Lessons about Creationism or ID?

[jarofthoughts]

In this thread http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/139141-creationism-schools.html, a question was raised by Me Myself as to what a class about Creationism/ID would actually look like, assuming that it was allowed into the science classroom.
Now, I found that to be an interesting question that might reveal quite a bit about what those fronting creationism and/or intelligent design have in mind when they want us teachers to 'teach the controversy'.
Surely if we are to include such a topic into our science classes then we cannot just do as rusra02 suggested, to tell everyone that evolution is incorrect.
We have to provide something more than that, and if creationism and/or ID is a valid topic for such a class, then surely it must be able to stand on its own legs.

Therefore I have summarized the lesson plan I use for my pupils (10-11 years old) when I introduce the Theory of Evolution to them.
The lesson plan is in short hand and the lessons would be accompanied by lots of slides, models, fossils and more, and I have included only the actual lecture plans, omitting the activities and assignments associated with it.
So if anyone who wishes creationism/ID taught in school could provide something similar for how they envision their view should be presented in class, that would be great.

--------------------------------------------------------

Simplified lesson plan: Introduction to the Theory of Evolution. Lenght; 3-4 one-hour classes.

Lesson one: Hightlights from the development of life on Earth over more than 3.5 billion years.
- Single celled creatures, sponges, collonial creatures.
- About 542 million years ago. From soft bodied creatures to shelled creatures. Particular focus on trillobites.
- About 425 million years ago. Seabased ecosystems. The first kinds of fish. Plants start to make an appearance on land.
- About 400 million years ago. Fish crawl out of the sea. Special focus on Tiktaalik.
- Continue through the various periods and focus on specific evolutionary developments. Talk a bit about dinosaurs (kids love dinosaurs). Talk also about the first mammals and where they came from.
- About 50 million years ago. The first primates. Climate change about 34 million years ago. Changes the landscape and forces the mammals to adapt to new environments.
- About 6-7 million years ago. Our common ancestor with the chimpanzees now live in what we now call Africa. Migrations begin about 200.000 years ago. Modern man.
- Summary and questions.

Lesson two: A simplified explanation of evolution and the mechanisms that lead to it happening.
- DNA; Celle -> Nucleus -> Chromosome -> DNA -> Gene. Explain shortly how alleles work; recessive vs dominant.
- What a molecule is and how it can copy itself. Strong vs weak bonds. How certain parts of the molecule 'fit' together.
- The three basic rules of evolution: Copying and heredity, mutations, natural selection. Explain each in as much detail as is required as this part is important.
- Talk about how a species' environment acts as selection pressure. Sieve analogy. Small changes over time amount to larger changes and therefore to new species.
- Explain the elements that factor into selection pressure; reproduction, survival, obtaining nutrients. Species evolve, not individuals.
- Timeline of human development from single celled creatures to modern man. Give a sense of the scale of time. Use the year analogy.
- Phylogenetic tree, the tree of life. Show interconnectedness.
- Alternative explanation, book analogy.
- Various features in animals as a result of changes over time. Focus points; the trunk of an elephant from Moeritherium to Trilophodon to Mammuthus to Elephas.
- 'Recent' human species; H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. erectus, H. heidelbergensis, H. neandertalis, H. sapiens.
- Summary and questions.

Lesson three: The evidence for evolution; how we know what we know.
- How scientists are kinda like detectives solving a crime. The value of evidence. Using the scientific method.
- Short introduction to the life and work of Charles Darwin. What we know now that Darwin didn't.
- What we mean when we say the THEORY of evolution. Facts are; fossils, DNA, fetal development, ring species, currently living species, bacteria, and so on. Facts gathered and explained within the Theory.
- Fossils; how things become fossilized. Provide examples (the science lab should have some in stock).
- Features that have developed gradually over time. Focus points; the hindlegs of whales, fish developing legs and crawling onto land.
- How we can analyze DNA and compare species to each other.
- What a ring species is and what we can learn from them. Example: Herring gull <-> American Herring gull <-> Vega Herring gull <-> Birula's gull <-> Heuglin's gull <-> Siberian lesser black-backed gull <-> Lesser black-backed gull.
- Fetal development in virtebrates. Similarities and differences.
- Bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics.
- The wonderful diversity of life and how we got here.
- Summary and questions.

--------------------------------------------------------

And that's that.

Of course this is just an introduction and the pupils will encounter elements of this many times over during their time in school, but as a start these lessons provide a basis.

 

[Photonic]

It's weird because we can make no accurate predictions with any version of creationism, the studies are based on proving evolution wrong, instead of gathering evidence in favor of creationism (or it's related versions).

I think it would be difficult to come up with anything other than preaching to teach such a curriculum.

 

[Pozessed]

Does evolution ever focus on where the microbes got their energy in the first place? Maybe if it were there wouldn't be such a huge debate about creationism and evolution.
I don't know whats taught in class rooms anymore so I can only comment on what I learned.

 

[Iti oj]

Does evolution ever focus on where the microbes got their energy in the first place? Maybe if it were there wouldn't be such a huge debate about creationism and evolution.
I don't know whats taught in class rooms anymore so I can only comment on what I learned.

thats not the problem biblical literalism is. check out theistic evolution. evolution happened god was the first spark is still evolution abogensisi is not evolution

 

[jarofthoughts]

It's weird because we can make no accurate predictions with any version of creationism, the studies are based on proving evolution wrong, instead of gathering evidence in favor of creationism (or it's related versions).

I think it would be difficult to come up with anything other than preaching to teach such a curriculum.

If that is the case, then why are these people arguing for putting creationism into our science classes?

 

[Breathe]

If that is the case, then why are these people arguing for putting creationism into our science classes?

That's something I've never understood.


I can't imagine their science lessons would be very detailed anyway. "Okay, so, um. We came here. Like this. And, um. The eye is awesome. Did I mention the eye? Class dismissed." Seems to be a fairly detailed creationist lesson.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That's something I've never understood.


I can't imagine their science lessons would be very detailed anyway. "Okay, so, um. We came here. Like this. And, um. The eye is awesome. Did I mention the eye? Class dismissed." Seems to be a fairly detailed creationist lesson.

That's why I posted my own simplified lesson plan for the introduction of the Theory of Evolution.
For fifth graders.
I mean, surely, if they intend to put this into high school science classes, they should be able to match that? :sarcastic

 

[Photonic]

That's why I posted my own simplified lesson plan for the introduction of the Theory of Evolution.
For fifth graders.
I mean, surely, if they intend to put this into high school science classes, they should be able to match that? :sarcastic

I was expecting copy-paste from Sunday school.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Oh, and notice how the ORIGIN of life, ie. Abiogenesis is not even mentioned once in the lesson plan above...

 

[Photonic]

Oh, and notice how the ORIGIN of life, ie. Abiogenesis is not even mentioned once in the lesson plan above...

That's because abiogenesis is not in any curriculum for high school. It has little to do with the actual theory of evolution.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That's because abiogenesis is not in any curriculum for high school. It has little to do with the actual theory of evolution.

Exactly.
In fact, it has nothing to do with the actual Theory of Evolution.
That's not what ToE is for.

 

[jarofthoughts]

But, back on topic please.
Any lesson plans from our creationist friends?

 

[Breathe]

I mean, surely, if they intend to put this into high school science classes, they should be able to match that? :sarcastic

HA! You're being too generous.

 

[Pegg]

Simplified lesson plan: Introduction to the Theory of Evolution. Lenght; 3-4 one-hour classes.

Lesson one: Hightlights from the development of life on Earth over more than 3.5 billion years.

Will you also be considering the scientific fact that life only comes from pre-existing life?
That is an important question because before the development of life, there was no life....yet all living things come from pre-existing life. So children should be made aware of that fact so that they can use their own powers of reason to decide if the natural development of life from lifeless matter is a reasonable theory.

Lesson two: A simplified explanation of evolution and the mechanisms that lead to it happening.
- DNA; Celle -> Nucleus -> Chromosome -> DNA -> Gene.

will you also discuss the fact that RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA? This makes it very difficult to understand how the two could develop separately yet somehow simultaneously so that they could actually function.

Pehaps you will also discuss the fact that for a cell to survive, it requires at lease 3 different types of complex molecules all working together...they are DNA, RNA and Proteins. If one of the kids were to ask you what the chances are of these forming by chance, what would you tell them?

Lesson three: The evidence for evolution; how we know what we know.
- How scientists are kinda like detectives solving a crime. The value of evidence. Using the scientific method.

would you discuss how the fossil does not actually show a slow and gradual change from one common source. The cambrian fossils show many different types of phyla appearing suddently and not linked to each other. The evidence does not show them changing from one type to another as is suggested.

also will you point out to them that the line up of fossils in the textbooks do not reflect that actual sizes of the fossils? This is important because evolution suggests a slow and gradual change, so you would expect smaller creatures to gradually increase in size, and this is how the text books picture them. But the truth is that the fossil they depict in a sequence can be of different sizes, some very small and the next one is very large...it doesnt quiet fit with the explanation of gradual change.

there is also the issue of the time differences separating such fossils..sometimes by millions of years... so how can it be absolutely definite that they are related ancestrally or by descent? Kids should be made aware of that so they are not led to assume that those pictures accurately represent the fossil record.

they should also be made aware the the fossil record does not fully represent all the biodiverity that existed in the groups at that time....because we know that the fossils they have found represent only a tiny fraction of life. It would be dishonest to teach kids that this is the definitive record of life when it is not.
You can show them a good article from the National Geographic published in 2004 which likened the fossil record to "a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost"


I think if you can give the kids both sides of the story, that would be the most fair and best way to teach them about evolution. Dont be biased, show them all the information they need to form their own opinions on the subject.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

I think if you can give the kids both sides of the story, that would be the most fair and best way to teach them about evolution. Dont be biased, show them all the information they need to form their own opinions on the subject.

But the sides you're talking about here are evolution happens or evolution didn't happen. Everything you've said could be integrated into an evolution argument, but none of what you've said tells them anything about creationism at all, which is the whole point of this thread.

 

[Pegg]

But the sides you're talking about here are evolution happens or evolution didn't happen. Everything you've said could be integrated into an evolution argument, but none of what you've said tells them anything about creationism at all, which is the whole point of this thread.

you dont have to learn about creationism in order to question the other side of evolution because the other side of evolution does not only come from creationists...it comes from the scientific community itself


ie,
In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz highlighted this dilemma about the origin of life. He stated that over the last 50 years, &#8220;no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.&#8221; (How Life Began&#8212;Evolution&#8217;s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45)



Microbiologist Radu Popa does not agree with the Bible&#8217;s account of creation. Yet, in 2004 he asked: &#8220;How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?&#8221;13 ...&#8220;The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.&#8221; (Between Necessity and Probability: Searching for the Definition and Origin of Life, pp. 126-129)


Regarding Darwins 'tree of life' biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: &#8220;Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root....The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.&#8221; (Biology and Philosophy, &#8220;The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay,&#8221; by Malcolm S. Gordon, 1999, p. 335)

About the fossil record evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup says &#8220;Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,&#8221; ....&#8220;what geologists of Darwin&#8217;s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.&#8221; (Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, &#8220;Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,&#8221; by David M. Raup, January 1979, p. 23.)

Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: &#8220;The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.&#8221; (In Search of Deep Time&#8212;Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, by Henry Gee, 1999, p. 23)


if you really examine the claims against the evidence, then you will see that the other side of the coin is well known. But if you become so biased and militant about the TOE, then you will simply overlook these facts which show the theory is not complete yet. There are many holes in it and there are many reasons to question certain aspects of it.
Arnt' we supposed to be teaching kids to reason and think for themselves? If so, then be sure to teach them both sides of the coin.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Will you also be considering the scientific fact that life only comes from pre-existing life?

That's not a fact, that's a presumption. All life that currently exists on this planet is the result of reproduction, but that does not mean that there is no possibility whatsoever of any life developing by any other means. This is something biologists are still currently hard at work on.

That is an important question because before the development of life, there was no life....yet all living things come from pre-existing life. So children should be made aware of that fact so that they can use their own powers of reason to decide if the natural development of life from lifeless matter is a reasonable theory.

No, what you're suggesting is putting the ideas in children's heads that abiogenesis cannot possibly be true. You're not letting them "use their powers of reason to decide" anything, you're just flat-out telling them that life cannot come from anything other than life.

would you discuss how the fossil does not actually show a slow and gradual change from one common source.

No, because that would be blatantly false.

The cambrian fossils show many different types of phyla appearing suddently and not linked to each other.

Again no, because that would be a lie. The cambrian explosion (which was a period of several million years) depicts millions of different populations of organisms evolving over time.

The evidence does not show them changing from one type to another as is suggested.

Yes, it does.

also will you point out to them that the line up of fossils in the textbooks do not reflect that actual sizes of the fossils? This is important because evolution suggests a slow and gradual change, so you would expect smaller creatures to gradually increase in size, and this is how the text books picture them.

Source?

But the truth is that the fossil they depict in a sequence can be of different sizes, some very small and the next one is very large...it doesnt quiet fit with the explanation of gradual change.

How doesn't it? It's not like only one thing changes with each concurrent generation. Evolution fluctates. You never heard of punctuated equilibrium?

there is also the issue of the time differences separating such fossils..sometimes by millions of years... so how can it be absolutely definite that they are related ancestrally or by descent?

Because it's not like anthropologists know anything about that, right? Maybe you should speak to them.

You can show them a good article from the National Geographic published in 2004 which likened the fossil record to "a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost"

So? Fossilization is extremely rare. The fact that we have been able to find the thousands of fossils that we have is astonishing, and the fact that every single one of them fits evolutionary predictions is even more astonishing. In any case, the DNA evidence is substantially stronger.

I think if you can give the kids both sides of the story, that would be the most fair and best way to teach them about evolution. Dont be biased, show them all the information they need to form their own opinions on the subject.

There's nothing biased about teaching children the facts rather than skewing the facts in order to prop-up unscientific explanations. What you're suggesting isn't "unbiased". What you're suggesting is to change science lessons so as to teach, or at least acknowledge, the existence of unscientific, factless assumptions based on misunderstanding and misrepresenting the actual facts. Should we do the same in history lessons? Perhaps history teachers should take a lesson to explain how unlikely it is for the Egyptians to have built the pyramids, and that therefore aliens might have done it?

No. Science lessons are for science, and it is not up to children to determine what science should or does say. Children can make up their own minds and do their own research no matter what teachers tell them, and science lessons should exist to present to children an accurate view of the scientific discipline and an accurate understanding of the facts. What you have suggested above is not only inaccurate in reflecting the facts, it is downright lies and misrepresentations in order to obscure the facts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

you dont have to learn about creationism in order to question the other side of evolution because the other side of evolution does not only come from creationists...it comes from the scientific community itself.

Quote-mining is extremely dishonest. Especially when every single person you just quoted accepts the theory of evolution. Expressing that there is no certainty, or that the finer points of evolution differ from what has been assumed in the past, is not an indication that there is "another side of the debate". It's called academic honesty. If you wanted to, you could easily find just as many quotes from scientists about expressing doubts about or questioning gravity, atoms or germs, yet you choose only to present quotes from people about evolution. This is what scientists do - it's just a part of the process of investigation.

If you have to resort to such cheap, dishonest tactics in order to try and discredit evolution, then you case in facts cannot be all that stronge.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Will you also be considering the scientific fact that life only comes from pre-existing life?
That is an important question because before the development of life, there was no life....yet all living things come from pre-existing life. So children should be made aware of that fact so that they can use their own powers of reason to decide if the natural development of life from lifeless matter is a reasonable theory.




will you also discuss the fact that RNA is required to make proteins, yet proteins are involved in the production of RNA? This makes it very difficult to understand how the two could develop separately yet somehow simultaneously so that they could actually function.

Pehaps you will also discuss the fact that for a cell to survive, it requires at lease 3 different types of complex molecules all working together...they are DNA, RNA and Proteins. If one of the kids were to ask you what the chances are of these forming by chance, what would you tell them?




would you discuss how the fossil does not actually show a slow and gradual change from one common source. The cambrian fossils show many different types of phyla appearing suddently and not linked to each other. The evidence does not show them changing from one type to another as is suggested.

also will you point out to them that the line up of fossils in the textbooks do not reflect that actual sizes of the fossils? This is important because evolution suggests a slow and gradual change, so you would expect smaller creatures to gradually increase in size, and this is how the text books picture them. But the truth is that the fossil they depict in a sequence can be of different sizes, some very small and the next one is very large...it doesnt quiet fit with the explanation of gradual change.

there is also the issue of the time differences separating such fossils..sometimes by millions of years... so how can it be absolutely definite that they are related ancestrally or by descent? Kids should be made aware of that so they are not led to assume that those pictures accurately represent the fossil record.

they should also be made aware the the fossil record does not fully represent all the biodiverity that existed in the groups at that time....because we know that the fossils they have found represent only a tiny fraction of life. It would be dishonest to teach kids that this is the definitive record of life when it is not.
You can show them a good article from the National Geographic published in 2004 which likened the fossil record to "a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost"


I think if you can give the kids both sides of the story, that would be the most fair and best way to teach them about evolution. Dont be biased, show them all the information they need to form their own opinions on the subject.

It would appear that you have completely missed the point of this thread.
Please read the OP again.
I was asking for a lesson plan (or similar) that would show what a class about creationism/ID would contain and be about.
Surely your position must be more than 'evolution is wrong'?
Now show it!

 

[Alceste]

Lesson one: contemplate the banana. Make the kids pass it around. Class discussion of why the students think bananas fit so nicely into their hand. Short essay assignment on the subject. Extra marks for mentioning supernatural intelligence, marks deducted for mentioning horticulture. Close with a short video by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.

Lesson two: lab assignment: inspect the contents of a jar of peanut butter. Are there any life forms inside? What conclusions about the theory of evolution can be drawn from this evidence? Public humiliation for students who still believe in evolution after the peanut butter experiment.

Lessons three through five: Bible study.