Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

There is only so much the teacher, or indeed the education system as a whole, can do. If kids are going to be taught outside of school that certain physical phenomenon are indisputably and unquestioningly the result of unevidenced, unverifiable faith based phenomenon then, almost by definition, there is little that can be done to cause these views to be questioned or seriously challenged. If a hostile and suspicious attitude to science in general also goes hand in hand with this external faith based indoctrination, as is very likely the case, then the challenge you set science educators would seem to be an all but impossible task.In my view the best that can be achieved for such students is to be able to differentiate between what it is that science necessarily includes and excludes. The rest will either follow from that or it will not.An introduction to scientific thinking would therefore be required. This would take the form of a reasoned declaration and related discussion regarding what science is and why it must necessarily be as it is (tested reliable conclusions, testable hypotheses, physically observable phenomenon etc. etc. etc. including examples)
Once that has been done a brief statement that recognises that there are indeed alternate beliefs that do not comply with these requirements and that may even contradict the conclusions of science before making it absolutely clear that only scientific answers will be accepted on science tests and exams.
In short students are expected to learn science in science classes and will be judged on their ability to demonstrate that they have learnt science in science exams.If it helps to convince the students who most stubbornly resist scientific ideas then it might be worth pointing out that the ability to fully understand the point of view you oppose is a great advantage in actually opposing it . Thus scientific training is of great benefit to even the most ardent critics of science.Nobody is being asked to forego their faith. Students are just being asked to learn science in science classes. This should not be contentious!!! If students want to answer questions in exams with qualifiers such as "According to current scientific theories.........." then that should be allowed (and as far as I am aware is allowed).I don't think too much time should be spent on trying to appease student’s religious sensitivities. There is enough to cover in the science curriculum already.
Ultimately all the education system can do is give students the opportunity to learn science. After that you are relying on the individuality and intelligence of the individual students to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions regarding the validity or otherwise of scientific investigation Vs faith based "knowledge".The science classroom is not going to be able to undo all the harm of fundamentalist religious attitudes in society. Nor, in my view, should it try to do so.

Hey it's your thread so your rules apply. back.However while I have my soapbox out..........I was a science teacher in a previous life. I know many who still are. These are normal people with a wide range of attitudes and beliefs. Their main professional concern is dealing with a series of ever-changing syllabi, exams and guidelines whilst at the same time tackling the low aspirations and lack of enthusiasm, for education in general, of a proportion of their class who see school as little more than day prison.In short, whilst most would agree in principle with the need to keep religion out of the science classroom, it is hardly the burning issue of their day to day lives as teachers. I doubt many have even considered the question to a fraction of the extent that those of us preoccupied enough with such things as to spend our time discussing them from afar on internet forums, have done.It therefore seems grossly unfair to expect, or require, science teachers to be unwittingly thrown into the front line of the eternal debate between religion and science.
I don't think many science teachers have the appetite for the issue required to turn their classrooms into the battlefields on which the long campaign to tackle the role of religion in society is to be fought.
Nor do I think it does the teachers, the pupils or the education system as whole any good to force educators to be the foot soldiers of such wider principles.If people are being taught disproved irrational nonsense by their parents, churches, community leaders or whoever else then that is a problem for society as a whole. Not just for, or even primarily for, science teachers.If anything we should be protecting the science education of students by keeping this whole debate as far away from the science classroom as is possible instead of making science teaching the focal point of discussions that should be much much wider in context.Thankyou for listening. I'll put my soapbox away now.

What is the purpose of science? Discovery.
The aim of science is to discover the processes, mechanisms, building blocks and principles upon which the natural world is formed and develops.
Without discovery science is pointless. We do not invent the natural world we discover it. We do not value our theories on their ability to interpret. We value them on their ability to discover. To reveal the truths of nature.In any science class worth having in which ID, creationism, astrology, fortune telling or any other irrational, ideological faith based nonsense is discussed it is the duty of the teacher to point out that none of these have ever led to single discovery or new addition to the sum total of human knowledge. Ever.A science class should be instilled with the idea that discovery is the main aim of science and that theories that fail in this respect are worthless, potentially subjectively derived and ideologically based suppositions, that are unscientific and are thus of no scientific value at all.Wouldn't you agree?

This article was in the NYT section of the Observer today. Seemed very relevant to this discussion.New York TimesABE: Firstly apologies to Admin Nosy (see his post below)It is my view that the teacher in this article is a good example of a teacher who is very able to deal with the difficulties of this topic in a classroom. I think this is exactly the sort of thing Reiss had in mind and that it was therefore unfair the way that this panned out for him.However I know that I would have not been nearly so competent if faced with this situation when I was a 23 year old newly qualified science teacher. Faced with a student bearing a copy of "10 things to ask about evolution" I would very probably have been caught totally unawares. Nor do I think most science teachers would relish this situation.
In most cases science teachers are members of the communities in which they teach both by residence and, in many cases, upbringing. Many may have some sympathy with the prevalent views of that community whether they fully agree with them or not.I don't think it is fair to inflict the position of evolutionary advocate on science teachers such that they are forced to become the focal point for the ongoing dispute between religion and science within their communities.The problem of faith based anti science feelings are problems for the whole of society not solely for individual science teachers. In practical terms allowing this subject into the classroom to any great extent, no matter how the noble the intentions may be, will detract from the teaching of science. Make it clear what is science and what is not with reasoned argument and then get on with teaching that which is.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Can you name one discovery made directly as a result of creationist or IDist theories?