Teaching the controversy?

[Siderite]

Well, it will certainly sideline those forms of Christianity that demand belief in a young Earth and all that for adherence. In order to survive in the US if this were done, Christianity would need to change, as it should have nearly 200 years ago when we found out about deep time and all that.

That it would Chalnoth.

 

[RealityCheck]

Well, it will certainly sideline those forms of Christianity that demand belief in a young Earth and all that for adherence. In order to survive in the US if this were done, Christianity would need to change, as it should have nearly 200 years ago when we found out about deep time and all that.

Heck, Chalnoth... it took the Catholic Church about 400 years to formally recognize that they had wrongfully imprisoned Galileo for teaching that the earth went around the sun. The church in general is very slow to make significant changes.

 

[Siderite]

Heck, Chalnoth... it took the Catholic Church about 400 years to formally recognize that they had wrongfully imprisoned Galileo for teaching that the earth went around the sun. The church in general is very slow to make significant changes.

I think this is one of situations were our interpretation of the bible needs to change, in light of current evidences.

I can not believe that God is deceiving us in such a manner.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, it will certainly sideline those forms of Christianity that demand belief in a young Earth and all that for adherence. In order to survive in the US if this were done, Christianity would need to change, as it should have nearly 200 years ago when we found out about deep time and all that.

Religions change all the time.

I am unsure if they should, rather than simply *&^% ceasing to exist (in a sense the true word of God hardly requires reinterpretation, if it is found lacking then it is not the true word of God).

*&%^$.

But indeed Christianity seems pretty resilient to weathering the "cultural zeitgeist" as Dawkin's discusses in "The God Delusion". It has been possible to stand on firm biblical ground on both sides of the slavery debate here in the U.S. and clearly issues like capital punishment can be backed or denied based on sound Biblical exegesis.

The Church responds to *&^$%#$ changes with great alacrity, if not necessarily speediness.

I always assume that as the world got larger, the church would enlarge as well. And I think that is evidenced by the fact that most christians are likely evolutionists today. It's hard to deny that much data.

But of course it will be the hardliners who raise the biggest voice but ultimately the religion will swing around. The U.S. is just a little slower than many.

Oh, btw, sorry about the occasional "&^%$".

 

[David Gould]

My thinking is this: what outcome do we want?

The outcome that I want is for people to reject creationism. If one effective means of doing so is to teach them creationism in order to refute it, then perhaps that should be done.

With regard to whether it should be done in science class or in some other class, the problem here is that we need to do it in the class where the rejection of creationism matters. And it matters in science.

 

[thaumaturgy]

My thinking is this: what outcome do we want?

The outcome that I want is for people to reject creationism. If one effective means of doing so is to teach them creationism in order to refute it, then perhaps that should be done.

With regard to whether it should be done in science class or in some other class, the problem here is that we need to do it in the class where the rejection of creationism matters. And it matters in science.

Agreed. However, in science creationism will always come out on the bottom if only by dint of the massive amounts of data in support of Evolution. Since that is almost never the goal of creationism's drive to teach the controversy, it should be discussed but only in a situation where it is presented to scientifically literate individuals.

Personally I wish I'd had a "Philosophy of Science" class in unnergrad, but the closest I came was some massive waste of time run by a bloviating windbag who thought he was teaching a philosophy of science type class. I knew the difference because by that time I'd take about 2 or 3 philosophy classes.

So in essence a good rounded science curriculum in undergrad should include philosophy of science (What Science Is) along with the hard-number-crunching classes. That way it would offer a reason to discuss topics like creationism and phlogiston and phrenology and homeopathy.

*&^%#$, but that's just an idea.

 

[TheBellman]

My thinking is this: what outcome do we want?

The outcome that I want is for people to reject creationism. If one effective means of doing so is to teach them creationism in order to refute it, then perhaps that should be done.

With regard to whether it should be done in science class or in some other class, the problem here is that we need to do it in the class where the rejection of creationism matters. And it matters in science.

I very much disagree here. By the same logic, we should spend time in history class studying Holocause denial, and in geogrophy studying the flat earth, and so on.

There are ideas that are not supported by the consensus in their fields. Those ideas should not be taught as part of the study of that field. Creationism has no part in a science class, any more than does studies of the aether, phlogiston or geocentricity.

 

[Chalnoth]

I very much disagree here. By the same logic, we should spend time in history class studying Holocause denial, and in geogrophy studying the flat earth, and so on.

There are ideas that are not supported by the consensus in their fields. Those ideas should not be taught as part of the study of that field. Creationism has no part in a science class, any more than does studies of the aether, phlogiston or geocentricity.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it might be good to get some exposure to such things in order to demonstrate why they're so incredibly wrong. But it only makes sense to focus on those things that are accepted by large portions of the public, like creationism/ID.

 

[TheBellman]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it might be good to get some exposure to such things in order to demonstrate why they're so incredibly wrong. But it only makes sense to focus on those things that are accepted by large portions of the public, like creationism/ID.

Dont' get me wrong - I certainly understand where you're coming from. But I think we need to send a clear message that pseudo-science has NO place in science, and that creationism is pseudo-science. The best way to do that (I believe) is to ensure it stays out of the science class room.

 

[David Gould]

I very much disagree here. By the same logic, we should spend time in history class studying Holocause denial, and in geogrophy studying the flat earth, and so on.

No, because there is no problem here - a substantial portion of the population do not believe those sorts of things, do they?

We are talking about a problem in soceity whereby lots of people believe in something that just is not true. How do we solve that problem?

There are ideas that are not supported by the consensus in their fields. Those ideas should not be taught as part of the study of that field. Creationism has no part in a science class, any more than does studies of the aether, phlogiston or geocentricity.

What is the aim of a science course? Is it not to demonstrate to the students the best current theories of the day, get them to accept why they are the best current theories of the day and to teach them just what science is?

Is it a victory when we have millions of students in the United States, and a seemingly growing number of others around the world, coming out of high school rejecting evolution and accepting creationism?

 

[TheBellman]

No, because there is no problem here - a substantial portion of the population do not believe those sorts of things, do they?

We are talking about a problem in soceity whereby lots of people believe in something that just is not true. How do we solve that problem?

I believe it is by improving science education; including creationism does not, in my opinion, improve it.

What is the aim of a science course? Is it not to demonstrate to the students the best current theories of the day, get them to accept why they are the best current theories of the day and to teach them just what science is?

Of course. In teaching evolutionary theory the evidence for it is presented. There is no need to teach or even mention religious beliefs.

Is it a victory when we have millions of students in the United States, and a seemingly growing number of others around the world, coming out of high school rejecting evolution and accepting creationism?

Of course it's not. But I don't believe including creationism is the way to achieve the victory we both want.

 

[David Gould]

I believe it is by improving science education; including creationism does not, in my opinion, improve it.

Wouldn't demonstrating how creationism is wrong improve science education?

Of course. In teaching evolutionary theory the evidence for it is presented. There is no need to teach or even mention religious beliefs.

But this strategy is not working.

Of course it's not. But I don't believe including creationism is the way to achieve the victory we both want.

The current strategy is not working. There is evidence - admittedly only one small test - that another strategy would work better.

What other strategies would you propose?

 

[TheBellman]

Wouldn't demonstrating how creationism is wrong improve science education?

But this strategy is not working.

The current strategy is not working. There is evidence - admittedly only one small test - that another strategy would work better.

What other strategies would you propose?

I will have to think about this.

 

[Dragar]

David makes a good point. Creationism is a very pervasive myth. Ignoring it is not working. Maybe something else could.

 

[Dal M.]

But I'm not sure allowing creationism in the science classroom for any reason is a good idea. Here, one of my old high school science teachers was teaching creationism in class even though this was clearly, inescapably not permitted. Just think of what he'd have tried to get away with if the school board had said, "Well, it's all right to teach creationism in your science class, provided..."

 

[David Gould]

But I'm not sure allowing creationism in the science classroom for any reason is a good idea. Here, one of my old high school science teachers was teaching creationism in class even though this was clearly, inescapably not permitted. Just think of what he'd have tried to get away with if the school board had said, "Well, it's all right to teach creationism in your science class, provided..."

I understand this point. However, this comes down to teacher education, too. If science teachers still believe creationism, you have to admit that there is a huge problem with science education up to and including university level. In Australia, to be a science teacher in high school you need a science degree, and I am assuming something similar holds in the US. If significant numbers of people with science degrees are coming out of the system still believing creationism, something new needs to be done now.

 

[TheBellman]

I understand this point. However, this comes down to teacher education, too. If science teachers still believe creationism, you have to admit that there is a huge problem with science education up to and including university level. In Australia, to be a science teacher in high school you need a science degree, and I am assuming something similar holds in the US. If significant numbers of people with science degrees are coming out of the system still believing creationism, something new needs to be done now.

Another point is that in the US at least, this would never fly. As soon as you start falsifying creationism in science classes, the creationists are going to complain that you are bashing their religious beliefs. Separation of church and state would mean that if you can't teach religous beliefs, nor can you contradict them. Now it's bad enough if existing science implicitly contradicts some religious beliefs, but to explicitly contradct them....

 

[David Gould]

Another point is that in the US at least, this would never fly. As soon as you start falsifying creationism in science classes, the creationists are going to complain that you are bashing their religious beliefs. Separation of church and state would mean that if you can't teach religous beliefs, nor can you contradict them. Now it's bad enough if existing science implicitly contradicts some religious beliefs, but to explicitly contradct them....

The fact that teaching evolution, which directly and explicitly contradicts their religious belief, is supported by the courts makes me feel that creationists would not have a legal leg to stand on. But you may be right. I still feel that it would be well worth testing.

 

[Chalnoth]

The fact that teaching evolution, which directly and explicitly contradicts their religious belief, is supported by the courts makes me feel that creationists would not have a legal leg to stand on. But you may be right. I still feel that it would be well worth testing.

Especially since the creationist crowd so far has been trying to claim that their 'theories' aren't religious in nature. It would be fun to turn it right back on them

Edit: By the way, why has there not been a single creationist poster in this thread? Seems odd...

 

[shernren]

Come to think of it, I've had personal experience over this whole "teach the controversy" thing. In my country we simply don't touch biological origins at high school level at all (a fact I've complained in my local newspapers about ;D), but in Form 3 (15 years old) we had to do a science project, and a Christian friend and I decided that we should try doing one on evolution vs. creation. So we went exploring all over the Internet and collected a whole bunch of creationist and evolutionist evidence.

Looking back, it was quite an unsuitable idea for two 15-year-olds, and it was an important factor that led me to support creationism for the next 3 or 4 years. We got a pretty crazy mixed bag of creationist PRATTs. Some of them were blindingly obvious, like that "evolution contradicts thermodynamics" one (and my friend had a fun time emailing AiG with an article showing that entropy can spontaneously increase on a nanoscopic level), but many were difficult to spot like claims that "the horse fossil series is false" or my personal favorite, the bombardier beetle is irreducibly complex.

You may argue that I should have been critical, but seriously: critical scientific thinking is not a very prevalent characteristic among teenagers, as far as I know. The typical 15-year-old interested in science is looking for the esoteric and the magical; to him, astronomy is often far more Star Trek or BSG than Hubble Telescope, and physics is always about quantum nonsense instead of the bread-and-butter of kinematics, cars and billiard balls endlessly colliding in absurdly friction-free environments, and the boring details of why buildings stay standing and what cement has to do with it. The schoolchild showing any interest in science is often into it looking for something to believe, not something to critique.

All this plays into the grand image of creationism as a shadowy movement of brilliant scientists, discovering new truths (spoken about in an ancient religious document, at that! How much more fantastical can you get?), and whose goal of spreading global enlightenment is only hampered by the persecution of an even more shadowy Evolutionist Conspiracy in the grand and foreboding ivory towers of universities and scientific labs worldwide. The combination of disrespect for authority, identification with rebellion, attraction towards the esoteric, and sheer ignorance can be deadly.

Creationism presented in the classroom may well turn into a Gish gallop impossible to deal with by normal pedagogical methods. After roughly two years of debating creationism on this forum I still have to learn new things and read more papers on many little details which turn creationist arguments on their heads. If it is taking me this long and this much work to refute creationism, and with me on the edge of obtaining a scientific education ... how much more difficult will it be with a roomful of teenagers more interested in science fiction than science?