Principia

Maybe it's both, DD. I think there is some truth to be said about the fact that science education still largely involves memorizing many facts, from which teachers assume that the process of science will reveal itself. And this method of teaching is reinforced by the system of academic meritocracy -- namely in the form of endless standardized tests, which are just hoops to jump through. Have you ever heard of a good science fair project (which is probably the best way of exposing pre-collegiate students to scientific methodology and thinking) as a college admissions requirement? But, I think there is also largely a cultural component to education, which imo explains why the IDiot movement was able to get off the ground so quickly. Critical thinking in the US seems to imply some sort of political process -- that for every controversial and unexplored topic, there must exist at least two equally weighted viewpoints, and that there is a right answer for every person. When in doubt, the viewpoint with the majority wins! :banghead:

KC

Teach a course in pseudoscience: what it is, how to detect it, and how to avoid it.

KC

Doubting Didymus

But thats exactly what teaching the scientific method should do! Teaching what science is automatically involves teaching what sciencs isn't. And in fact, the evolution series in question had the teachers suggesting quite strongly that they did teach the students how to detect bad science. A loose quote from memory from one of the teachers: "I thought I taught them what was and wasn't science". If stryders knowledge is accurate they spent 5 whole weeks on this. I have no doubt that this was a bigger part of the curriculum than evolution itself got.

I don't know what the standard of teachers in america is, so I can't say for sure on whose head the problem lies, but it is obvious to me that in this particular case, where the knowledge tools needed to expose creationism WERE a huge part of the curriculum, either the teachers have failed to properly teach, or the students have failed to learn.

Principia

Is creationism a problem in Australia, DD?

Doubting Didymus

Well:





Having said that, I'm not aware of any cases where it has even come close to being included in public school curricula, or slapped inside biology textbooks. However, when we're talking about general public understanding and acceptance of the theory, I estimate we're about the same as most other sensible developed countries: not the best, but none too shabby either and certainly nothing like the spirit crushingly appalling levels of ignorance seen in america.

tgamble

He looks like a character from Planet of the Apes!

tgamble

It's sad, maybe it's being to cynical but maybe students don't CARE what "good science" is. Especially when it comes from the evil, godless evolutionists. Good science is science that agrees with GOD'S WORD! Everything else is a lie. That's the thought process they've been taught. It's really quite pathetic.

tgamble

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Whatever happened with that? Are they still teaching bullshit or did good science win in the end?

"'The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him'. (Pr 18:17)"

I guess it never occurs to him that creationism DID come first. Then it was questioned and shown to be wrong.

Doubting Didymus

Actually, it took me a little while to work out that he was referring to evolution as 'the first case presented' and not the other way around.

KC

What you are saying is true, of course. But let's face it: confronted with a philosoipher/mathematician like Dembski, or a freak biologist like Wells, even a fairly well-educated schoolchild can be bamboozled. I was thinking of a course that covers a wide variety of pseudoscience, like astrology, cryptozoology (Bigfoot sightings), parapsychology etc. Then show how many of these use identical methods of making their cases (prove that psychic phenomena/God/Doodah don't exist!), the same complaints of suppression by Govt/Big Science/Doodah, etc.

The commonalities will probably intrigue and entertain them as well:the examples all have their hilarious aspects. It could be an extremely entertaining aqnd informative way of supplementing their science education.

KC