quote:
(1) Science should be taught in a manner consistent to how good science is done. Modern scientific method requires the proposition of alternative hypotheses that make predictions about observable phenomena.
I didn't know this. Why are alternative hypotheses required? I also thought that modern science discarded theories that were previously shown to be erroneous...
quote:
It is not enough to present ONE hypothesis because data that are consistent with this hypothesis could well be consistent with other hypotheses as well. (A good example is that natural selection predicts that functional features of organisms will conform to engineering design principles--but this is the same prediction of intelligent design! Thus, conformity to design principles cannot be used to discriminate between evolution and creation.)
Sure, if you disregard the fossil record. It seems to me that you leave out certain facts in order to rationalize ID, for instance, to reality. And then of course you really should identify your designer...
quote:
A major goal of our educational system should be to provide our students with the intellectual tools to solve real problems; the scientific method is just such a powerful tool. (Also, Darwin himself used this method in the Origin, presenting predictions from special creation and Lamarckian transformism that could be distinguished from predictions from descent with modification. Being true to Darwin's presentation thus requires that we talk about special creation as a hypothesis.)
If you know of such evidence or predictions for creationism and the flood, I'd love to hear it.
quote:
(2) Kids are cyring out to understand what scientists think is wrong with creation and vice versa. Why can't we, as educators, help to satisfy this curiosity?
Most are not qualified to handle the 'crying out' by students indoctrinated by YEC websites. This is unfortunate. Having said that, I really don't see the 'crying out for understanding.' The evidence is probably clear to most students.
quote:
Isn't that what education is all about? Or do we just stifle this natural curiosity and stuff our students with information?
There are plenty of places where students can get this information. We see it here all the time.
quote:
Unfortunately, most science classes (like those I suffered throughout school) are just dogmatic littanies of disconnected facts. When students get to graduate school, they are shocked to learn they have to think for themselves. Promoting active discussion and learning in the classroom should be a major goal of education.
As I said, it is unfortunate that most teachers and professors may not be qualified in this area.
quote:
(3) Creation is not just some kooky untestable hypothesis cooked up by some bible-thumping radical, it was the major scientific dogma until about 100 years ago.
Just my point. Why would we go back 100 years in scientific progress?
quote:
As long as creation is allowed to produce at least some testable hypotheses, ...
Such as?
quote:
...it deserves treatment as a hypothesis that can be talked about in a science classroom. For some reason, we are free to bring up Lamarckian transformism as an alternative hypothesis to Darwinian evolution, but shy away from treating intelligent design or special creation as alternative hypotheses.
I never heard of Lamarckism in any classes and neither has my son. Perhaps we shy away from alternatvie hypotheses because the fall short of explaining the totality of the evidence arrayed across several fields of science.
quote:
We bring up spontaneous generation as an alternative to Mendelian heredity and terra-centric hypotheses as alternatives to heliocentric hypotheses.
Did your professors spend time discussing terracentrism? I never even had it brought up in a single geology class. I suppose I should feel deprived...
quote:
Just for the sake of completeness in the history of science that we present to students, we should emphasize the importance of creationist theory in biology.
Oh, as a simply historical item? Sure. However, since it did not arise from scientific empricism I hardly think of it as important in biological theory.
quote:
Otherwise it is a biased treatment.
Ah! Another unbiased person. I admit to bias in life, myself. I have a strong preference for evidence and logic.
quote:
(4) By advocating "balanced" presentation, I am NOT advocating "equal time". It would be silly to spend equal time on flat-earth hypotheses as on round-earth ones. But students are crying out for "some time" to be spent on creation,...
And assertion. Do you actually have data on this?
quote:
...and this is completely OK, as long as we stick to creationist hypotheses that are testable.
Once again, I'd love to know what these are.
quote:
Creationist (as well as adaptationist) hypotheses that are not testable should be left out of the science classroom and perhaps discussed in other kinds of classes (e.g., theological philosophy?).
These are only a few arguments for balanced curricula. Does anyone have additional arguments?
There are plenty of places for students to learn about YECism if they
really want to.
™ Version 4.2