Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Quetzal · 10-03-2002, 10:04 PM

I am on the Board of Governors (equivalent to school board) of my two daughters' school (K-12). I have been asked to review the syllabus for the IB Biology curriculum they plan to teach, primarily with an eye toward providing additional resources/appropriate papers, recommending texts, etc. (For those who don't know, IB stands for International Baccalaureate - IB Biology is roughly equivalent to taking a condensed, intensive pass at the first two years of a core biology degree at the average uni - with a lot of the detail omitted).

The syllabus includes in the core material concerning origin of species a brief discussion (probably no more than two class periods...) of "Other theories for the origin of species including special creation and panspermia". The section concludes with "Discuss the evidence for all these theories and the applicability of the scientific method for further investigation". Since this is an international school outside the US, it is not restricted by the courts. Here's your golden opportunity to insert the best evidence you have available for special creation. Be aware, however, that the kids who take IB Biology are going to be really hard to convince. God-of-the-gaps and Behe-esque argument from incredulity are NOT gonna fly. The students are from multiple countries and multiple religions - including a fair selection of non-religious students. An argument based only on the assertion that the Christian goddidit will fall about as flat as a lead balloon.

Before everyone jumps down my throat - the rest of the two-year syllabus is pure science, including topics such as: OOL (an examination of the various hypotheses and evidence for/against each), detailed discussion on the evidence for evolution, detailed discussion on human evolution, neo-Darwinian synthesis, intro to population genetics, intro to biodiversity and conservation, intro to evolutionary psychology/sociobiology, etc. It's a damn good curriculum afaict.

Here's your chance, creationists. Give it your best shot. Present the hard evidence that will convince these kids that goddidit. If you can at least provide a convincing, evidence-based argument, I promise to bring it to the class and work to convince the rest of the board that it should be admitted.

Good luck.

Reldas of Melchezidec · 10-07-2002, 12:40 AM

Hallo,
Perhaps a good definition of the epistomology of science will lead us down enlightened avenues. The theory of evolution by natural selection is something that is very difficult for us limited beings to conceptualize- thus arises alot of confusion concerning it, especially with people highly predispositioned (socialy ingrained)against buzz words and connotations. I think that I can safely generalize for once in that science IS a "tool"- a self-analizing process involving the cognitave and creative abilities inherant in all Homo sapiens(lesser degree in the mentally retarded)(not sure about "vegtables")

It is a natural process(for humans)to observe and wonder about the nature around us. Science simply refines that aspect emperically(theorectically) in us. hoof...take a deeeeeep breathe,
and With this tool we observe and gather data, and then organize it by labeling different aspects of its existance in reference to what we've labeled as its environmental factors.(notice the distinction between science and the tool of math- as math transcends the reality phenomena of "chaos" , though math is an integral part of "seer-science") Seer-science is the next step- in that once we observe and label all that we've observed(noticeing patterns in the process), we get to the fun part of predicting unknown aspects based on some tenative patterns earlier observed. Now the substance that keeps science alive lies in this next part: Our little prediction comes true!!! This gives us a little pang of excitement

And a exaltant feeling that we've just chipped away a little chunk of the vast unknown. Of coarse, there is the whole rest of the verification process in modern science and aren't we crushed when all our observing and labeling and prophesizing comes back adulterated with red ink!
Where was my purpose in that rant? Why, for the purposes of clarification. Now, it would take the better half of a lifetime to try and describe my relationship with God through the Christ(Logos) because for one it includes every aspect of my endo and exo observations of existance from moment to moment. For all purposes, Christ being the capstone of my reality changes my perspective entirely, opening my mind to revel in the creation as perception comes. Now, the problem arises that though I want to communicate my personel faith to these youngsters and give them the same foundation that has filled this shell to overflowing, the very nature of spiritual matters makes them easily misinterpreted and so they are best communicated through analogies, poems, parables, and paradoxes. It is counterproducticve to try and teach the science of creation(i.e. all emphasis and glory in the scientific method be given to God, from whom all understanding flows) to children who have no faith in God. Perhaps a separate coarse covering spiritual matters in the form of riddles, paradoxes, and parables will let the young minds decide for themselves how to interprit the natural world. This seems better than to try and explain that the concept of chaos is only a rudimentary explanation of universal phenomena derived from our limited perspective.
Science tends to try and understand what was, is, and tries to predict what will be. I already know what is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, but God must've instilled me with this innocent curiosity and wonder of his creation for a reason, yes? Science is a usefull tool...
My deepest apologies for ranting on like so, but once I start a thread with someone, they soon figure out that all of mine are from the same ball of yarn.

Peace and Grace,
Reldas

Oolon Colluphid · 10-07-2002, 02:30 AM

WTF??

Quote:

Originally posted by Reldas of Melchezidec:
<strong>Where was my purpose in that rant? Why, for the purposes of clarification. </strong>

Keep workin' on it...

Oolon Colluphid · 10-07-2002, 04:57 AM

Hi Reldas

I�ve done my best to figure out what you�re on about, and as far as I can see, you�re not really opposing evolution... which was the point of Morpho�s post. So, just a few comments:

Quote:

For all purposes, Christ being the capstone of my reality changes my perspective entirely, opening my mind to revel in the creation as perception comes.

Fine. If viewing the universe as the creation of some god makes you happy, then all power to you. I only quarrel with those who want to claim that the myths of middle-eastern goatherders are factually true. As for revelling in creation, if you mean creation as the glories of the natural world, then theists do not have a monopoly on that!

Quote:

Now, the problem arises that though I want to communicate my personel faith to these youngsters and give them the same foundation that has filled this shell to overflowing, the very nature of spiritual matters makes them easily misinterpreted and so they are best communicated through analogies, poems, parables, and paradoxes.

I�ll go with that. As Dawkins has said, I�d love to hear Bach�s oratorio Evolution! Mind you, as above, one doesn�t have to believe in loving gods and their ilk for the crab nebula or bat sonar to make one�s spirit soar. And science tells us more about these things than faith ever can.

Quote:

It is counterproducticve to try and teach the science of creation

I hope you actually mean things like �biology�, for there is no science in creationism...

Quote:

(i.e. all emphasis and glory in the scientific method be given to God, from whom all understanding flows)

Huh?

Quote:

to children who have no faith in God.

Why is faith necessary? Can we not appreciate things, appreciate them even better, when we see them for what they really are? Is there no �glory in this view of life�?

Quote:

Perhaps a separate coarse covering spiritual matters in the form of riddles, paradoxes, and parables will let the young minds decide for themselves how to interprit the natural world.

Sure. Provided they�re taught sceptical thinking too, along with mystical mumbo-jumbo. They should be taught that spiritual experiences can be wonderful... and that they can be induced by electrochemical changes in the brain.

Quote:

This seems better than to try and explain that the concept of chaos is only a rudimentary explanation of universal phenomena derived from our limited perspective.

The concept of chaos is to do with physics and broad patterns in the natural world. Linked to it are concepts of complexity, self-organisation etc. While these have their place in biology, it sounds like (correct me if I�m wrong) you think that�s all there is to evolution... and hence back to the old creationist claims about �random evolution�, evolution being a theory of chance etc.

In case you don�t know, with evolution there are two factors. One is mutations, which are indeed random. The other is natural selection, which is the diametric opposite of randomness. It is selection that is responsible for organised complexity, by only keeping, at each generation, what works already in the niche, and any improvements that mutations throw up. It operates like a ratchet, building on what�s gone before, not starting from scratch each time. Chance is therefore only tangentially involved.

Natural selection is a very well studied phenomenon; it has little to do with chance or chaos (or at least it is a major factor and is not itself chaotic); and it is very far from being �only a rudimentary explanation� for life. It does explain masses about life, in exquisite detail. And it bases the explanations on empirical data, not mysticism.

Best wishes, Oolon

Wyz_sub10 · 10-07-2002, 05:15 AM

Aaaaaaaaanyhooooo...I think Morpho was looking for some input as to what he should discuss.

Morpho, are you limited to christianity in "special creation"? You may want to take those two days to go through cultural beliefs of creation around the globe. Then lead in to a discussion of how, when and why (although it may be beyond scope) things started to tilt.

You can then describe the scientific method and how we test and discover.

Although I'm not a fan of this line of teaching, I understand it's a requirement and I think you have a good opportunity here.

Private message me if you want some help with this. I work as a consultant in healthcare, but I do have my teaching degree (in biology), although my curriculum development is a little rusty.

10-07-2002, 06:24 AM

Morpho: congratulations on having your daughters doing IB! It's a wonderful programme. My daughter and son both did it at the International School of Geneva and got a lot out of it. My son didn't do Biology: he did Maths, Physics and Chemistry at Higher level, but my daughter did Biology at Subsidiary level with Molecular Genetics as her special option, and she greatly enjoyed it.

For the benefit of those who don't know IB, I should mention that a compulsory part of the course, separate from all the main subjects, is Theory of Knowledge, or if you prefer, Epistemology. This course examines things like scientific method and arguments from authority and so on. I would suggest therefore that any attempt to justify creationism for the Biology part of the syllabus should try to do so in a scientific context.

Albion · 10-07-2002, 10:13 AM

Given that the IB syllabus includes a theory of knowledge course and that its science courses seem to be rigorous, I'm surprised to see special creation being referred to as a theory. That would seem to fly in the face of everything else the syllabus teaches. I can see the point of critiquing special creation in terms of its deficiencies as a theory but not of allowing it equivalent status.

Oolon Colluphid · 10-08-2002, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Albion:
<strong>Given that the IB syllabus includes a theory of knowledge course and that its science courses seem to be rigorous, I'm surprised to see special creation being referred to as a theory. </strong>

"It's only a theory!"

Oolon

Quetzal · 10-08-2002, 01:06 AM

Thanks to everyone for your responses (even reldas, 'though to be honest I don't have the first clue as to what you're on about).

wiz: No, it's not limited to the Xian creation myth. In fact, the blurb in the syllabus talks about creation stories (plural). However, given that Xianity is the most pervasive and pernicious of the lot, I think that a focus on this particular version makes some sense.

Fortunately, I don't actually have to develop the curriculum. I've just been asked to provide resource material not available to the school (we're in Ukraine, remember

). I appreciate the offer of help. If you have any suggestions outside the usual creationist nonsense of AiG and ICR, that might be useful. It's tough finding anything that isn't utterly ridiculous. I have a correspondant (a YECreationist microbiologist - can you say, "cognitive dissonance") that's putting together what appears to be a pretty good two-day lesson plan. I'll either post it here when completed or PM you as you offered so you can take a look at it.

DMB:It's an awesome school. Great teachers (about equally divided between US, UK, and Aussie, with a few top notch Ukrainians). Full IB World accreditation, also ECIS accreditation. Small - with 8-12 student classes. #1 daughter, whom I dispaired of ever being interested in education, is thriving in that environment. (#2 daughter could probably get a full PhD by watching videos! is also doing well - straight top marks - but she'd ace ANY course anywhere).

Albion: I think they're using "theory" in the common-usage sense in the syllabus. They aren't calling special creation a "theory" in the scientific sense. It's certainly NOT being given "equal status". We're talking 2 hours of a two-year curriculum. The entire section ends with a "critical examination of the evidence for the theories and possible application of the scientific method to further research". I'd say this gives the students a dynamite opportunity to perform a real-world exercise in applying scientific epistemology to competing ideas. Wanna bet creationism doesn't come off well?

As far as teaching it at all - IMO superstition is rampant as you well know. Better the students get exposed to the ideas - and how to evaluate them - before they're subjected to them in the real world.

10-08-2002, 01:34 AM

Just a thought, Morpho. Don't omit islamic creationism. It's an important strain. See in particular <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1856490254/qid=1034069638/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-1625710-1781708?v=glance" target="_blank">Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality by Pervez Hoodbhoy </a>.

Good luck with your work!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-03-2002, 10:04 PM	#1
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	A Genuine Offer to Creationists I am on the Board of Governors (equivalent to school board) of my two daughters' school (K-12). I have been asked to review the syllabus for the IB Biology curriculum they plan to teach, primarily with an eye toward providing additional resources/appropriate papers, recommending texts, etc. (For those who don't know, IB stands for International Baccalaureate - IB Biology is roughly equivalent to taking a condensed, intensive pass at the first two years of a core biology degree at the average uni - with a lot of the detail omitted). The syllabus includes in the core material concerning origin of species a brief discussion (probably no more than two class periods...) of "Other theories for the origin of species including special creation and panspermia". The section concludes with "Discuss the evidence for all these theories and the applicability of the scientific method for further investigation". Since this is an international school outside the US, it is not restricted by the courts. Here's your golden opportunity to insert the best evidence you have available for special creation. Be aware, however, that the kids who take IB Biology are going to be really hard to convince. God-of-the-gaps and Behe-esque argument from incredulity are NOT gonna fly. The students are from multiple countries and multiple religions - including a fair selection of non-religious students. An argument based only on the assertion that the Christian goddidit will fall about as flat as a lead balloon. Before everyone jumps down my throat - the rest of the two-year syllabus is pure science, including topics such as: OOL (an examination of the various hypotheses and evidence for/against each), detailed discussion on the evidence for evolution, detailed discussion on human evolution, neo-Darwinian synthesis, intro to population genetics, intro to biodiversity and conservation, intro to evolutionary psychology/sociobiology, etc. It's a damn good curriculum afaict. Here's your chance, creationists. Give it your best shot. Present the hard evidence that will convince these kids that goddidit. If you can at least provide a convincing, evidence-based argument, I promise to bring it to the class and work to convince the rest of the board that it should be admitted. Good luck.

10-07-2002, 12:40 AM	#2
Reldas of Melchezidec Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: "Wherever the body is, there the vultures gather..." Posts: 106	Hallo, Perhaps a good definition of the epistomology of science will lead us down enlightened avenues. The theory of evolution by natural selection is something that is very difficult for us limited beings to conceptualize- thus arises alot of confusion concerning it, especially with people highly predispositioned (socialy ingrained)against buzz words and connotations. I think that I can safely generalize for once in that science IS a "tool"- a self-analizing process involving the cognitave and creative abilities inherant in all Homo sapiens(lesser degree in the mentally retarded)(not sure about "vegtables") It is a natural process(for humans)to observe and wonder about the nature around us. Science simply refines that aspect emperically(theorectically) in us. hoof...take a deeeeeep breathe, and With this tool we observe and gather data, and then organize it by labeling different aspects of its existance in reference to what we've labeled as its environmental factors.(notice the distinction between science and the tool of math- as math transcends the reality phenomena of "chaos" , though math is an integral part of "seer-science") Seer-science is the next step- in that once we observe and label all that we've observed(noticeing patterns in the process), we get to the fun part of predicting unknown aspects based on some tenative patterns earlier observed. Now the substance that keeps science alive lies in this next part: Our little prediction comes true!!! This gives us a little pang of excitement And a exaltant feeling that we've just chipped away a little chunk of the vast unknown. Of coarse, there is the whole rest of the verification process in modern science and aren't we crushed when all our observing and labeling and prophesizing comes back adulterated with red ink! Where was my purpose in that rant? Why, for the purposes of clarification. Now, it would take the better half of a lifetime to try and describe my relationship with God through the Christ(Logos) because for one it includes every aspect of my endo and exo observations of existance from moment to moment. For all purposes, Christ being the capstone of my reality changes my perspective entirely, opening my mind to revel in the creation as perception comes. Now, the problem arises that though I want to communicate my personel faith to these youngsters and give them the same foundation that has filled this shell to overflowing, the very nature of spiritual matters makes them easily misinterpreted and so they are best communicated through analogies, poems, parables, and paradoxes. It is counterproducticve to try and teach the science of creation(i.e. all emphasis and glory in the scientific method be given to God, from whom all understanding flows) to children who have no faith in God. Perhaps a separate coarse covering spiritual matters in the form of riddles, paradoxes, and parables will let the young minds decide for themselves how to interprit the natural world. This seems better than to try and explain that the concept of chaos is only a rudimentary explanation of universal phenomena derived from our limited perspective. Science tends to try and understand what was, is, and tries to predict what will be. I already know what is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, but God must've instilled me with this innocent curiosity and wonder of his creation for a reason, yes? Science is a usefull tool... My deepest apologies for ranting on like so, but once I start a thread with someone, they soon figure out that all of mine are from the same ball of yarn. Peace and Grace, Reldas

10-07-2002, 05:15 AM	#5
Wyz_sub10 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep. Posts: 9,890	Aaaaaaaaanyhooooo...I think Morpho was looking for some input as to what he should discuss. Morpho, are you limited to christianity in "special creation"? You may want to take those two days to go through cultural beliefs of creation around the globe. Then lead in to a discussion of how, when and why (although it may be beyond scope) things started to tilt. You can then describe the scientific method and how we test and discover. Although I'm not a fan of this line of teaching, I understand it's a requirement and I think you have a good opportunity here. Private message me if you want some help with this. I work as a consultant in healthcare, but I do have my teaching degree (in biology), although my curriculum development is a little rusty.

10-07-2002, 06:24 AM	#6
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Morpho: congratulations on having your daughters doing IB! It's a wonderful programme. My daughter and son both did it at the International School of Geneva and got a lot out of it. My son didn't do Biology: he did Maths, Physics and Chemistry at Higher level, but my daughter did Biology at Subsidiary level with Molecular Genetics as her special option, and she greatly enjoyed it. For the benefit of those who don't know IB, I should mention that a compulsory part of the course, separate from all the main subjects, is Theory of Knowledge, or if you prefer, Epistemology. This course examines things like scientific method and arguments from authority and so on. I would suggest therefore that any attempt to justify creationism for the Biology part of the syllabus should try to do so in a scientific context.

10-07-2002, 10:13 AM	#7
Albion Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com Posts: 2,829	Given that the IB syllabus includes a theory of knowledge course and that its science courses seem to be rigorous, I'm surprised to see special creation being referred to as a theory. That would seem to fly in the face of everything else the syllabus teaches. I can see the point of critiquing special creation in terms of its deficiencies as a theory but not of allowing it equivalent status.

10-08-2002, 01:06 AM	#9
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Thanks to everyone for your responses (even reldas, 'though to be honest I don't have the first clue as to what you're on about). wiz: No, it's not limited to the Xian creation myth. In fact, the blurb in the syllabus talks about creation stories (plural). However, given that Xianity is the most pervasive and pernicious of the lot, I think that a focus on this particular version makes some sense. Fortunately, I don't actually have to develop the curriculum. I've just been asked to provide resource material not available to the school (we're in Ukraine, remember ). I appreciate the offer of help. If you have any suggestions outside the usual creationist nonsense of AiG and ICR, that might be useful. It's tough finding anything that isn't utterly ridiculous. I have a correspondant (a YECreationist microbiologist - can you say, "cognitive dissonance") that's putting together what appears to be a pretty good two-day lesson plan. I'll either post it here when completed or PM you as you offered so you can take a look at it. DMB:It's an awesome school. Great teachers (about equally divided between US, UK, and Aussie, with a few top notch Ukrainians). Full IB World accreditation, also ECIS accreditation. Small - with 8-12 student classes. #1 daughter, whom I dispaired of ever being interested in education, is thriving in that environment. (#2 daughter could probably get a full PhD by watching videos! is also doing well - straight top marks - but she'd ace ANY course anywhere). Albion: I think they're using "theory" in the common-usage sense in the syllabus. They aren't calling special creation a "theory" in the scientific sense. It's certainly NOT being given "equal status". We're talking 2 hours of a two-year curriculum. The entire section ends with a "critical examination of the evidence for the theories and possible application of the scientific method to further research". I'd say this gives the students a dynamite opportunity to perform a real-world exercise in applying scientific epistemology to competing ideas. Wanna bet creationism doesn't come off well? As far as teaching it at all - IMO superstition is rampant as you well know. Better the students get exposed to the ideas - and how to evaluate them - before they're subjected to them in the real world.

10-08-2002, 01:34 AM	#10
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Just a thought, Morpho. Don't omit islamic creationism. It's an important strain. See in particular <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1856490254/qid=1034069638/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-1625710-1781708?v=glance" target="_blank">Islam and Science: Religious Orthodoxy and the Battle for Rationality by Pervez Hoodbhoy </a>. Good luck with your work!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.