doubtingt

The fact that multiple contrasting models or theories is useful for understanding the theories and science in general does not mean "the more theories the better". At some point, you lose the benefits because students simply have too much
information to keep straight. The fact is that
the majority of students in American schools
are well aware of the creation theory and many of them believe it. The whole point is to directly
address contrasting and innaccurate conceptions that students are already familiar with.

Jayhawker Soule

How, specifically, might this be done, and what might the range of consequences be for the teacher?

doubtingt

Imagine a high school biology course. It's
half-way through the semester and they've
already covered a number of basic biology topics
and the teacher has already made use of the
"compare and contrast competing theories"
approach for other, less emotional, topics.
The instructor could have students write down
their current theories about the age of the Earth,
whether existing organisms were always around,
why some organisms go extinct and other do not,
whether members of one species can change into a different species across many generations, etc. etc. The teacher could read the students responses and look for common themes, focussing
upon prior conceptions that directly conflict with
an evolutionary account or with the data.
Some of these naive theories will be closely tied
to creationist arguements and some may not. The point of the instruction is to address those prior conceptions, regardless of whether they happen to be similar to literal interpretations of Biblical stories.

The teacher could have the students
compare and contrast their concepts with evolutionary theory, have them make predictions from the theories about data that the instructor already has, then have them examine this data and
reason about how well it supports or contradicts each theory.

As for "consequences for the teacher", I'm not sure what your referring to. The policy would be
that teachers should address students prior conceptions regarding theories and evidence that is central to the course curriculum. It's not a matter of "picking on religion". It's a matter of
doing what comes naturally and what is effective when you want to teach students something which
conflicts with their preconceptions. Right now,
teachers go unnaturally out of their way to avoid and suppress students preconceptions in the area of evolution, even though they readily deal with such preconceptions on other issues.

If teachers present creationism as a viable and
supported scientific theory, then they are lying
to students and greatly misinforming them about
the discipline they are responsible for teaching.
If done intentionally, they should have their teaching liscence revoked as they should no matter what the subject matter. If done out of ignorance, they should not be allowed to teach that subject until they've taken continuing education and demonstrated competence in that subject (if we always demanded such competence then we could treat all cases as an intentional act of dishonesty).

Buffman

doubtingt

Sorry! I was attempting to be somewhat facetious without using an icon.

Beside the time constraints, I think that ReasonableDoubt surfaces an additional problem. You can not easily separate creationism from religious faith beliefs. The Biology teacher is not normally qualified to address the issues of theology, nor should they.

In a public school biology class, a student is being exposed to an accurate appreciation, not a true understanding, of the Biological Sciences...perhaps for the first time ever. Just take a glance at a list of some of the specialties in the natural science field of Life Science & Biotechnology and it becomes rather obvious that the secondary school biology teacher has very limited time to address why some faith beliefs are not good science...and why few teachers will dedicate valuable class time to those kinds of discussions.

<a href="http://spars.aibs.org/mso/index.ldml" target="_blank">http://spars.aibs.org/mso/index.ldml</a>

I am very well aware that Christian fundamentalists have made Evolution Theory their primary target. And with good cause. If Evolution is "fact," then one of the primary foundations of inerrant biblical faith is completely exposed for what it is...superstition and myth. Thus, one of the primary cornerstones of fundamentalist Christianity would be lost forever. Critical thinking theists recognized this and made the appropriate accommodations for it in their theology. Fundamentalists have not...nor can they...ever. Therefore they have launched a multi-faceted propaganda campaign to convince legislators and the general American public that Evolution Theory, and the scientists/people that support it, are discriminating against their religious faith beliefs which violates their constitutional rights under the 1st Amendment. The problem that I see is that they are successfully accomplishing their faith belief agenda with the full cooperation of many American political Conservatives who have been catering to the so-called Christian Coalition, grass roots, voting block...and finacial support.

IMHO---One need only look at what has happened since GWB was nominated to appreciate just how effective their propaganda campaign has been...and continues to be. However, biology teachers should stick to teaching, as much as time will allow, about their subject and not begin comparing it to other scientifically fallacious faith beliefs no matter how impartially some may be able to accomplish that. The more a student accurately learns about the Natural Sciences the better able they will be to cope with the challenges of a modern world and the various conflicts they will encounter in ideological differences.

theyeti

There's another issue too: the creation/evolution controversy is a complex issue that goes well beyond science. It invoves religion, philosophy, politics, sociology, and psychology. One must explore each of these areas to get a full understanding of the issue; simply debunking a creationist argument here and there is just scratching the surface.

This sort of thing is not really amenable to being taught in a highschool class of any kind, let alone biology class. It's much more appropriate for a college level course, and there are lots of colleges that teach such courses (here's <a href="http://philosophy.wisc.edu/forster/220/default.htm" target="_blank">one</a>). These classes are properly taught in the philosophy department, not the biology department.

theyeti

Buffman

I just found this biology class outline. Trying to fit all this into a single course boggles my mind. It looks more like an outline to be used over a students entire K-12 learning experience. Is it any wonder that science teachers are in great demand...while lacking appropriate public respect and being under-paid?

<a href="http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets.htm" target="_blank">http://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets.htm</a>

Peregrine

If I can ever break free of the IT industry and go back to teaching, I plan on addressing creationism by first providing the class with Wells' Icons or some such drivel from Ham or other. And assigning a term paper (due at the end of the semester) for the students to use what they have learned in class and from research to refute the creationists claims.

doubtingt

Since most of have raised a similar objection related to "limited time" due to the "complexity"
of the issue, I'll respond to those concerns in this single post.

The real issue is "what is our educational goal in the science classroom?" Is it to fill kids heads with "scientific facts" so they can spit
them back out in a standardized multiple choice test? Or is it to equip them with a deep understanding of and the skills to engage in evidence-based reasoning, argumentation, and theory testing?

Traditionally the goal has been the former, and this policy is exactly why the vast majority of high school grads cannot think critically, have a highly simplistic and wrong view of the scientific process, and are easy prey to creationist arguments, ID theory, medical quackery, and paranormal claims. Also, it is not simply fundamentalists who reject evolution and accept creationist notions, it is 50% of high school grads. Thus, science educators and this
'list of facts' policy have failed miserably in every way, exactly as we would expect them to.

Biology class (and all basic science courses)should be about equiping students with the thinking skills to engage in evidence-based reasoning within that domain. If teachers spent
2 months going into great depth about evolution,
misconceptions, and reasoning with evidence the
students would be far better off in general, and
would also be more able to truly understand the other biological issues that were covered. As opposed to current policy where they walk out of class with full of authority decreed facts that they grasp only at a superficial level.

There is nothing inherently religious about many of the claims and arguments that make up the creationist view. Notions such as "complex things
are designed and made" are highly intuitive to kids and more kids adopt these notions than can be accounted for by direct religious instruction.
Therefore, there is no reason why these naive conceptions can not be directly addressed without dragging religion into it. In fact, the teacher could simply begin the lesson by defining the scientific process as one where competing assumptions must be tested against reliable and valid evidence and that religions use a different method for accepting ideas that does not rely on
such evidence. This could be followed by the explanation that in this science class we are only going to be evaluating ideas, theories, and claims using the scientific, evidence-based approach. Spending a few minutes defining the evidence based nature of science is not
a "diversion", it is central to fostering any kind of understanding about the scientific process.

"He takes a breath and steps off soap box."

Buffman

doubtingt

That's a perfectly fine soapbox. It highlights a very significant concern of most thoughtful educators...and has been around for a long time. However, I have to question your position on the specific science classroom.

The real issue is "what is our educational goal in the science classroom?" Is it to fill kids heads with "scientific facts" so they can spit them back out in a standardized multiple choice test? Or is it to equip them with a deep understanding of and the skills to engage in evidence-based reasoning, argumentation, and theory testing?

To equip the "average" high school student with "a deep understanding of and the skills to engage in evidence-based reasoning, argumentation and theory testing" would require that they obtain a PhD in Scientific Methodology...not any specific, high school level, natural science discipline. Obviously that is not practical or realistic. However, that does not mean that we should not investigate what high school level programs are available, that would pass state and local district muster, that could expose all students to a course in Critical Thinking as a prerequisite for graduation.

Additionally, as the states demand more and more educational accountability from their public school systems, a whole new set of educational problems are introduced. Students must pass the state tests in order to be promoted and to graduate. The public schools in this state are being graded on these pass-fail statistics. Funding and voucher opportunities are also premised on the school's specific "letter score." It doesn't take a PhD to suspect that individual school administrators and teachers will tend to be sure that their students are prepared to pass the state's exams.

So, if there are any science (biology/chemistry/ physics/math) questions on those state exams, then I would have to say, "Yes, it is appropriate for science teachers to concentrate on filling a students head with accurate facts." And exactly how does a teacher determine if the students in his/her class are learning the materials being taught? Tests! And back to my previous post. What, from that enormous list of items, must be covered in the various science classrooms in the available time, and with some degree of assurance, that the accurate information has been successfully imparted to the maximum number of students possible?

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

A broad-based effort aimed at forging and mandating a course in Critical Thinking and the Scientific Method seems worthwhile and timely. One obvious resource would be <a href="http://www.project2061.org/" target="_blank">AAAS Project 2061</a>. I particularly recommend reviewing its publication <a href="http://www.project2061.org/tools/sfaaol/sfaatoc.htm" target="_blank">"Science for All Americans"</a>.

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>