I am however for more philosophy classes at the high school level.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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%. 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 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... 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.

People who want children to get a good education. 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. 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. 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 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. 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 EvolutionSo, 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. 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.

Holy cow, he had to resign over this? Seems pretty harsh!