Creation in the classroom

[fantome profane]

Most of the required curriculum is made up by people who are in education and don't really understand what students need to know. At least here in the U.S., I think the education system needs to be completely redone; better education for teachers and having kids learn useful material in a productive way, we're far enough behind other countries as it is.

I think a modified curriculum that discusses pseudoscience will make the general public more scientifically literate without detracting from useful content.

I do agree with you, this would be much more valuable then memorizing the periodic table for example.

 

[Noaidi]

I do agree with you, this would be much more valuable then memorizing the periodic table for example.

I take your point. Too much of the science curriculum is devoted to memorising facts, whereas more emphasis should be on critical thinking and evaluation. This is where discussions regarding what is and is not acceptable within a scientific setting would be useful. However, teachers are constrained by what is handed down to them to teach. Too often, we are driven by the requirement of our pupils to 'get the grade' rather than asking "do they really understand?". Until that is addressed, then in-depth discussions on pseudoscience will take a back seat, which is a travesty.

By the way, don't mention your views on the value of learning the Periodic Table to any chemistry teachers! They can be a sensitive bunch.

 

[Skwim]

I think there is much to learn from it. Part of being scientifically literate is being able to spot pseudoscience. This is probably the biggest accepted pseudoscience out there, and is a very good example of religious pseudoscience. So I say teach creationism/ID alongside evolution and have students learn why it is pseudoscience and why evolution is real science.

Maybe if class time permitted, going into science V. pseudoscience would be a good idea, but considering how poorly kids are now doing in the sciences I question its value. In regard to specifically bringing up creationism as a pseudoscience, considering the temperament of some Christian parents, treading into religious territory is a real mine field. I can just imagine what would happen when little snowflake comes home from school and tells mom and dad that her teacher told her the Bible was wrong. IMO the likelihood among teenagers of getting the point wrong is just to high to take the chance.

 

[RedOne77]

Maybe if class time permitted, going into science V. pseudoscience would be a good idea, but considering how poorly kids are now doing in the sciences I question its value. In regard to specifically bringing up creationism as a pseudoscience, considering the temperament of some Christian parents, treading into religious territory is a real mine field. I can just imagine what would happen when little snowflake comes home from school and tells mom and dad that her teacher told her the Bible was wrong. IMO the likelihood among teenagers of getting the point wrong is just to high to take the chance.

True, it is highly improbably and very sensitive. Teaching creationism as a pseudoscience alongside evolution and other things like astronomy and geology would be part an educational utopia in my mind. However I do think we have a long way to go. To start off, I think we should deal with things like geocentrism to heliocentrism, and/or perhaps a chapter of contemporary pseudoscience around like astrology, crystal healing and the like.

And we have already seen what parents are like when their kid comes home and just talks about evolution, without the teacher teaching biblical literalism as pseudoscience.

More importantly I think, is we have to work on the basics before we really get into this stuff though.

 

[gnostic]

Why would creationism need to be taught in school, when it is only pseudoscience?

Teaching creationism would be like teaching astrology, fortune telling (like tarot, crystal ball), and have no place in schools. Creationism is not worth the time taken unless the school is a Christian private school, where theology can be taught. Creationism is theology and faith-based, and unless the student is planning to become priest or theologian, then it is next to useless for students seeking careers outside of their personal belief/faith.

If a student chooses faith over more practical life, then that the student's choice, but it needs to be learn at his own time, and not during school hours.

Look at this way, if school slot time for mathematics, the teachers never teach their students numerology. If school provide time to teach astronomy, they don't teach them astrology. If this is so, then why should creationism be taught in a biology subject, when you know creationism is not "science"?

Creationism is irrelevant, when it comes to science. It is only the ignorant and literal creationists who want to waste valuable times in science classrooms. Seriously. How do you set up a science lab for experiment on creationism? If you want to create something, then you will need the Creator. So how do you get the Creator/God to create something? Do you pray for something god-like to happen? What would be the purpose of doing a prac report on God, when God don't exist?

Perhaps if a student pray hard enough, God will do his homework for him.

 

[RedOne77]

I don't mean teach creationism in place of evolution. I mean teaching kids the difference between science and pseudoscience by looking at the differences between evolution and creationism/ID from a scientific perspective. I think there is much to be gained; on a much lesser scale, in one of my astronomy classes we had a lab where we had to go out and find pseudoscience on the web and write a report on why it is pseudoscience and what real science has to say about the issues.

You don't need to test them, or have a lab, on creationism outside its role as a pseudoscientific model. The purpose isn't so much to teach them creationism says X, but why creationism/ID is pseudoscience.

As far as taking up class time, at least in K-12 it would be more useful than some of the stuff they tried to teach and make you do. I think the primary purpose of basic education is/should be to produce functional, well-informed citizens of society and prepare those who are seeking higher education. I think part of that is being somewhat scientifically literate and recognizing blatant pseudoscience when you see it. You could probably put everything you need to in a single chapter that can be taught in about a week, maybe two max. I'm not talking about a month long unit, although an elective course that goes into what makes science science and pseudoscience pseudoscience is something I'd be for.

 

[gnostic]

I don't mean teach creationism in place of evolution. I mean teaching kids the difference between science and pseudoscience by looking at the differences between evolution and creationism/ID from a scientific perspective. I think there is much to be gained; on a much lesser scale, in one of my astronomy classes we had a lab where we had to go out and find pseudoscience on the web and write a report on why it is pseudoscience and what real science has to say about the issues.

In astronomy they don't bother to make a comparison between astronomy and astrology, or between astronomy and alien abduction. In mathematics, they don't take the time to make a comparison between mathematics and numerology.

I don't see why should devote genuine science subjects should waste time in making comparison. I had taken diploma and undergrad university courses before, and the workloads were punishing. When we did physics, we didn't spend much time on the history of physics. Take for example, Newton's laws, we examine his laws and theory in details, and the application for civil and structural engineering, but the teacher didn't expect us to know Isaac's life story. There is no need to learn about Newton, beyond the basic. It may be interesting supplementary knowledge to know about Newton as a person, but it is completely irrelevant to the physics' classroom programs. I learned more details about Newton's life (his relationship with the church, his family, was he married, etc), as well as other some other scientists on my own, because out of personal interests, but knowing such details should be required, unless in a subject that deal with the History of Physics. There is also no need to more about Charles Darwin beyond the basics, unless you in Evolution 101, but in real biology, you don't need to know beyond the basics. Things that are interest about Darwin, is on what islands did he find his evidences for his research, would be relevant, because these places still have abudence and diversity, like Galápagos Islands; evidences that still exist today. What we don't need to know is family life, his health, etc.

Should a student or two ask about creationism in one of evolutionary biology subjects, then fine, the teacher can explain how it is pseudoscience, but it can't devote valuable times as parts of subject programs. No credits should be assign to it, whether people learn about it, because both creationism and ID are irrelevant to science.

 

[RedOne77]

I wasn't thinking so much college level courses but high school and middle school. Although I would be in favor of a 3 credit pseudoscience course (what makes it a pseudoscience and what is real science) that would fulfill, or help fulfill, a general education requirement.

In terms of high school, I think this would be one of the more valuable lessons that kids can learn. I remember when I took high school chemistry and we literally spent entire classes playing the game "Go" because "it will help develop the skills used in chemistry"! One year in school I literally made 3 giant soccer balls out of tiny geometric shapes made out of construction paper, it took days to do that and I learned nothing. There is so much stupidity in the school system I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

I seriously think the school system needs to change completely, and one of those changes needs to be to educate the general public on what is and isn't pseudoscience.