Jobar

I was reading tgamble's thread about students requesting the teaching of creationism.

Many years ago, I taught a biology class to high school sophomores. This was in the late seventies, and evolution was not the issue then that it is now- but I got to thinking about what I would do in the situation tgamble's post described, assuming that I could get away with it without getting fired, or having the school picketed by religious groups.

I think I would agree to teach the creationist view *with the purpose of showing how it fails to be science.* Teaching, as it were, by pointing out a bad example- demonstrating the irrationality of creationism, to highlight the logic of evolution. After all, kids and adults both pay more attention to topics which they feel passionately about. I think it might be useful to discuss how we could use a ju-jitsu move, and appear to take on the teaching of creationism- in order to throw it in the dirt!

Opinions?

Albion

I think that rather depends on the opinions of the principal and the head of science and the parent groups and all the rest of it. If the teaching of creationism as a genuine alternative theory is mandated, then I don't see them letting you get away with teaching it as a falsified theory, especially when we all know why it's really being included.

That's why I said in the other thread that efforts to push creationism are going to result in the loss of a lot of biology teachers who really care about science. The sorts of people they'd be replaced by doesn't bear thinking about. I suspect creationism would be taught as true with only enough evolution taught to get kids through exams, with the warning that it's the devil's work but we live in the devil's times so we sometimes have to put up with it.

pz

It's a good idea, but the problem is that while we might be masters of that ju-jitsu move, the students aren't. It takes a fair amount of practice and background to see the 'obvious' strategy, and the students are just as likely to fall for the wrong move as the right one. They have to learn the fundamentals of good science before they can see the right answer in this question for themselves.

Darwin's Finch

I agree with pz. The article that tgamble referenced states that one unit (I assume that means one day) was spent explaining the scientific method to the students. IMO, that just doesn't cut it, though I sympathize with the time constraints and amount of material teachers have to deal with.

I've long advocated (at least from my armchair/barstool) that we need to completely rethink the way we expose kids to science and its methods. I think that a year-long class devoted to nothing but logic, rhetoric (its use and misuse), and the principles of scientific inquiry should be mandatory for all ~9th grade students.

There is no reason that a high school-educated person with a damn library card should ever be taken in by the Hovinds of the world. It's a national disgrace, and it largely comes down to a systematic failure to make science, as a coherent pursuit and not just a laundry list of facts, explicable to a large number of otherwise intelligent people. I suppose there will always be some number of fundies who won't be reached, but there is no good reason why their numbers should increase, as seems to be the case.

Doubting Didymus

Absolutely! The number of people that regect the principles of logic out of hand is disgusting to me. That strikes me as being rather similar as dismissing mathematics as 'made up'.

In the degree I am studying, both critical reasoning (logic and rhetoric) and 'research design and analysis' (an extended study of scientific method and practise) are mandatory. For some reason however, and especially in the logic subject, a great many people simply refused to learn. they failed to see that a logically valid argument in which all premises are true MANDATES a true conclusion "but thats only your opinion" was heard many a time.

I strongly believe that logical thought outranks secondary mathematics in importance by a long mile.

stryder2112

Actually, if you go back and re-read the article it says they spent a 5 week introduction to the nature of science and the scientific method and the students still reverted back to "evolution is only a theory" when confronted with learning about evolution. I live nearby and I've seen what the teacher who wrote tgamble's article actually teaches. They spend a great deal of time going through historical examples of how science overturned pseduo-scientific or down right superstitious ideas about the world as well as asking the students themselves to use the scientific method to solve a "murder mystery" that requires them to critically evaluate evidence. It's sad and scary that some of the student revert as they do when the teaching of evolution begins. I understand how the teachers feel so dejected when that happens.

I agree with you though that far more time and emphasis should be put on critical thinking skills.

Stryder

Doubting Didymus

Perhaps the failure is not on the teachers at all, but on the students? Obviously the phenomenon we see is either a failure to teach or a failure to learn. Maybe the students in question are simply bad pupils?

Albion

I'm also afraid that if the tactic of teaching creationism as bad science is allowed, rather than an unbiased (sigh!) presentation of "both theories" (double sigh!), then a creationist teacher will be able to do likewise, presenting creationism as the real science and evolutionism as nothing more than a false religion. Schoolkids have no way of knowing what's going on, and it wouldn't be fair.

This is what the Head of Science at a school in England that was (maybe still is) teaching creationism has to say:

"It is apparent then that Theology and not Physics or Mathematics that is properly 'Queen of the Sciences'. It is in this sense of the fullness of knowledge which God alone possesses that 'the science of God must be perfect' as our first definition plainly stated."

"Mindful of these things, theologians have most helpfully identified the conceptual framework of Creation, Fall and Redemption in which thinking, and therefore teaching which is truly Biblical, must take place. No academic discipline can progress properly which ignores them. They are fundamental to the establishing of a Biblical view of reality not merely for any abstract reason, but because they are momentous historical events. The first two are especially pertinent to the cause of true Science."

"In the meantime, the same Science teachers may care to try some or all of the following:

Note every occasion when an evolutionary/old-earth paradigm (millions or billions of years) is explicitly mentioned or implied by a text-book, examination question or visitor and courteously point out the fallibility of the statement. Wherever possible, we must give the alternative (always better) Biblical explanation of the same data. We shall look at a few examples from each of Physics, Chemistry & Biology in due course. Remember, 'The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him'. (Pr 18:17)"

"A true knowledge about real nature of everything (i.e. the goal of true Science) will inevitably lead those who possess such knowledge to a realisation that they have been supernaturally and specially created by Jesus Christ. This same God therefore has a rightful claim upon their life - indeed, by virtue of His historical creative act, He actually owns them (Col 1:17). Ownership logically implies accountability and accountability anticipates judgement."

"True Science then should confirm pupils' realisation that they are rational, spiritual beings of infinite worth with immortal souls whose eternal destiny, because of their sin, is placed in the balance. True science is no enemy of true religion. Indeed, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and of wisdom (Proverbs 1:7 and 9:10). As the 17th century astronomer Johannes Kepler remarked, his work consisted of 'thinking God's thoughts after Him'.

"May it please God to raise up a new generation of Scientists who are duly respectful of their Maker and who, recognising the limitations of human scientific enquiry, give full weight of respect to the statements of propositional truth of Holy Scripture - being the authoritative Word of God."

Here's a link to the whole thing for the truly masochistic:

http://www.darwinwars.com/lunatic/liars/layfield.html

This essay was originally on the Christian Institute site, along with similar essays on teaching other subjects like literature and history, but it was taken down after the publicity last year about his school teaching creationism (Richard Dawkins was eloquent!). THis copy has been preserved on the Darwinwars site. Here's the page of equavalent stuff at teh Christian Institute site:

http://www.christian.org.uk/html-pub.../lectures.html

Albion

Well, they've had it drummed into them since they were toddlers: evolution is the work of the devil, don't trust what your science teachers tell you, scientists are all atheists, they're trying to send you to hell, Christians are good people and they're telling you that evoltuion is a tissue of lies etc etc. A lifetime of conditioning by authority figures like parents and church leaders, starting when the brain is still receptive to anything, is hard to overcome, especially by people who the kids have already been conditioned against.

Aethari

It struck me that while it's certainly important to change the way science is taught in schools, such changes are only going to address part of the problem. What students are being taught outside the classroom, in their churches and youth organizations, is far more of a drive to creationism then a lacking education in school. I don't see how creationism could ever be dealt with in a truly effective manner until the underlying social assumptions about what we learn in church are dealt with. So long as society embraces the sanctity and unquestioned truth of religious education, this kind of thinking will keep swooping in to haunt us, regardless of the kind of rational we try to instill in school. However, it doesn't seem that there is any effect way to deal with this problem without infringing upon our basic rights to free speech and organization. If anything can be done in addition to reinforcing good scientific thought in school, it would be to create a more robust public education system that isn't so prone to the crippling protests of laypeople.

~Aethari