Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

I agree and disagree. I concede that your points are very strong, and I think we have both put elucidated where our positions differ. Maybe some other time I'll have put more thought into the 'Teachers as foot soldiers in the culture wars' line of reasoning and will be able to grace it with thoughtful commentary for future debate.Until then...

Sorry about not replying cavediver. I read it, but couldn't think of anything to add. Yeah, the only way I could make this not sound a bit limp-wristed is for the 'not' to have been emphasized. PZ Myers weighed in on the issue and tells us what he teaches his Freshmen. It was a nice outline, but it missed the fact that Freshmen studying biology at university are mostly composed of people that want to learn more biology and that the proposal would bring this discussion into the realms of compulsory education.Are double lessons only 80 minutes these days? I remember double biology lessons - I hated 2 hours of copying text by rote and drawing diagrams of the loop of Henle. Anyway, your proposal sounds good. I don't know if 80 minutes is quite enough - but I've never done a lesson plan so I'll bow to your better qualified estimate

Who are 'we'? And why is it that 'we' want only to teach core scientific concepts?Here in the UK there is a section on bioethics. I=I say it is important for future scientists and for those who take no further science education, to be at least slightly educated in the social issues so that they can make informed decisions in the future.I'm not suggesting doing much more than briefly discussing the issues, anyway. Making people aware that they exist, that in depth discussion of them may be better served in a RS (religious studies) or PSE (Personal/Social education) class and the like is all I'm suggesting. Why not? Because it would be a 'distraction'? The argument is, that it is a distraction anyway, and that ignoring it does not make it less so. It only need take up a few hours total (if that! 15 minutes may well be enough to get the basic point accross). I'm not suggesting we say 'creationism is for idiots'. Just 'some people still believe in the pre-Darwinian view of life. It is not a scientifically supported position...though some people may claim it is they are significantly in the minority. As such, given that this is a class about the science of biology - let us learn the science side of things.' The people who did all that were educated 25+ years ago, so it hardly serves as a valid indicator of current trends does it? I'm sure the amount of money has increased, but as a percentage of GDP? I can't find many stats, but those I can show a downward trend over the past 20 years in the US.Perhaps an interesting side thread, exploring this in more depth? Why do your stats show other stats are dubious? Indeed, in the study associated with the statistics I posted, they discuss the statistics you posted. I thought my OP was fairly clear on the kind of thing I'm proposing. I have no concrete opinion as to specific details beyond the OP and a few ideas bounded around spread across various posts. Cavediver's proposal seems like an interesting idea - though it may have to be altered for a different academic environment. Perhaps it would fail in the US, but I do not share that instinct with the UK education system.I used to love biology until I went to high school. It was years afterwards before I regained that love. I am not suggesting this is evidence, but I do know something of what it is to be alienated from a subject because of differing philosophies of pupil and teacher. No worries, allow me to do likewise: I'll see what I can draw up for you some time if you require further data. I haven't got the resources to hand to search in depth.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

And unfortunately I'm unfamiliar with the US system Here each lesson is usually between 40-55 minutes long, and at GCSE level (14-16, the last two years of compulsory education: getting your GCSEs is the equivalent of 'graduating' from high school) you usually do between 8-12 different subjects. Some periods are double lessons, and are just two consecutive periods dedicated to one subject (I'm not trying to be patronising, I'm assuming total ignorance to try and avoid missing anything).Cavediver is proposing that 1 of those double lessons (so 80minutes to 2 hours) be a cross-discipline lesson and since evolution lends itself well to such a lesson and since it is a subject that is proposed to cause problems it sounds like a great lesson to give. The time spent seems minimal, but I think it might be better to increase the amount of time spent on it (there is too little emphasis on discussing how various subjects can tie together, they are fanatically compartmentalised).The real downside is that the class size would have to be very large since so many teachers will be tied up dealing with it. I can't see tying up all those teachers 10-15 times at one point in the term would be better than teaching the whole year (erm, grade I guess you'd call it) in the assembly hall just once a year.

Here

quote:

---

The Royal Society’s embattled director of education resigned last night, days after causing uproar among scientists by appearing to endorse the teaching of creationism.

​

Michael Reiss, a biologist and ordained Church of England clergyman, agreed to step down from his position with the national academy of science after its officers decided that his comments had damaged its reputation.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Understood - but I specifically asked about scientific core concepts in the science class. Why only core scientific concepts and not core concepts that are related to science? It wouldn't be odd to see a chemistry lesson in which a science teacher attempts to explain some of the political problems associated with carbon emissions or global warming. Or a physics teacher might discuss some of the public ramifications surrounding nuclear waste disposal.In biology, such things as cloning and genetic modifications have social implications that are discussed.If a physics teacher were to discuss heliocentrism it would seem perfectly natural to discuss the resistance from the church and a simple account of the Galileo incident.But, perhaps because everybody has become hyper-sensitive to creationism's sneaky tactics or maybe out of fear of legal action...the idea of even mentioning creationism in any context is immediately suspect; it has become something of a taboo, it would seem. We may disagree on our perceptions, but we agree on the need for caution and weighing things carefully. I think it also wise that we take heed of this advice too, "The policy of being too cautious is the greatest risk of all." -- Jawaharlal Nehru Entirely. I enjoy barking, but I'd rather not be doing it up the wrong tree.

You may have missed it, it was rather stealthy, but I posted a link earlier in the thread to Reiss' original statement. Starting with the phrase you highlight, and continuing it for context:

quote:

---

I feel that creationism is best seen by science teachers not as a misconception but as a world view. The implication of this is that the most a science teacher can normally hope to achieve is to ensure that students with creationist beliefs understand the scientific position. In the short term, this scientific world view is unlikely to supplant a creationist one.

​

So how might one teach evolution in science lessons, say to 14 to 16-year-olds? Many scientists, and some science educators, fear that consideration of creationism or intelligent design in a science classroom legitimises them.

​

For example, the excellent book Science, Evolution, and Creationism published by the US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, asserts: "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support."

​

I agree with the first sentence but disagree with the second. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.

​

So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.

---

From Michael Reiss: How to convert a generation

quote:

---

“An increasing percentage of children in the UK come from families that do not accept the scientific version of the history of the universe and the evolution of species. What are we to do with those children?” he said.

​

“My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science that one really wants them to learn.

​

“I think a better way forward is to say to them, ’Look, I simply want to present you with the scientific understanding of the history of the universe and how animals and plants and other organisms evolved.” Discussing Creationism in a respectful way made it less likely that children would ignore science or detach from it, he said.

​

He added that he felt children would not be marked down for expressing creationist opinions in science exams: “As far as I’m aware examinations in science don’t penalise students for giving their personal opinions.”

---

Yeah, I've already read it - worth hearing their opinions. But obligatory tongue in cheek wrist slap alert. Ready? OK, it's Myers

Ok, I did totally forget one cite and gave a completely different one than I meant to for the other, I was posting at work and I ended up having to actually do some work and submitted a little prematurely. Apologies for the confusion.The first quote is from Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design and the second quote is from UK educator: Teach creationism. You can also hear him talk on the subject here. Whose Myers?
PZ Myers.
Not PZ Meyers
Your wrist, my tongue. It's a common misspelling of his name, it crops up a lot on the blog where he posts hatemail. Yeah, his words/actions don't seem to have damaged the reputation of the Royal Society, but the media's headlines have...but he's the only one capable of doing anything about that. It's fairly perverted.

I know what you are saying, but never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance and compartmentalization. Double think is very much real. It is possible for a person to think that both science teaching AND belief in God are the most important things without feeling any contradiction.Given he is but a lowly priest when it comes to God related matters, but was the Director of Education at the Royal society and is Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education amongst other science education related accolades, qualifications and experience would lend me to believe that in practice science education is his life's work even if philosophically speaking he would say that devotion to baby Jesus was more important.That said, I'm sure the Jesus love may seep across from time to time, colouring this or that. For the most part, I think his desire to better science education is genuine and that his science education glasses are only slightly tinted with the blood of Christ.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.