Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation Science In Schools: Give Us A Lesson Plan
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 46 of 48 (69476)
11-26-2003 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Dan Carroll
11-18-2003 1:37 PM


btext
Elementary and High School--
I would have the curriculum include a presentation of:
Chamaeleonidiae as a polybaramin
Agamidae as an apobaramin
and
Iguanidae as either a mono or holo baramin and give the class an excerise to decide which it would choose. Critics would be wrong to insist that even 6th graders can not drag and drop lizard icons under different names after some discussion of what these names may re-present representationally. It is the big baby's in academic chairs how dont know how to use this kind of computer.
I do not think that lizards are actually this simply divided but it will be instructive as well for those who do not understand the positive nature of my suggestionz(s) at length. I will now be prosecuting to failure such a view seeing that the positive nature of the the relation of creation and evolution I thought others here besides Z would respond to would be understood in the staement itself. It was not. Part of what is at issue came out with Loudmouth's contribution as that he insisted on the Pangaea (or the scorps could be remanded to speak for humanity thus in a way) that Croizat BEFORE plate tectonics on the base of biogeographic analysis insisted against Wallace in the New World was composite and not trackable back to a single chunked geology. Even should the evolution of such a position hold out in an end this does NOT stop the use of Creationism being taught and done IN THIS HYPOTHESIS in the mean time. I will be showing this in even greater deatail, if you can believe it, on the distinguishing baraminology thread, by insisting to failure that agamids are apobaramins, Old World Chamelons are polybaramins, and iguanids AS MONOBARAMINS (I am guesing the teeth will fall if the holobaramin is substituted here but I need to do a little more work before I can see if this tends to expand or condense the notion of the strech that does not disappear in any assertion of the moveable eye lizards polybaraminically as per Newton etc..) One of the results may be a use of catastrophe theory to diplay what it is that lizards regulate tempertuare objecively to but let me let the arising facts and not my theoretical predication drive what is being approached...Contrary to Ipterich it will become quite transparent how and why I panbiographically do see baramins this way. The intellectual issue that got in the way of you thinking that this stuff really is not elementary is only due (since I could reduce what was being spoken of by interacting with Loudmouth) to the double difficulty of simply comparing two different generations of evolutionary biologists which is not only more work than any specialist has to do but also more than the evolutionist himself does since they do not compare generations, they simply populate a particular one. There may be exceptions - The relevant information sis by Craw in Tuatara Vol. 27, No.1 1984p12-13 "Croizat's work is popularly, but erroneously, associated with the New York scholl of vicariance cladistic biogeography, developed by workers such as Nelson's, Rosen and Platnick. In fact, shortly before his death Croizat, in an as yet unpublished manuscript reviewing Neson and Platnick's well known work SYSTEMATICS AND BIOGEOGRAPHY was uncompromising in his opposition to vicariance biogeography: "Croizat has...worked hard and long to rid biogeography of the 'definitive authority' of Simpson, Mayr, Darlington, etc., and is now working, because of' the very same reasons, against the 'authority' of Nelson and his acolytes. Croizat offers no 'authority', just a method of positive investigation - the PANBIOGEOGRAPHY (ITALICS)." Craw goes on to say that Croizat is not followed more because scientists have evolution in this case as an occupation rather than a passion. I have a pasion tooooo but Cornell prevented me from making it my occupation. That was illegal but they are to big for one me to come up against.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-26-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Dan Carroll, posted 11-18-2003 1:37 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 47 of 48 (113075)
06-06-2004 6:51 PM


I know this is an old thread
but I think it is a very important one. If Creationism were to be taught in the schools it really is necessary to have a clear lesson plan.
If it is to be a six or seven week course it will become difficult to even touch on all of the various creation myths. Why in 6 weeks it would be nearly impossible to cover just the American Indian creation myths much less those of of other significant peoples in the Americas alone.
Instead, it might be a good idea for it to continue throughout junior and senior high school. For example, during junior high, the various religious based creation myths could be covered. Seventh grade could be devoted to the Christian, Jewish and Muslim Creation Myths since they are so similar, and the more varied Hindu pantheon. In the Eighth Grade some of the more complex creation myths like those of the Norse Gods and the early Druid tales might be covered. Ninth grade could get into Greek, Assyrian, Egyptian and Roman Creation myths.
One problem is that since so much of the Jewish, Muslim, Christian Creation Myth is based on the Egyptian and Assyrian Creation myths that it might be important to cover them first. It is impossible, for example, to understand most of Genesis without first understanding the Assyrian myths including the Tales of Gilgamesh and Enkidu.
By the time kids move into high school they are expected to be able to take in information rapidly and in volume. So studies of the myriad creation myths that are peculiar to individual peoples, the Inuit, and Tiklit, the North American Indians, the South and Central American civilizations, the tales from the Australian Aborigines, Thai, Cambodian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, South Pacific Islanders (in particular this might be a good time to study Easter Island and the part that religion played in halting advancement).
I imagine that there will be some challenges from those that get left out during the initial phases of course development. That is good as it will allow those missed initially to be included as the course work is finalized.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

  
Mespo
Member (Idle past 2885 days)
Posts: 158
From: Mesopotamia, Ohio, USA
Joined: 09-19-2002


Message 48 of 48 (113278)
06-07-2004 10:23 AM


What area of study, jar?
What you are proposing couldn't be taught as science. Social studies, perhaps, for the lower grades?
The proponents of Creation Science would be loath to acknowledge other creation myths, Native American for instance, as being on par with their own. They might compromise with the Genesis version being taught in science class and the others relegated to some other classification. But I can't believe for a moment that they would allow "equal time" for all creation myth variations.
(:raig

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024