quote:Originally posted by The Genuine: What was the joke?
One of the other artists was philosophizing about Stevie and the Jonas Bros. on the Grammys, and about how sad it was.
I came in and said, totally deadpan, that it was really lucky Stevie didn't have to see that.
The room half laughed and half groaned all in unison, and the other artist looked at me with her mouth wide open.
That's how I roll. I love the laughs that you trick people into -- that they immediately feel bad about laughing at.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: but that science lacks the ability to verify it
Meh, that's philosophy. Evolution as a theory is as good as it gets in science. You have to teach the material- if students can't get over the fact that there is a level of "knowability" to all the information they are ever taught, and if that really needs to be pounded away at them in a science classroom, then someone, somewhere, is screwing up.
So you can grasp down to the last straw and say, "but, but, but, science doesn't really, really, know the answers," then the teacher spends her time getting into useless semantic vagaries about the topic. Honestly, it's not necessary. If you teach science properly, the definition of "scientific theory" will be understood enough that acknowledging the limitations of every theory (much less introducing competing non-theories), will be counter-productive.
I know this from English teaching. A student will ask you the word for something, and you need to give him or her an answer graded against what that person needs to hear. I could call a picture of a cow: "bovine specimen," or "cloven hoofed animal," or call it by the latin name, or say "grass eater," or "farm dweller," but that would be unproductive unless the student had reached the point of understanding all of those other terms- and if they've reached that point, telling them about the cow is also not necessary. I can't be raking my own brain for obstruse terms that *might* ust pop up, unless that is really what the student needs- say if the student was a cowologist or something.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, high school science teachers don't "teach the controversy" about the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the theory of spontaneous generation of microbial life, or the geocentric universe either. They might briefly mention them as outmoded and disproved old ideas before going into our modern understanding of each field, but they don't pretend that these theories deserve equal time in the classroom.
We DID spend a significant amount of time learning the geocentric model of the universe in science class. We were tested on it.
quote:This is flatly impossible with Intelligent Design, because it makes no falsifiable predictions and therefore is not a scientific theory, by definition. Claiming that it should be taught in a science class is roughly akin to demanding that French classes teach trigonometry.
We had to do cooking in Spanish class. We studied the history of Isaac Newton in math class. We studied Buddhism in English class. We discussed countless current political issues in history class. We had Driver's Ed in P.E. In science classes we regularly studied the historical backgrounds of important scientific figures, we had entire units devoted to math, we lost points for grammar mistakes on essays, and we at times discussed politically charged hot topics like abortion, AIDS, nuclear power use, etc. Even in college, I was assigned a major project in a geology class that mostly involved discussing the history and political implications of a particular toxic waste spill.
So, at least in the schools I've been in, there's never been anything sacred about the boundaries of any given discipline. The boundaries of subject areas are crossed all the time, when pragmatic.
quote:So you can grasp down to the last straw and say, "but, but, but, science doesn't really, really, know the answers," then the teacher spends her time getting into useless semantic vagaries about the topic. Honestly, it's not necessary. If you teach science properly, the definition of "scientific theory" will be understood enough that acknowledging the limitations of every theory (much less introducing competing non-theories), will be counter-productive.
Yes, you are correct - on balance, it is very impractical to get into that technicality. But the side effect to leaving it out is that in a few rare cases, where another sort of evidence conflicts with science and where a large percentage of parents intend to teach their children something different from what science appears to be saying, it leads to a conflict.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We had to do cooking in Spanish class. We studied the history of Isaac Newton in math class. We studied Buddhism in English class. We discussed countless current political issues in history class. We had Driver's Ed in P.E. In science classes we regularly studied the historical backgrounds of important scientific figures, we had entire units devoted to math, we lost points for grammar mistakes on essays, and we at times discussed politically charged hot topics like abortion, AIDS, nuclear power use, etc"
All of which are part and parcel of the subject being taught. In language classes, you typically learn about the culture that produced the language. Food is part of that. In science, you learn about the ethical uses of scientific technology, how to use math, and how to write scientifically. In history, you learn about contemporary events that are shaping modern history. Etc.
But the thing is, creationism only ties into biology from the creationism end... not the biology end.
If a student asks about creationism, the question should be answered. But putting creationism into the curriculum is putting something not related to science in any way (except how its NOT related to science) into the science curriculum.
There are better ways to make the point about science being a field that requires falsifiability then through certain people's religious view points. like, for example, how lamarck was falsified, and how falsifiability is an important part of the process.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the side effect to leaving it out is that in a few rare cases, where another sort of evidence conflicts with science and where a large percentage of parents intend to teach their children something different from what science appears to be saying, it leads to a conflict.
This is not a side-effect of leaving it out. It is an effect of religious extremism. Again, teaching science correctly makes the issue clear to any reasonable person involved. I find people who promote ID as scientific to be unreasonable- they don't know, or don't care about actual science.
And it's evident in your post as well: "when another sort of evidence conflicts with science." The beauty of science not being monolithic (and I really don't care to hear your limp theories on it being monolithic) is that no sort of evidence really conflicts with science. Evidence is important in science, and when new evidence is discovered, you get to do new science. It's fun!
What you're talking about is people calling something "evidence" when it is not. That is stupid, and it is really not the responsibility of a science teacher dealing with 8th graders to be responsible for religious nut parents- a teacher who teaches the subject properly is doing all she can to cure people of such foolishness. Being extra sensitive to ignorant notions because "there is a conflict," is not a productive use of time or energy. Again, everything you are concerned about is covered by a well-taught science curriculum. Everything.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:We DID spend a significant amount of time learning the geocentric model of the universe in science class. We were tested on it.
I can see how this could be effectively used as a means to show how the scientific method works. You present the geocentric model of the universe as an old theory of how things work and them show how that model was rejected because it was not consistent with careful quantitative observations.
But the key reason that works is that effectively no one alive today still holds to the geocentric model. Its non-controversial. Even the Catholic church has now recanted their condemnation of Copernicus and Galileo. There simply are not millions of Biblical literalist out there arguing that the earth literally has four corners.
The only acceptable way to teach Creationism in a science class would be to present the theory and then explain why that theory is incompatible with the overwhelming majority of scientific observations. And while that might be a valid way to teach how the scientific method works, its not going to be an effective way to teach science in the current climate. The topic is simply too controversial for reasons that have nothing to do with science.
In fact this is exactly the opposite of what Creationists want when they talk about teaching "Creation Science" in a science class. What they want is for teachers to teach that there is well accept scientific evidence which supports the creationist view over the evolutionary view. That simply isn't true.
[ February 11, 2009, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And it's evident in your post as well: "when another sort of evidence conflicts with science." The beauty of science not being monolithic (and I really don't care to hear your limp theories on it being monolithic) is that no sort of evidence really conflicts with science. Evidence is important in science, and when new evidence is discovered, you get to do new science.
This is definitely not accurate. Evidence must be objective, repeatable, etc. in order to count for science. The Bible, for instance, is a sort of evidence that scientists are not supposed to consider.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Lots of people are idiots. Again, you won't find me on record as saying anything other then that.
People are allowed to be stupid. Its part of our charm. But I try to avoid voting for stupid people to have power over the lives of others.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, high school science teachers don't "teach the controversy" about the phlogiston theory of combustion, or the theory of spontaneous generation of microbial life, or the geocentric universe either. They might briefly mention them as outmoded and disproved old ideas before going into our modern understanding of each field, but they don't pretend that these theories deserve equal time in the classroom.
We DID spend a significant amount of time learning the geocentric model of the universe in science class. We were tested on it.
Were you expected to believe it was true? Or even led to believe that it was remotely possible? I didn't think so.
quote:
quote:This is flatly impossible with Intelligent Design, because it makes no falsifiable predictions and therefore is not a scientific theory, by definition. Claiming that it should be taught in a science class is roughly akin to demanding that French classes teach trigonometry.
We had to do cooking in Spanish class. We studied the history of Isaac Newton in math class. We studied Buddhism in English class. We discussed countless current political issues in history class. We had Driver's Ed in P.E. In science classes we regularly studied the historical backgrounds of important scientific figures, we had entire units devoted to math, we lost points for grammar mistakes on essays, and we at times discussed politically charged hot topics like abortion, AIDS, nuclear power use, etc. Even in college, I was assigned a major project in a geology class that mostly involved discussing the history and political implications of a particular toxic waste spill.
So, at least in the schools I've been in, there's never been anything sacred about the boundaries of any given discipline. The boundaries of subject areas are crossed all the time, when pragmatic.
As usual, you're either missing the point or deliberately misunderstanding it. Were you taught that cooking was a viable alternative to knowing Spanish when trying to converse with a Spanish-speaker? Were you taught that the existence or life history of Isaac Newton disproves Newtonian physics? Or that getting your grammar exactly right on an exam would compensate for factual errors? Or that the toxic waste spill disproves the volcanic origin of igneous rock?
The examples you gave are cases where bringing in an outside topic complemented the material being taught in some useful way. Cooking food using a Spanish recipe is a good way to practice the language. The life history of Newton or any other prominent scientist is important for understanding the process through which he derived his famous theory - indeed, it's an excellent way to illustrate the scientific method. Making sure that science students know their math and grammar is obviously relevant - most scientific disciplines, particularly physics and chemistry, require a solid foundation in math, and being a professional scientist requires a great deal of writing.
Unlike your examples, Creationism/ ID is not complementary to evolutionary theory (nor, for that matter, to science itself). You don't need to know the slightest bit about creationist ideology to understand evolution. So what purpose would teaching it serve, besides muddying the definition of "science" in the students' minds? And even if we do, which version should we teach? ID is no more scientific than Genesis, or the Norse mythology, or traditional Chinese creation myths. Should we teach all of those in science classes? If not, why not?
quote:Yes, you are correct - on balance, it is very impractical to get into that technicality. But the side effect to leaving it out is that in a few rare cases, where another sort of evidence conflicts with science and where a large percentage of parents intend to teach their children something different from what science appears to be saying, it leads to a conflict. [/QB]
There are a large number of parents who believe that the MMR vaccine is linked to autism, based on the reports published by a single researcher who was recently shown to be faking his data. Should we give equal time to that "theory" as well?
And you're probably hoping nobody noticed your attempt to claim faith as being valid scientific evidence without actually saying it ("another sort of evidence"), but it's not fooling anybody. For the last time: if you stretch the definition of science to include faith-based evidence, then science has lost all meaning. Data that cannot be independently verified or falsified is not scientific, and should be left to the realms of religion and philosophy where it belongs.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm... the bible is the sort of thing that is not useful as evidence of anything scientific. And even so, the Bible IS solid evidence of some pretty important things. Just not the existance of God, or a particularly convincing piece of evidence that there was ever a Jesus. Terrible analogy. You have graduated to terrible analogies.
And even then, scientists CAN and DO use the Bible as evidence of certain things, like, you know, the state of human civilization 2,000 years ago. I feel like you get less clued in the more we discuss these topics. It doesn't *feel* deliberate... but it is really odd.
Honestly, the direction of your argument is fairly good evidence of how consideration of the ID argument, in any great depth, in science classrooms is an awful idea. You're just floundering around trying to find an intellectually acceptable excuse for teaching the controversy, so that ID can "get in" on a technicality. There is real stuff to teach.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The Bible, for instance, is a sort of evidence that scientists are not supposed to consider. "
Written documents count as evidence. But they count as evidence as written documents, not as something other then written documents. The illiad is also evidence. So is the Aeneid. And the meditations. And Hamlet. And Moby Dick.
They key is in figuring out what the evidence supports.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Would you object if the majority of Americans felt that believing in atheism is ignorant, and that therefore nobody who is an atheist is qualified for any office other than "poop scooper"? How do you think you would react to someone making such a claim?
quote:The examples you gave are cases where bringing in an outside topic complemented the material being taught in some useful way.
Which is exactly why I was arguing a discussion of creationism belongs in science classes - because it is useful for students in their lives and helps them think about and understand the boundaries of science.
quote:There are a large number of parents who believe that the MMR vaccine is linked to autism, based on the reports published by a single researcher who was recently shown to be faking his data. Should we give equal time to that "theory" as well?
In a class that discussed MMR vaccines extensively, yes, it would be a good idea to discuss that issue. I never said anything about equal time though.
quote:And you're probably hoping nobody noticed your attempt to claim faith as being valid scientific evidence without actually saying it ("another sort of evidence"), but it's not fooling anybody.
Actually, I said things like the Bible are definitely NOT valid scientific evidence. I agree with you 100% that "Data that cannot be independently verified or falsified is not scientific, and should be left to the realms of religion and philosophy where it belongs."
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're just floundering around trying to find an intellectually acceptable excuse for teaching the controversy, so that ID can "get in" on a technicality.
Why would I be motivated to get ID in on a technicality? I believe in evolution. I think the world is billions of years old. And I think ID is not supported by any science, and doesn't even fit the criteria for a scientific theory.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Would you object if the majority of Americans felt that believing in atheism is ignorant, and that therefore nobody who is an atheist is qualified for any office other than "poop scooper"?"
They do. So this isn't really a hypothetical Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're just floundering around trying to find an intellectually acceptable excuse for teaching the controversy, so that ID can "get in" on a technicality.
Why would I be motivated to get ID in on a technicality? I believe in evolution. I think the world is billions of years old. And I think ID is not supported by any science, and doesn't even fit the criteria for a scientific theory.
Then why teach it? And your answer must also explain why ID is worth teaching in a science class, but Roman mythology, Noah's ark, the Mesopotamian Epic of Creation, the Aztec Earth Mother, and the the Norse pantheon are not.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
They believe it. They act on it, and they vote on it.
But atheism isn't a policy position. I don't really care what people believe, as long as what they believe doesn't negatively impact their ability to make sound decisions. Thinking that creationism should be taught in science classrooms as a part of curriculum demonstrates a huge negative impact of beliefs on sound decision making.
If I were interviewing for a job, and was asked what my religion was, I'd sue. You can't ask that question. If I were asked whether I would teach that my religion is correct in a classroom, I wouldn't. Its an important policy question.
I look at creationism in classroom in the same way.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then why teach it? And your answer must also explain why ID is worth teaching in a science class, but Roman mythology, Noah's ark, the Mesopotamian Epic of Creation, the Aztec Earth Mother, and the the Norse pantheon are not.
Because I think it is a controversy students will face and need to understand in the real world (such as when they need to vote.) Because I think it casts light on important issues in the philosophy of science. Because I think they'd find it interesting.
Generally speaking, I think the best way to encourage students to deal with issues rationally is through discussion and thinking about them, rather than not discussing and not encouraging thought about them.
I'm okay with Roman mythology, the Aztec Earth Mother, etc. being discussed too, but I'm not sure if those would be as useful in life or as interesting to students, since they don't live in an ancient Aztec or Roman culture.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Because I think it is a controversy students will face and need to understand in the real world (such as when they need to vote.) Because I think it casts light on important issues in the philosophy of science. Because I think they'd find it interesting.
Fine. What important issues in the philosophy of science are you talking about? Be specific for once.
quote:Generally speaking, I think the best way to encourage students to deal with issues rationally is through discussion and thinking about them, rather than not discussing and not encouraging thought about them.
Nobody is discouraging thought. We are simply saying that those topics should be taught elsewhere, as they are outside the purview of the class.
quote:I'm okay with Roman mythology, the Aztec Earth Mother, etc. being discussed too, but I'm not sure if those would be as useful in life or as interesting to students, since they don't live in an ancient Aztec or Roman culture.
So an individual's culture is relevant to science now? Should American students be taught one version of science, while Japanese students are taught another? Again, once you start doing this, what exactly constitutes science at all? The intrinsic strength of science as originally defined is that it maximizes objectivity, and thus should be equally relevant regardless of culture.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I were interviewing for a job, and was asked what my religion was, I'd sue. You can't ask that question. If I were asked whether I would teach that my religion is correct in a classroom, I wouldn't. Its an important policy question.
I look at creationism in classroom in the same way.
But you didn't restrict the conclusions you are drawing to just jobs where creationism policy is relevant. You asserted that people who think creationism belong in a classroom can be assumed to be generally less intelligent (by "500 IQ points") than others. I'm just wondering if you have any problems when people assume you are stupid based on one particular issue that they disagree with you on - because I'd consider that an unfair conclusion.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fine. What important issues in the philosophy of science are you talking about? Be specific for once.
I think it serves as a fine example of why a theory needs to be testable in order to be scientific.
quote:So an individual's culture is relevant to science now? Should American students be taught one version of science, while Japanese students are taught another? Again, once you start doing this, what exactly constitutes science at all? The intrinsic strength of science as originally defined is that it maximizes objectivity, and thus should be equally relevant regardless of culture.
An individual's culture is relevant to their education. Someone in one culture is going to be interested in learning and may need to learn different things than someone in another culture. If you live in a hunter/gatherer culture you probably need to learn to hunt and gather, and might not need to learn computer science quite as much.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then why teach it? And your answer must also explain why ID is worth teaching in a science class, but Roman mythology, Noah's ark, the Mesopotamian Epic of Creation, the Aztec Earth Mother, and the the Norse pantheon are not.
Because I think it is a controversy students will face and need to understand in the real world (such as when they need to vote.) Because I think it casts light on important issues in the philosophy of science. Because I think they'd find it interesting.
:facepalm:
Dude, this is exactly what ID supporters want you to be saying. It's called "foot in the door." How do you think Paris Hilton makes money?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who knows. Maybe a hunter/gatherer might come up with a solution to the fractional knapsack problem.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dude, this is exactly what ID supporters want you to be saying. It's called "foot in the door." How do you think Paris Hilton makes money?
I'm not worried about creationism having a "foot in the door" in science classrooms. In a science classroom, the view that is backed by the evidence is going to win.
What I'm worried about is this: Average Joe wasn't taught the facts of the issue. Instead, he turns on Fox News and sees two "scientists" with PhD. next to their names - one is claiming evolution is fact, the other is claiming intelligent design is fact. Fox News, being Fox News, presents both sides equally and leaves it to the viewer to choose who to agree with, as if truth were a matter of choice. Joe, not knowing much about science, doesn't know how to evaluate the evidence either side is giving. He's got no teacher to help him; instead the moderator is someone like Sean Hannity. Because he's Christian, intelligent design sounds like the true theory and so he concludes the scientific establishment must be anti-religion since it keeps pushing evolution. And after hearing about the same issue over and over, he becomes angry that science keeps pushing evolution over creationism, and begins to distrust science in general.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's silly. If he's got a decent education, he's going to have the minimal mental toolset necessary to look into the issue and make an informed judgment.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm not worried about creationism having a "foot in the door" in science classrooms. In a science classroom, the view that is backed by the evidence is going to win."
In science, yes. In a high school science classroom? Iffy at best.
You don't need to teach ID to defend against ID claims. You need to teach a method for dealing with claims, becuase there will always be NEW spurious claims.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, You've completely ignored my post. Based on this comment
quote:I'm not worried about creationism having a "foot in the door" in science classrooms. In a science classroom, the view that is backed by the evidence is going to win.
I presume that what you are suggesting is the Creationism be taught in the science classroom as a outdated theory (like the geocentric model of the universe) that has been rejected because it is inconsistent with scientific observations. Is this what you are actually suggesting?
If it is, then I can see that this would be appropriate and rational within a science curriculum.
It would also be so controversial that it would be completely ineffective and actually interfere with the teaching of science. Conservative religious people would see this as the school teaching that science has disproved their religious beliefs and would be outraged. (As a side note, concluding that science has disproven religion is do not possible since most religious beliefs can not generate an hypothesis that can be falsified by the scientific method. Most people do not have a sufficient understand of science or logic to appreciate that distinction).
Rather than giving students the tools to rationally judge the debate, it would actually add fuel to the fire. It would actually encourage the kind of Fox News pseudo debate you are talking about.
Its far better to avoid the controversy all together and simply teach science.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. Science class should just stick to what is actually science. ID and Creationism are not science.
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't ignore your post. I'm not suggesting creationism be taught in the way creationists usually want. I also don't think creationism should be taught as an outdated theory.
I think a discussion of creationism in science class should introduce the term and what it means, emphasize that science can't really determine whether it is true or false, and then explain why this makes it inappropriate as a scientific model. Ideally, students would leave the discussion understanding that the debate is open in philosophy and politics, but also why most scientists believe the rules and limits of science require it to go forward operating on the evolution model, leaving the creationist question to religion. Understanding that would require students to stretch their minds to improve their understanding what science means.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It could be useful in a discussion about what is and what is not science, I defer.
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:We DID spend a significant amount of time learning the geocentric model of the universe in science class. We were tested on it.
I can see how this could be effectively used as a means to show how the scientific method works. You present the geocentric model of the universe as an old theory of how things work and them show how that model was rejected because it was not consistent with careful quantitative observations.
But the key reason that works is that effectively no one alive today still holds to the geocentric model. Its non-controversial. Even the Catholic church has now recanted their condemnation of Copernicus and Galileo. There simply are not millions of Biblical literalist out there arguing that the earth literally has four corners.
The only acceptable way to teach Creationism in a science class would be to present the theory and then explain why that theory is incompatible with the overwhelming majority of scientific observations. And while that might be a valid way to teach how the scientific method works, its not going to be an effective way to teach science in the current climate. The topic is simply too controversial for reasons that have nothing to do with science.
In fact this is exactly the opposite of what Creationists want when they talk about teaching "Creation Science" in a science class. What they want is for teachers to teach that there is well accept scientific evidence which supports the creationist view over the evolutionary view. That simply isn't true.
*snickers*
I actually know someone who believes the Earth is flat, I Am Not Making This Up.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There are enough students with religious parents that many will try to make a fuss about ID/Creationism on their own as it is, why make it worse?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: *snickers*
I actually know someone who believes the Earth is flat, I Am Not Making This Up.
I made this point earlier in the thread: I don't think that this displays significantly more ignorance than believing that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, yet there are large groups who unashamedly hold the latter view.
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: I didn't ignore your post. I'm not suggesting creationism be taught in the way creationists usually want. I also don't think creationism should be taught as an outdated theory.
I think a discussion of creationism in science class should introduce the term and what it means, emphasize that science can't really determine whether it is true or false, and then explain why this makes it inappropriate as a scientific model. Ideally, students would leave the discussion understanding that the debate is open in philosophy and politics, but also why most scientists believe the rules and limits of science require it to go forward operating on the evolution model, leaving the creationist question to religion. Understanding that would require students to stretch their minds to improve their understanding what science means.
In that case I don't have any particularly strong objections. I think a good science teacher could make that into a meaningful science lesson. I do however wonder whether the average high school teacher could teach that to the average high school student without it either coming across as attack on religion or an attack on the scientific method. It would be better to not teach this at all than to teach it poorly.
All in all, I have serious doubts that the average 15-16 year old biology student has sufficiently developed critical thinking ability to grasp the concept. I think it would be totally appropriate in a college level class but continue to have doubts that it would be effective at the high school level.
I think that such a lesson is likely to be more effective, under any circumstances, if it were combined with a good unit on how the theory of evolution has been and continues to be useful in science. One of the key features of a good scientific theory is that it is useful for helping to advance our understanding of the way things works. A good scientific theory spawns all kinds of questions that lead to new discoveries and on that basis alone evolution has been a fantastic scientific theory.
From a scientific perspective, it is often more important that a theory be useful than that it be 100% true. For example, we know that Newtons laws of motion aren't absolutely correct, but they are none the less still extremely useful as an approximation.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Ideally, students would leave the discussion understanding that the debate is open in philosophy and politics, but also why most scientists believe the rules and limits of science require it to go forward operating on the evolution model, leaving the creationist question to religion.
Negative teaching is not the answer. Seriously. Listen- you teach students the scientific method, and if you are good at your job, and teach about *actual* theories that have been disproved, and why they were disproved, you will generate students with the intellectual understanding of science necessary to dismiss ID without first being familiar with it.
You seem intent on asserting that ID is somehow unique, or worthy of note as a teaching case. You are suggesting that ID could be used as an idea of a bad, or non-theory. What people are telling you is that ID is not useful as a topic of discussion *because* it has current political implications. Aside from it being SO FAR from related to science as to be only related within the fields of politics and popular punditry and folk-belief, the two being commingled by non-scientists and ideologues who want to corrupt the teaching process, ID would be far too loaded a topic to use as an effective example of anything within the context of a science class.
Simply put: this is NOT NEEDED. Many here have pointed out that it is a subject best approached by a philosophy or history class. It is NOT USEFUL in teaching science, because science classes should ALREADY be providing students with the tools to understand science and reject ID as science on their own.
Now I know you want to believe that it is important in a science classroom because it has to do with science. So what? Do you not accept the assertion that a properly trained scientific thinker could not cope with a world in which some people have, for whatever reason, started trying to put ID in the classroom, and call it science? How did I become capable of understanding the fallacy of ID? It wasn't an issue (in that name) when I was in school, and it was frankly not discussed until I was well into secondary education, and then it was a religious school that taught me the scientific method- and I STILL got it. Science is robust.
And in the end, this is all what the ID people want. They want you to recognize some traction in their profoundly misguided attempts at religious propaganda and the violation of the first amendment, and start making ID an issue in which school children are conversant. Why? So we can have another generation of people who have to endure the same controversy because some people will *always* have stupid ideas, but now the schools are willing to play ball? Do you have any evidence that direct confrontation of the fallacy of "ID as science" would not exacerbate the conflict, rather than firmly resolve it? This is the angle ID is taking. This what they want from you now. But if schools keep teaching solid science, and students keep learning it, then we're fine. We're fine forever if that keeps happening, and slowly, science always gains ground, and folk-myth always slips and slides and grapples and uses politics and propaganda, and falsehood, and fear. Science has been winning for five centuries now. It will be fine.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to toss in a personal anecdote.
At no time in my HS or College science curriculum did we ever study ID. I'm pretty sure it wasn't an issue until after I'd graduated. If it was, my professors were wise enough not to teach the "controversy."
And yet, because I simply received an adequate understanding of the fundamentals of scientific theory, I have been able to work out for myself, time and again, that every argument for creationism brought up by ID is garbage.
I didn't need to learn about ID in school to be able to later realize that ID is not good science. I don't see any reason why other students will need to be taught it, as long as they get a good scientific education.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is what I have against ID. Its not that it teaches Creationism and Religion. Its that it tries to teach that the scientific method, logic, and all that you learned before ID was such a controversy.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I wonder what it means to have no opinion on the question of evolution versus creation. I wonder if people realize that the question could be much more complicated, if they just don't care, or if it's something else. That is weird to me...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many adults in Canada believe the theory of evolution is correct, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 59 per cent of respondents think human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.
Conversely, 22 per cent of respondents believe God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years, while 19 per cent are not sure.
posted
My beliefs on how the earth was created are more complicated then a yes/no answer. I believe God did it. I also believe that the mechanism by which he did it is evolution- or he created everything to look exactly like it all came about through evolution- which in practical terms amounts to the same thing. But I also think it is entirely possible that an all powerful being could have created us all 5 minutes ago, but in such a way that none of us know that we are a mere 5 minutes old. But while being created 5 minutes ago is a great theory, for all practical and useful purposes, I am going to have to bet on evolution and what it predicts.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: My beliefs on how the earth was created are more complicated then a yes/no answer. I believe God did it. I also believe that the mechanism by which he did it is evolution- or he created everything to look exactly like it all came about through evolution- which in practical terms amounts to the same thing. But I also think it is entirely possible that an all powerful being could have created us all 5 minutes ago, but in such a way that none of us know that we are a mere 5 minutes old. But while being created 5 minutes ago is a great theory, for all practical and useful purposes, I am going to have to bet on evolution and what it predicts.
So your answer is: yes I believe the theory of evolution is correct. Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by orlox: Naturalism precludes supernatural explanations.
It doesn't try and answer 'why' questions (I don't think such questions even make sense in this framework). So a theist can say that god chose the mass of an electron, gravitational constant etc etc to have values that allow life to develop etc in accordance with his plan.
But I agree naturalism is not compatible with a god who intervenes on a daily basis.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Define "intervenes". Do you mean necessarily in ways that we would recognize as other than "natural"? Why?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
