Oolon Colluphid

Well, that already happens, in biology at least. Have a look at the first chapter of Futuyma’s textbook... come to think of it, all the textbooks I’ve seen do this, at least from A Level (16-18) onward. But the history of it is usually just covered briefly in passing, simply to move on to what we now know. Presumably on a time-restricted course (is there any other sort?), it’s generally felt that discredited ideas are best left to the history of science courses!

And at what age are we to introduce such matters? Surely at A Level or late secondary school at the earliest -- what’s the point of confusing primary children? They don’t need to know about the superceded ideas, just how we now know what we do.
Sure. That night make an interesting A Level unit, an hour or two of lessons, and some discussion.

But then there’s the non-trivial matter of creationist propaganda. Once you allow it into the classroom at all, you have to be prepared for those who’ve looked up something on the net and inevitably come across creationist sites. Which are rather persuasive, if you don’t know a decent amount of biology.

Imagine a class of 17-year-olds. Imagine the bright spark who puts his hand up and says, “But doesn’t the second law of thermodynamics rule out the formation of complexity?” (Perfectly possible in my old class, where many people doing biology weren’t doing physics -- Geog, Bio and Economics was a popular combination.) Or “But aren’t there huge gaps in the fossil record”? Or “Many textbook examples of evolution have been discredited” (horses, perhaps, or Kettlewell’s moths...). Or “I’ve read that evolution’s only a theory, and hasn’t been proved.”

Just how much precious time will be taken up refuting the creationist rhetoric -- even assuming the teacher knows the answer? Every glib creationist statement requires a “well, yes, but...” or “well, no, because...” ten-minute lecture, which is why it is so difficult to debate the buggers. Introducing creationism at all is likely to get the kids looking it up on the web. And that is as likely (or more likely) to lead them to creationist sites. Can you say ‘counter-produtive’?
You say ‘stationary curriculum’, I say ‘realities of teaching’...
Nope, the principle’s fine...
That is quite probable. You need to know a lot of mainstream biology -- and palaeontology, geology and geophysics to see creationist propaganda for what it is (or like me, have trusted science in the first place and gone to counter-creationist sources ). And you don’t even get an inkling of enough such knowledge till at least 18.
With this I whole-heartedly agree. My nearly-five-year-old daughter has already grasped ‘how do you know that Daddy?’
If the latter is taught correctly, it should. This direction is already accepted, in the UK at least. If you look at our National Curriculum for science, you’ll see that it is broken down into a sections, one of which is called ‘Scientific enquiry’; and from even as early as Key Stage 1 (up to 7 yrs) this contains ‘Ideas and evidence in science’ and ‘Investigative skills’.

Whilst I appreciate that learning through an example such as creationism may be useful in some circumstances and late in one’s education (it’s how I came to know the little biology and palaeontology I do, by arguing against it), I feel it is both impractical and dangerous to introduce it into a school curriculum. There are far more straightforward ways to learn the scientific method and principles of enquiry than that.

Cheers, Oolon

Dr. Retard

Regarding the Mill/Dawkins debate over teaching creationism in schools:

People seem to be comparing ideals, which is unfortunate. They compare "The evolution/creation debate, with attention to arguments and adduced evidence on both sides, is taught thoroughly and competently" and "Evolutionary theory is taught alone, thoroughly and competently". With these options, it might be difficult to make a choice.

But in the real world, we have to compare "Children are indoctrinated into buying the basest creationist tripe" and "Evolutionary theory is taught appallingly and incompetently, when not passed over in silence". These are, I think, the real consequences of our choice between a mixed curriculum and an evolution-only curriculum. I favor the latter.

Maybe that's just because I grew up in the South.

Hugo Holbling

It's all about compromise - Talk Origins would have to be in there too as a resource.

Thanks for all the interesting comments and for continuing what i hope has been an informative discussion for both participants and lurkers.

emotional

I shall always be asked for evidence for what I believe, and whatever evidence I give will never be accepted as such. So debating here on these boards is a game that I can never win, and can only lose. Therefore I have decided that I will not view these boards or participate in discussions on these boards anymore. I am going away for good.

Clutch

Hey, leave if you must. But did the following option get due consideration?

Your evidence is never accepted because it is confounded or defective.

Not as easy for you as just fleeing, but surely worth considering...

Wounded King

Asked for evidence? On a scientific topic? The audacity!!!!!!

Doubting Didymus

This thread is not the place for childish door slamming. If your post here had not already been seen and responded to, I would have deleted it in a shot. All participants now reading should remember that if you have off topic complaints or irrelevant announcements to make, you should not waste space in otherwise worthwhile threads to do it.

Oolon Colluphid

:boohoo:
Surely this is just what that graemlin was invented for.

Oolon

AmericanHeretic

I can't count the number of times I have seen creationists run away from debate.

Tyler Durden

Fellow skeptics, let me spoil the herd mentality here that creationism is an evil that should never be exposed to the young, impressionable minds of children.

In my early days, (during my teenage years) i was a science nut. When i developed a passion for a scientific field, i consumed all the relevant library books. I started with the ultimate curiosity of all kids, dinosaurs, and moved from paleontology to geology, and from there to astronomy and the weird facts of the universe.

Despite a healthy enthusiasm for all things scientific, i was raised in a very cloistered house, and attended mass services at the nearest catholic church at my mother's request. So, religious beliefs were in the background, if anything, and they hardly ever impunged on my geeky interest in science. Hey, when you grow up in the midwest, there's not much to do but get in trouble, or go to the library.

It was not until my senior year in high school did i learn anything about the Grand Debate between creationism and evolution, and that was during summer classes at the university. I took the creationism side, not because i was convinced of the falsity or error of evolution, but that i had been raised to argue for the faith of my family, even if my heart wasn't in it, and expected to show how there were flaws and shortcomings with a non-teleological (in the religious sense) account of life.

Sure enough, i began to study the arguments, the pros and cons, i began to learn how science worked - and how the reasoning behind the theories and how the data was gathered, and how strong the counterclaims, or arguments from the creationists were.

In the debate i employed rhetoric, i stressed the big words clearly with pomp and circumstance, pounded the podium, and shouted the appropriate responses when the evolutionist crew came up with their assertions and claims. Of course this swayed the crowd and the judges, and our group won handily.

But that day i began to be a skeptic, because of the real force behind the best arguments in creationist literature, that their claims weren't scientific, but had unexamined assumptions about the nature of things that appealed to the egoistic sentimentality of people. That day, where i won for creationism, i lost my nascent belief in creation. The cumulative evidence and reasoning in evolution was persuasive enough for a cloistered catholic to slowly, gradually develop a skeptical attitude to religion.


So, despite my ramblings, despite a personal enthusiasm for the knowledge of science, w/o the capability to discern good theories from bad ones, without the critical tools that helps define how scientific reasoning works, all those students are doing in science is learn the rudimentary basics w/o learning what's good science.

The comparision of creationism and evolution in their full glory is what drove me from the dogma of the Church. I'm not saying that this will work for everyone, since we all have different psychological weaknesses, beliefs, but a healthy dosage of creationism is not a bad thing. It may help religious-minded folks to learn how to get over their initial ignorance, and help scientific folks to learn how powerful rhetoric is, and how effective their scientific reasoning really is.

What do we have to lose if creationism is allowed in schools, assuming we have the time? SO what if a couple of teleologically-bent folks carry the banner of Creationism? All the better for the scientists to sharpen their reasoning and improve themselves!

if nothing else, that will help science loosen its position as an arbitrator of stultifying dogma and generate a healthy competition for theories, ideas, and enrich everyone's knowledge.