|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Modulous writes: It doesn't serve our purpose (educating children) to ignore this significant hurdle to learning. Having a firm belief that science is wrong and that accepting evolution is akin spitting on the body of baby Jesus, is as much as a learning disability as dyslexia. Can educators afford to simply ignore such a significant learning disability? You say it is a 'small number of students', it may be small - but it is more common than dyslexia in many areas of the world. Dyslexia is not a good comparison, as its root causes are physical, and there's no known cure, so education is about recognising it and finding ways around it. A better comparison would be kids who are heavily indoctrinated with some kind of political ideology which could interfere with their understanding of subjects such as history or economics. This is rarely as important, because the beliefs are not usually held with the same degree of emotional attachment (heaven and hell aren't at stake!) but it's a similar thing. Another one can be kids who are heavily indoctrinated with racism in their homes, and who arrive at school with weird misconceptions about some of their classmates. In these cases, the problem is the parents and society as a whole, and it is not in the capabilities of school science teachers to solve it. Sure, an advice package on how to deal with a problem might be an idea, the kind of thing they might have to deal with kids who are racist, but that's all. The Reverend Whatshisname in your O.P. is part of the problem. Although his particular interpretation of religion may not conflict with science, he will be a supporter of the general idea of religious indoctrination, and the silly bugger should be told that that is the root cause of the problem. What is required is not laws, but a change in culture that recognises that any heavy indoctrination with political ideology or religion is a form of child abuse. So, this isn't a problem that can be solved instantly, but it doesn't require a major cultural shift in this country, because the overwhelming majority of parents will agree with my point about heavy indoctrination. If the children who have been abused suffer, then the abusers should be loudly blamed, and that includes people like the clergyman in your O.P., who involve themselves in education while supporting the principle of psychological child abuse. Some of your teaching suggestions are fine, but they should take place in the religious education/philosophy class, something I think should be given more importance. And all the major creation beliefs should be taught to all kids in that class, meaning that in this country, far more kids will get an exposure to the Genesis story than are now at home/church, so the Christians can hardly complain. Religion has had and is having an enormous influence on the world, and should, combined with philosophy, be considered a subject as important as geography, for example. It's here that I would like to see kids actively encouraged to have the kind of evo/creo debates we have here, as well as theist/atheist/agnostic debates. I've heard that religious conflict is now being included in some R. E. courses, and so it should be!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Syamsu writes: I think teaching students about a belief in creation as being comparable to political ideology, or dyslexia would make students hate science. If you don't understand the posts you're replying to, please keep out of the conversation.
I have firsthand experience of it now, reading what you all write im rather inclined to chuck the whole enterprise. If, by "chucking the whole enterprise" you mean stopping posting your inane ramblings on these threads, I think it would be a very good idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Syamsu writes: Oh ofcourse, calling my posts inane ramblings must be the unavoiable hurting peoples feelings, which seems to be part of the scientific method. Its quite obvious that you all are making science impopular. Science is the study of the universe based on observation and evidence. Reality is not a question of what people like and dislike. Truth does not adjust itself to your tastes. And why shouldn't inane posts be described as "inane"? If you don't want your feelings hurt, you could just stop making them!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Modulous writes: I don't see how differing root causes are an issue. As far as the school is concerned it is not their business to 'cure' people of religious delusions so they are in the same position. Education is no longer their business? Religious beliefs that do not conflict with observed reality are not their business, but blatant misconceptions are. Reiss suggests that creationism should be seen as a world view, rather than a misconception. It is a "world view", but a misconceived one. If creationism is brought up by kids, a teacher could certainly explain that there is nothing in science that contradicts the idea that a god created the universe, because that's true, but beyond that creationism and I.D. would only come in to history of science (where they should be included). That may not be so different from what you're suggesting. But what I would recommend here in the U.K. is a course which is there to discuss such issues openly, the religion/philosophy class, so that the science teacher, faced with a persistent creationist child, can say "bring up the subject in your R. E. class". I'm actually entirely in favour of full discussion of EvC in U.K. schools, and a special place for it, along with discussion of any ideas the kids can think of, and more! But not in science classes. Reiss may not be a crackpot, but he is dubious. Would he spend time on the flat earth in geography if 10% of kids came from a flat earth believing background, or on astrology when teaching astronomy (and 10% probably do have parents who take their star signs seriously)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Modulous writes: bluegenes writes: Reiss may not be a crackpot, but he is dubious. Dubious in what sense? You disagree with him? He does seem to have a lot of experience in UK science education - I wouldn't be surprised if he is eyeing Dawkins' chair and that the recent flurry of newspaper articles is a prelude to getting known. Dubious because he's a religious person trying to extend the influence of religion into the science classes. I would be surprised if he's eyeing Dawkins' chair, and so would Charles Symonyi I imagine! I don't think that the 90% should be slowed down by the 10% in science classes in any way, and that the battle is really a long term one outside the science classes, and it's the battle against the heavy indoctrination of children with mumbo jumbo. The Reverend Reiss might be a good example of how liberal religion can inadvertently protect and promote fundamentalism. I've just this minute read a few of the comments on that Guardian page you linked to, and my description of Reiss as dubious is fairly mild compared to some of the reactions there! {Added by edit} Wow, not to mention reactions elsewhere!
quote: That last one's predictable!
From here Edited by bluegenes, : marked addition
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2504 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Modulous writes: bluegenes writes: Dubious because he's a religious person trying to extend the influence of religion into the science classes. If he was an atheist doing the same thing, would he be equally dubious? He'd be dead weird, taking you literally. Guessing at what you actually mean, science is already a-theistic, so it's difficult for atheism to intrude on itself.
I'm not making an accusation, but be careful of prejudices, they can be insidious. From long experience, I can tell you that rarely if ever will you meet a "Reverend" for whom religion is not by far the most important thing in life. There's a big difference between informed guesses and irrational prejudices. My guess is that, whether his behaviour is conscious or subconscious, the Reverend differs from both of us in that he does not want the children of fundy parents to lose their faith in God. It would be much more important to him that they remain theists than anything to do with learning science. So, hence the reason for delicacy. The object, you must understand, is that they learn science without losing the most important thing in the world, their faith in God, preferably the Christian version. Quite a bit of the learning of science, for them and the other 90%, could be sacrificed for this all important point. I'll admit to speculative guessing here, but you don't become a Reverend without being very serious about religion, which is why I'm emphasising it, and calling him Reverend rather than his full title. I admit prejudice, but not irrational prejudice. However, let's do some research as you say. He won't be obviously pushy about his religion, otherwise he wouldn't have got his present post. Most of what you say about creationism in science classes seems to be about teaching the history of science, and I'd always assumed that creationism and Paley's I.D. were already included in that. It's how Dawkins' teaches it, as you know, the intelligent watchmaker becoming a blind one. Anything more than that, for me, goes on the religious education course.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024