Teaching the controversy?

[David Gould]

But the curriculum will be controlled by the teacher. In other words, certain things will be shown, such as obvious creationist lies and some of the usual pratts, along with the tactics (such as quote mining) in order to teach young people the kinds of things to look for and the kinds of questions to ask of those who push creationism. In other words, we are not offering creationism as another valid theory; we are teaching why it isn't a valid theory.

 

[JohnR7]

What do people think about this?

I think they should have taught them the GAP or ruin reconstruction theory of Creationism. This theory is supported by all of the available scientific evidence. So the more you learn about science the better you understand the reconstructionist theory.

GAP takes the OEC and YEC and ties them together and goes beyond them. Also it ties together dispensationalism and the day age theorys of creation.

Otherwise, if your looking at ID there does not seem to be much science to back up the theory. Science does not seem to confirm or strengthen the ID theory the way that Science strengthens the GAP theory of Creation.

 

[Chalnoth]

But the curriculum will be controlled by the teacher. In other words, certain things will be shown, such as obvious creationist lies and some of the usual pratts, along with the tactics (such as quote mining) in order to teach young people the kinds of things to look for and the kinds of questions to ask of those who push creationism. In other words, we are not offering creationism as another valid theory; we are teaching why it isn't a valid theory.

Well, that'd be nice. But it'd be rather hard to get some teachers to do that, sadly.

 

[Chalnoth]

Hey, a creationist response! Wow, took long enough.

I think they should have taught them the GAP or ruin reconstruction theory of Creationism. This theory is supported by all of the available scientific evidence. So the more you learn about science the better you understand the reconstructionist theory.

GAP takes the OEC and YEC and ties them together and goes beyond them. Also it ties together dispensationalism and the day age theorys of creation.

Otherwise, if your looking at ID there does not seem to be much science to back up the theory. Science does not seem to confirm or strengthen the ID theory the way that Science strengthens the GAP theory of Creation.

Yeah, that's just wrong. No creationist 'theory' presented even comes close to agreeing with science. Either the 'theory' in question is wholly unfalsifiable, making it nothing more than wishful thinking, or it was falsified by science long ago.

 

[RedAndy]

I think they should have taught them the GAP or ruin reconstruction theory of Creationism. This theory is supported by all of the available scientific evidence. So the more you learn about science the better you understand the reconstructionist theory.

GAP takes the OEC and YEC and ties them together and goes beyond them. Also it ties together dispensationalism and the day age theorys of creation.

Otherwise, if your looking at ID there does not seem to be much science to back up the theory. Science does not seem to confirm or strengthen the ID theory the way that Science strengthens the GAP theory of Creation.

Please explain how science in any way supports Gap Creationism. As far as I can tell all forms of Creationism are equally unfounded in the face of evidence.

 

[lemmings]

GAP takes the OEC and YEC and ties them together and goes beyond them. Also it ties together dispensationalism and the day age theorys of creation.

John, blending two myths does not make it any more factual.

Example: Hot wings taste good, I also love ice cream, however, lactose intolerant vegetarians would disagree with me. Putting the two in a blender will not make either them or me happier. All I’ll get is some cold chicken mixed with some vanilla flavored bone and Tabasco sauce, this really doesn’t taste so good.

 

[shernren]

But the curriculum will be controlled by the teacher. In other words, certain things will be shown, such as obvious creationist lies and some of the usual pratts, along with the tactics (such as quote mining) in order to teach young people the kinds of things to look for and the kinds of questions to ask of those who push creationism. In other words, we are not offering creationism as another valid theory; we are teaching why it isn't a valid theory.

I suppose you're right to a large extent. However, this now raises the question of what sort of class this should be done in? Spotting quotemines, critically analyzing texts, and finding counter-evidence is not really Biology. Some of it is fundamental to biology, and others are complementary to, but none of it is really science. In essence, your proposal (not a bad one) may well result in us defending science more than we teach it.

On an aside, I just discovered (through a very recent copy of Numbers' The Creationists) that evolution was indeed removed from our (Malaysian) biology texts by Islamic reformists. It sounds plausible, though I haven't seen enough to say without reservation that it really happened. The heavy emphasis on human uniqueness and responsibility doesn't quite add up to Intelligent Design but it sure does sound like it. But interestingly of the three science subjects we have here, Biology is consistently considered the hardest to study for. Coincidence?

Then again, what do you all think of this approach, i.e. mentioning neither evolution nor creationism in biology before college-level? Perhaps all that should be done is for the teacher to somehow ensure that every kid doubting evolution should be asked to read TO before AiG; maybe that would deprive creationists of obvious legal and pedagogical targets.

 

[Dragar]

In essence, your proposal (not a bad one) may well result in us defending science more than we teach it.

Considering the problems currently being faced, is this a bad thing?

Maybe not 'more than', but at least alongside. Scientists ignored creationism for years because it was (and still is) a load of religious nutcases. The problem is that now they're becoming religious nutcases who know the legal system, with a large backing, and a large public support base. It's not ideal to go on the offensive, because it wastes valuable time refuting nonsese. But it's nonsense that a lot of people believe, which makes it dangerous nonsense, that probably is worth the time to refute.