Lessons about Creationism or ID?

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

To be fair, I think they would also definitely include some colouring. Unless that's too advanced.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

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

Quite right, but that doesn't matter. All that could possibly show is that evolution is wrong.

This thread is not about whether evolution is right or wrong. You can take evolution being wrong as a given for the sake of this thread.

But just as germ theory being wrong doesn't automatically mean pixies cause disease, evolution being wrong doesn't automatically lend any credit to creationism.

This thread is about how you would teach creationism, not how you would discredit a competing theory.

 

[Pegg]

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.

i never said they didnt accept the theory....this is exactly the point... the very people who teach evolution also show the other side of the coin about the problems with it. So you dont need to learn what creationists say, we only need to examine ALL of the information available.

It seems you dont like the fact that some people actually do so. Well, to look at it objectively and take a step back from the TOE rather then continue hurtling down that road regardless is far more honest then only sticking to the parts that support the theory.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

i never said they didnt accept the theory....this is exactly the point... the very people who teach evolution also show the other side of the coin about the problems with it. So you dont need to learn what creationists say, we only need to examine ALL of the information available.

That's just it. None of these people are talking about "the problems" with evolution theory. You are intentionally misrepreseting their views to indicate that there is an undercurrent of uncertainty about the theory of evolution in general. There isn't. Evolution is the most widely accepted and credible theory in modern science, the only things people like the scientists you quoted are explaining "the problems" of are the finer points of how it occurs and various possible explanations of biodiversity - such as punctuated equilirbium, or horizontal gene transferance. Do you really, honestly believe that these are the things we should teach children in science? Should we present them with peer-reviewed scientific papers on every single aspect of a given theory and the debates being had by scientists on the subject? Maybe if they're University level science students, but not before they have at least a basic grasp of what the theories say. It's the exact same reason we don't teach the Oxford theory to students when they start reading Romeo and Juliet.

It seems you dont like the fact that some people actually do so.

Do what? I've already explained that not a single quote you represented was anybody presenting doubt about evolution theory.

Well, to look at it objectively and take a step back from the TOE rather then continue hurtling down that road regardless is far more honest then only sticking to the parts that support the theory.

Okay then. Please present the parts that do not support the theory,

 

[fantome profane]

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 ...


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.

So if we didn't teach evolution, if there was no theory of evolution then there would be no creationism. If the ony way you can teach creationism is to criticize evolution then you need evolution. Is that correct?

 

[oldbadger]

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.

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

Lesson two: A simplified explanation of evolution and the mechanisms that lead to it happening.

Lesson three: The evidence for evolution; how we know what we know.

And that's that.

I needed to precis your post. I hope that is ok.....

But..... Oh dear! What a shambles! Your lesson plan (simple!!!!) will require children of 10 years to absorb each section in 7.5 minutes. Back to the drawing board for all this, I think? Do you really write lesson plans?

I happen to believe in evolution, but would have no problem in also delivering lessons in creationism to a properly produced lesson plan. That is what teachers do!

And when it comes to the delivery of the creationism section, all you would need to do is refer to the lesson plan which would be issued to you, as authorised by your education dept.

Intolerant scientists should be absolutely banned from going anywhere near either lesson plan, as should intolerant religions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I needed to precis your post. I hope that is ok.....

But..... Oh dear! What a shambles! Your lesson plan (simple!!!!) will require children of 10 years to absorb each section in 7.5 minutes. Back to the drawing board for all this, I think? Do you really write lesson plans?

[edited for misunderstanding]

I happen to believe in evolution, but would have no problem in also delivering lessons in creationism to a properly produced lesson plan. That is what teachers do!

And when it comes to the delivery of the creationism section, all you would need to do is refer to the lesson plan which would be issued to you, as authorised by your education dept.

Intolerant scientists should be absolutely banned from going anywhere near either lesson plan, as should intolerant religions.

So, you're happy teaching non-science in a science lesson? Who classifies, to you, as an "intolerant scientist"?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Erm... What?

They just said that the lessons take place in 3-4 one hour classes. Where on earth did you get your "7.5 minutes" from?

60 minutes with 8 sections for the first lesson comes out to 7.5 minutes per section.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

60 minutes with 8 sections for the first lesson comes out to 7.5 minutes per section.

I didn't see the "8 sections" part in the post he quoted. Is it in the original post?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Something like:

Lesson one: Hightlights from the development of life on Earth over more than 3.5 billion years.
1. Single celled creatures, sponges, collonial creatures.
2. About 542 million years ago. From soft bodied creatures to shelled creatures. Particular focus on trillobites.
3. About 425 million years ago. Seabased ecosystems. The first kinds of fish. Plants start to make an appearance on land.
4. About 400 million years ago. Fish crawl out of the sea. Special focus on Tiktaalik.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Summary and questions.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Something like:

Ahh, I see. Yeah, that definitely seems a bit of a tight fit.

Then again, I'm not a teacher.

 

[oldbadger]

[edited for misunderstanding]


So, you're happy teaching non-science in a science lesson? Who classifies, to you, as an "intolerant scientist"?

Hi ImmortalFlame! Firstly, thanks to Gjallarhorn for explaining the section times.

Yep! Let's do that! You see, it could be removed from the science syllabus if absolutely necessary. These education buffs are not so daft. If lessons in creation beliefs were included in the lesson plan, this would help to bring abrahamic and possibly other religions more closely together. I reckon that to include other beliefs as well would actually assist in all this. Look..... let me try to just lay out the sort of thing that could e included in the 'alternative' lesson plan. Ummm..... ok....

A layman's outline for a lesson plan about Creationist beliefs.
The main objective of these lessons is to introduce you to the basic beliefs about how all life was created according to the following religions:-
After these lessons you will be able to describe the basic creation beliefs of the religions shown below and pass a test about this subject.
Religions to be included would listed here.
So what do you want to include?
Roman beliefs?
Hindu creation beliefs? Why not?
Polynesian 'Big Bird layed huge egg' belief? Yep.... sounds great.
Christian basic belief? Good.
Moslem basic belief? Even better, because it more-or-less agrees with Christian beliefs, but with additions.
Jewish Belief? Look at how all these religions come together!
Siberian Eskimo 'Big Whale was sick' belief? Yep.... could do that.
And more!!!! Let's have 'em all.
The lesson plan can equal the evolution lesson plan in time, but will probably be a hell of a lot more fun.
This idea is actually not so stupid, because it brings together the initial beliefs of many abrahamic religions, and might even come closer to the far eastern beliefs?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Hi ImmortalFlame! Firstly, thanks to Gjallarhorn for explaining the section times.

Yep! Let's do that! You see, it could be removed from the science syllabus if absolutely necessary. These education buffs are not so daft. If lessons in creation beliefs were included in the lesson plan, this would help to bring abrahamic and possibly other religions more closely together. I reckon that to include other beliefs as well would actually assist in all this. Look..... let me try to just lay out the sort of thing that could e included in the 'alternative' lesson plan. Ummm..... ok....

A layman's outline for a lesson plan about Creationist beliefs.
The main objective of these lessons is to introduce you to the basic beliefs about how all life was created according to the following religions:-
After these lessons you will be able to describe the basic creation beliefs of the religions shown below and pass a test about this subject.
Religions to be included would listed here.
So what do you want to include?
Roman beliefs?
Hindu creation beliefs? Why not?
Polynesian 'Big Bird layed huge egg' belief? Yep.... sounds great.
Christian basic belief? Good.
Moslem basic belief? Even better, because it more-or-less agrees with Christian beliefs, but with additions.
Jewish Belief? Look at how all these religions come together!
Siberian Eskimo 'Big Whale was sick' belief? Yep.... could do that.
And more!!!! Let's have 'em all.
The lesson plan can equal the evolution lesson plan in time, but will probably be a hell of a lot more fun.
This idea is actually not so stupid, because it brings together the initial beliefs of many abrahamic religions, and might even come closer to the far eastern beliefs?

I think it's a great idea to teach people about various religious cultures and beliefs, the problem comes when teaching people all of this in the context of a science lesson. In some form of comparative religion lesson, this lesson plan would be perfect. But it does not belong in a science lesson any more than microbiology belongs in a maths lesson. The problem is that you seem to be using the term "creationism" to refer to "any belief that the Universe was created by some form of God", while the context of this thread is using the more specific definition in referring to the "creationist movement", that is a specific belief that the theory of evolution does not account for the complexity and diversity of living things which can, alternatively, be explained by the existence of a supernatural designer - or, in broader terms, a movement advocating the idea that the concept of God is scientifically justified. The real question about creationism, therefore, is how you teach it in the context of a science lesson if it deserves to be there.

 

[oldbadger]

Who classifies, to you, as an "intolerant scientist"?

I'm sorry that I did not answer this..... got carried away with 'big whale' creation ideas!

Intolerant scientists? Only yesterday scientists were posting comments to religious members like:-
'There's no discussion about all this' .......... and ........ 'you can't debate this'..... sort of thing. I could off and copy it, and print it here, but can't be bothered.

Scientists could write the evolution lesson-plan for editing by teachers, and relgious people would write (their section of) the creation lesson-plan for editing by teachers. I am finding many scientists on this forum to be very knowledgable about science, but:-
They can't put it over.
Often use abbreviations and language 'all their own'.
etc etc..... and would be absolutely useless.... dangerous even, in a classroom..... even teaching their own subjects.

Primary teaching is a very involved and specialised profession. As kids grow up and learn to 'learn' and 'take in', so more advanced minds can 'lecture', 'train' and 'coach', but they could not 'teach'.

OK?

 

[oldbadger]

I think it's a great idea to teach people about various religious cultures and beliefs, the problem comes when teaching people all of this in the context of a science lesson. In some form of comparative religion lesson, this lesson plan would be perfect. But it does not belong in a science lesson any more than microbiology belongs in a maths lesson. The problem is that you seem to be using the term "creationism" to refer to "any belief that the Universe was created by some form of God", while the context of this thread is using the more specific definition in referring to the "creationist movement", that is a specific belief that the theory of evolution does not account for the complexity and diversity of living things which can, alternatively, be explained by the existence of a supernatural designer - or, in broader terms, a movement advocating the idea that the concept of God is scientifically justified. The real question about creationism, therefore, is how you teach it in the context of a science lesson if it deserves to be there.

Yeah...... this is a difficult angle, I agree, but as I said, maybe it needs to be stuffed into the r.e. program, together with the evolution lessons. Either way, let's get it in. These are children of 10years, and I can't get excited about whether it's stuffed into science or r.e. . Hell! This is primary school......!

But let's do it!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sorry that I did not answer this..... got carried away with 'big whale' creation ideas!

Intolerant scientists? Only yesterday scientists were posting comments to religious members like:-
'There's no discussion about all this' .......... and ........ 'you can't debate this'..... sort of thing. I could off and copy it, and print it here, but can't be bothered.

If they're talking about the evolution vs. creationism debate then, frankly, they are right. It's no more intolerant of them to say such things about creationism than it is to say that concepts like astrology or alchemy belong in science. It is the domain of facts, and concepts like creationism simply haven't demonstrated any scientific merit or warrant any serious time being discussed in a scientific context.

Yeah...... this is a difficult angle, I agree, but as I said, maybe it needs to be stuffed into the r.e. program, together with the evolution lessons.

But hold on a second. Evolution is science, so why do these two completely different subject need to be taught side by side? Again, evolution is what should be taught in a science class, and by that same token it has no more a place in a comparative religions class than religious stories of creation should be taught in a science class.

Either way, let's get it in. These are children of 10years, and I can't get excited about whether it's stuffed into science or r.e. . Hell! This is primary school......!

But let's do it!

Don't you think we'd be doing children a disservice by teaching them unscientific ideas in a science lesson or teaching them science in the context of a religion class? We want to educate our children, not confuse them.

 

[oldbadger]

If they're talking about the evolution vs. creationism debate then, frankly, they are right. It's no more intolerant of them to say such things about creationism than it is to say that concepts like astrology or alchemy belong in science. It is the domain of facts, and concepts like creationism simply haven't demonstrated any scientific merit or warrant any serious time being discussed in a scientific context.


But hold on a second. Evolution is science, so why do these two completely different subject need to be taught side by side? Again, evolution is what should be taught in a science class, and by that same token it has no more a place in a comparative religions class than religious stories of creation should be taught in a science class.

Don't you think we'd be doing children a disservice by teaching them unscientific ideas in a science lesson or teaching them science in the context of a religion class? We want to educate our children, not confuse them.

Para 1......No.... it was the 'how old is earth?' thread. And when people start saying 'you can't debate' on a debating forum they have lost the plot. It doesn't matter what their viewpoint is..... they are intolerant.

Para 2...........I am amazed that primary schools would diversify so.... Look...... If I ruled the friggin' world, (I wouldn't get a chance.... Mrs Badger would take charge) I would push the scientists and religions into touch over this, and hand it to the education specialists, because children need 'balance' for 'socialisation'. Scientific fanatics should be banned from having final-say in primary lesson plans.

Para 3.....There you go......... pushing your science on primary kids. If you are a teacher then I am shocked. If not, a short introductory course in primary school education would show you that chldren need socialising before they need 'stuffing' full of you idea of facts, which can change or alter in the future. I hope that both religious and science 'heavies' are kept right out of this, and the primary teachers given the power.

What else to say?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Para 1......No.... it was the 'how old is earth?' thread. And when people start saying 'you can't debate' on a debating forum they have lost the plot. It doesn't matter what their viewpoint is..... they are intolerant.

Again, it really depends on the context, but I guess that's largely getting off topic.

Para 2...........I am amazed that primary schools would diversify so.... Look...... If I ruled the friggin' world, (I wouldn't get a chance.... Mrs Badger would take charge)...

... I would push the scientists and religions into touch over this, and hand it to the education specialists, because children need 'balance' for 'socialisation'. Scientific fanatics should be banned from having final-say in primary lesson plans.

But I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. Nobody is arguing that children learn science over religion or vice versa - I personally believe they should learn both. But they should learn both in the proper context, I.E: evolution is a scientific fact which should be studied and explained as the basis for contemporary biology, religions are spiritual philosophies which should be learned and understood in a comparative religions class to in order to increase understanding and tolerance of different cultures and beliefs. Both should be taught, but both should have different contexts, in the exact same way you don't talk about Shakespeare in a maths class. I'm not sure what you mean by saying "science fanatics should be banned from having final-say in primary lesson plans". Nobody is suggesting that "science fanatics" (whoever they are) should get the "final say" on all lesson plans. What's being said is that science lessons should be for science only. Is that a suggestion you oppose?

Para 3.....There you go......... pushing your science on primary kids. If you are a teacher then I am shocked.

Wait... What??

All I'm suggesting is using science lessons to teach science. Why is that "pushing science" on them? Is it wrong to teach maths in a maths lesson? Does the suggestion that teachers "push" Shakespeare on children in an English lesson shock you? I just don't see what you're taking offence to here.

If not, a short introductory course in primary school education would show you that chldren need socialising before they need 'stuffing' full of you idea of facts, which can change or alter in the future.

Who said anything to the contrary? I never said they should be "stuffed full of facts" - that's a ludicrous hyperbole. In fact, I have said in the past that children should be taught the basics before determining whether or not to go into the more detailed discussions. I'm just saying that evolution is a scientific fact and the basics of that fact should be taught in a science lesson, since it's science. Why does this upset you so much? Why is this any more offensive to you than the idea of children learning the facts of multiplication in a maths lesson?

I hope that both religious and science 'heavies' are kept right out of this, and the primary teachers given the power.

What are you talking about? What do you mean by "heavies"? What is your problem with teaching science in science classes?

 

[oldbadger]

ImmortalFlame:- I won't copy your post..... had trouble with that last time.

OK..... So it looks as if we agree on some of this. The idea of creation belief lessons sounds ok to us both(?) , but in a r.e. form of delivery. Is this for the USA? They ought to include all the creation beliefs of all the indian tribes, as well as the beliefs of majorities and minorities residing in the land. The four hours is going to be full up........ but really interesting and really good fun.......that is what kids' education (primary) should all be about. If you get 'em having fun then they'll learn to 'attend'. Any religions which try to 'take charge' should be smacked down. OK..... so let's put it all into either r.e. or 'social' sections...... ? So we don't need to get the machine guns out over that?

And Evolution studies could be focused into either general-science or biology sections? OK..... so we won't machine guns over that bit. But that does not help you if the education authorities tell you that they will be combined together....... yes?

OK..... so at this point you would need to write to your representative, and to the education authorities, and/or use your vote. But I tell you, if my kids had been issued with a combined lesson plan on this, I personally would not have minded. I gave my kids three 30 minute 'lessons' each week for maths, reading and writing, and they got to top of their classes easily in these subjects. But nobody else did this..... and when I met these other parents at school meetings they would moan and criticise the school. !!!! lazy critics!

So.... if you have kids and you feel strongly, one way or t'other, and the schools stuff these lessons together, all you need to do is spend thirty minutes each week to talk with your kids about these lessons and to add to them...... taking nothing away.... 'cos they need to know it all. Job done. Let it happen. If your country does this right, then the indian's beliefs will just be brilliant. What a fantastic subject for your country's children!

Wow! Please forget the other points.... I was just in heated momentum, there.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

ImmortalFlame:- I won't copy your post..... had trouble with that last time.

OK..... So it looks as if we agree on some of this. The idea of creation belief lessons sounds ok to us both(?) , but in a r.e. form of delivery. Is this for the USA?

I'm not sure what the current state of religious education is like in the 'States. As far as I'm aware, it's a difficult issue due to the separation of church and state, but I know quite a few people over there who think introducing the concept to the general cirriculum would be a great idea.

They ought to include all the creation beliefs of all the indian tribes, as well as the beliefs of majorities and minorities residing in the land. The four hours is going to be full up........ but really interesting and really good fun.......that is what kids' education (primary) should all be about.

I maybe wouldn't go that far - I would definitely start with the major world religions, with more specific, smaller groups being taught for older ages. But, still, the more they are exposed to an understand a belief, the better they are equipped to regard said beliefs with tolerance.

And Evolution studies could be focused into either general-science or biology sections? OK..... so we won't machine guns over that bit. But that does not help you if the education authorities tell you that they will be combined together....... yes?

Naturally, I don't have any control over what they deicde is in the cirriculum. However, that doesn't mean they are right to put religion into a science lesson. Personally, I think that doing so would leave children with a poorer understanding of exactly what science is and what it's supposed to do.