|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9027 total) |
| |
JustTheFacts | |
Total: 883,525 Year: 1,171/14,102 Month: 163/411 Week: 59/125 Day: 27/32 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Request for Tranquility Base | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
TB: Believe it or not, I think I may take you up on your response to the "I'm never moving down south" thread (at least partially). 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-yearsyllabus 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, TB. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
--I know this is a question directed toward TB, however, I would simply like to make a simple addition. As we find when we do encounter discussions of highly intellectual debate here at evcforum, there is increasingly great emphasis placed on the concept of interpretation. I would therefor, recommend there be a segregated section in the syllabus whereby this concept is revealed and delved into at the highest depth possible. Without completely understanding these principles, the simplest questioning of current scientific hypothesis and their fundamental basis in data & evidence are unable to begin crossing the students minds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Hi TC: Although the OP was addressed to our good TB - primarily in response to his post in the "Never moving down south thread" - the offer is open to ANY creationist. Given the nature and quality of the science presented in the course, and the fact that these kids are being given a crash-course in scientific methodology and critical thinking along with their biology, I do have some suggestions: 1. Offering simplistic explanations such as "Genesis said it, therefore it's true" won't fly. 2. Attacking ToE rather than providing evidentiary support for creationism won't fly. These kids are going to demand evidence one way or the other - the curriculum is designed to present the kids with evidence for evolutionary biology, then give them the tools needed to analyze at least superficially the evidence. I'd expect the creationist POV to be presented the same way. 3. They will have a pretty good foundation in science, but won't (probably) be able to really understand extremely technical details. However, they should be able to get the gist of most arguments. If there is documentary support - even highly technical - for the argument, it can be presented as additional reading. You will need to provide some explanation that can be understood by a smart student, but that shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. After all, creationism gains adherents regularly by appealing to a completely lay audience. Here's a chance to present evidence to a somewhat more knowledgeable group. 4. These are budding biologists. "Wow, life is really complex therefore goddidit" will be insufficient. I appreciate your feedback, TC, however you should realize that the course is not designed as an evolution-vs-creation debate, nor is it designed to thoroughly investigate creationism. I am merely offering the opportunity to creationists to provide at least ONE compelling, evidentiary argument in favor of their stance. As it stands now, the kids will probably get at best a brief selection of a couple of articles from AiG or ICR as the "best" that creationism can come up with. You should as aware as I am that these don't necessarily provide good evidence. Basically, it's put up or shut up time. I'm giving "you" a possible forum to present the best you've got to a bunch of smart kids without worrying about whether you'll get sued. I guarantee - in spite of my personal "bias" - that the material will be presented to them as compellingly and fairly as you present it here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"1. Offering simplistic explanations such as "Genesis said it, therefore it's true" won't fly.
2. Attacking ToE rather than providing evidentiary support for creationism won't fly. These kids are going to demand evidence one way or the other - the curriculum is designed to present the kids with evidence for evolutionary biology, then give them the tools needed to analyze at least superficially the evidence. I'd expect the creationist POV to be presented the same way. 3. They will have a pretty good foundation in science, but won't (probably) be able to really understand extremely technical details. However, they should be able to get the gist of most arguments. If there is documentary support - even highly technical - for the argument, it can be presented as additional reading. You will need to provide some explanation that can be understood by a smart student, but that shouldn't be an insurmountable problem. After all, creationism gains adherents regularly by appealing to a completely lay audience. Here's a chance to present evidence to a somewhat more knowledgeable group. 4. These are budding biologists. "Wow, life is really complex therefore goddidit" will be insufficient." "I appreciate your feedback, TC, however you should realize that the course is not designed as an evolution-vs-creation debate, nor is it designed to thoroughly investigate creationism." --Is this a creation vs. non-creation or is this an evolution vs. non-evolution type of thing? "I am merely offering the opportunity to creationists to provide at least ONE compelling, evidentiary argument in favor of their stance. As it stands now, the kids will probably get at best a brief selection of a couple of articles from AiG or ICR as the "best" that creationism can come up with. You should as aware as I am that these don't necessarily provide good evidence." ------------------ [This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-06-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Exactly, TC. My emphasis in the above pinpoints what I think would be the best target - but I'm open to suggestions. I agree that it would be tough to present a thorough refutation of the ToE in one or two classes. However, I like your idea about the "general thesis". A general idea, with references that can be checked, would be super - and probably the best thing that could be presented in the time allotted. Timeframe: There's a school board meeting on the 15th. I'll be presenting my recommendations for the curricula then, although I'll probably have a meeting beforehand with the bio prof. You have my email, or you could post it here on the forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
*******************************************
EVIDENCE FOR A CREATED ORIGIN OF LIFE FORMS ******************************************* A 2 lesson alternative origins syllabus outline for senior high school science courses www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=14&m=6#6 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=14&m=6#6">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=14&m=6#6 By Tranquility Base October 2002 NOTES LESSON 1 * INTRODUCTION * DISTINCTNESS OF KINDS & ANATOMIES * SYSTEMATIC JUMPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD * FOSSIL ORDER * CONVERGENT FEATURES LESSON 2 * ROLE OF NATURAL SELECTION * DISTINCTNESS IN GENETICS * GENES CODE FOR PROTEINS WHICH DO VERY SPECIFIC JOBS & THE SYSTEMS APPEAR TO REQUIRE A MINIMAL NUMBER OF THEM * CONCLUSIONS [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 4666 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Excellent start, TB! Really only one suggestion so far:
quote: This is a slip back into the old creationist "argument from authority". It adds nothing to your paragraph, and is an immediate red flag. The rest of the paragraph stands quite well without it. Remember, we're trying to convince the students with evidence, not rhetoric. you're[/b] trying to convince the students" [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 10-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ Point taken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Update 3 is up. I'll probably add a few more concrete examples in each section over the next few days and then leave it at that.
Any ideas from evolutionists about fossil order? From a US first ammendment POV can we mention a large flood as a possible cause of the fossil record or not? I am happy to leave it out but, to me, it seems unscientific not to mention flood geology as an alternative model of the geo-col? What about a paragraph like: The only possibilities for creation explanations of the fossil order appear to be (i) progressive creation over geological time, accepting the mainstream dating methods, and (ii) that a large flood buried and fossilised organisms at differnet layers based on the interpretaion of continental marine stata as being due to cataclysmic flood waters. Option (i) expains the fossil order through an evoltuion-like creation order whereas option (ii) proposes, with little direct evidence, that a cataclysmic flood could generate the observed fossil orderings via mobility-sorting-ecology considerations. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 19961 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.4 |
TB writes: In public school science classrooms, you should mention it to the extent a consensus of scientific opinion about the evidence justifies it. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 3989 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: So, not at all, then? Mark ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ I think as I sumariize it in my lesson plan it is justifiable as an optional part of the creation model, listed along side progressive creation? If there is an alternative theory which has evidence then there are stll always parts that are not well supported that still need to be mentioned.
I think there is very good evidence of a flood origin of the geo-column as you know. However I agree that the fossil order is not well explained. I could easily list hundreds of PhDed sceintists who side with flood geology including dozens of PhDed geologists. That is a sufficient basis for mention in what is already an 'alternative theories' lesson. It simply is a creation fossil order possibility but I leave that paragraph as optional if it ruffles too many feathers. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 500 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: And Steve Austin counts for two of them! Are you sure you are not from Chicago, TB? By the way, I'd like to see this list of dozens of 'PhDed' geologists. Also, how did we ever get 'PhD' to become a verb?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
What's Chicago got to do with it Edge? I've obviously missed something here. The list is basically the ICR, AIG and '50 scientists with PhDs' book list. PhD became a verb to save time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 500 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: An old story. In Chicago the graveyard vote swung a lot of political elections under Mayor Daley (the first one). I'm saying that your numbers seem a bit inflated. quote: Does this include 'dozens' of geologists? I personally know zero geologists who espouse creationism. And I do not count Henry Morris as a geologist. However, I will let you count Steve Austin twice. It seems appropriate. Maybe John Woodmorappe, too.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021