Lessons about Creationism or ID?

[oldbadger]

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.


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.


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.

OK..... so (for what it's worth to you) I'm cool with all that. Apart from one thing. You wouldn't go that far........ I reckon that's a big mistake. The USA has seemed to slowly increase its idea of the value of its original people. Their original beliefs, customs, culture and history should be included in primary education, in (for instance) the history, religious ed and social sections. Massively important, in my opinion.

That's it, really. Thanks for the posts........ I got interested in all that. Must go now, tho'.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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

Sure.

But..... Oh dear! What a shambles!

Actually, it works rather well.

Your lesson plan (simple!!!!) will require children of 10 years to absorb each section in 7.5 minutes.

Yup.
You have to keep in mind that each section doesn't take that long and that the subtopics tie in with each other.
Also, I'm a very good teacher.

Back to the drawing board for all this, I think?

Not at all.
In fact, I've used this lesson plan more or less unchanged on four different classes so far, and it works very well.

Do you really write lesson plans?

Depends.
I sometimes do it on specific subjects, but they are more like notes that I keep to make sure I don't leave anything out and that I stick to the point(s) I'm trying to make.
Most classes I've got down enough that I just wing it.

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!

Well, I for one have no idea what a lesson plan on creationism would look like in a science-class setting, which is why I asked the question in the OP.

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.

Except that this is all very hypothetical.

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

What you need to keep in mind though, is that SCIENCE is by its very nature intolerant.
It is not a democracy by any stretch of the word.
Rather, you could say that it is a dictatorship in which evidence is king, emperor and tzar all rolled into one.
You either have the evidence to back your claims or you do not.
And that is the long and the short of it.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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

Then again, I'm not a teacher.

Nah.
It works fine.
As mentioned above, this is a lesson plan I've used on four different classes now.

 

[Alceste]

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!

Why teach them together at all? Creationism and evolution have nothing to do with one another. The first is religion, the second is science. As SJ Gould puts it, these are non-overlapping magesteria. The world of faith and the world of knowledge. I see no reason not to teach religion, but teach religion in religious education class and science in science class.

I think the basic requirement for any material in a science class must be that it has been established through the use of the scientific method, and is accepted by the majority of scientists in the relevant field. Creationism just doesn't make the grade. To pretend otherwise would confuse students about what the scientific method actually is, and how it works.

 

[Me Myself]

5 Pages and the closest thing anyone has come to an intelligent design "science" class is a comparative religion review of their creation mythologies.

This is looking terribly bad by those who argue about teaching them the "alternatives".

 

[Noaidi]

5 Pages and the closest thing anyone has come to an intelligent design "science" class is a comparative religion review of their creation mythologies.

This is looking terribly bad by those who argue about teaching them the "alternatives".

It's the same on the other 'creationism in school' thread. Plenty of "critical analysis" regarding evolution, but absolutely nothing on creationist content.
Deep down, I think they realise they have nothing to say in favour of their idea.

 

[Pegg]

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?

No, what they are describing is how the scientific 'facts' do not fit with the theory. They are trying desperately to find a way to make those facts fit the theory and will keep working at it, but they still teach the theory regardless...and they admit that, but because you are so focused on the theory, you dont seem to realise that the facts of science do not actually fit in the theory.

So yes absolutely they should allow the kids to know this....its dishonest to keep teaching a theory as fact when the facts dont fully support it.

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?

Of course you should. Dont they deserve to knew the full story? it is completely dishonest to teach them something that is not fully understood as if it is 100% understood and confirmed by scientific fact.

If you dont teach them all the controversies, you are manipulating them....we could say you are in fact lying to them.

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.

romeo and juliet is a work of fiction whereas the theory of evolution has the ability to change their entire outlook on life. those who teach children have a responsibility not to mold & shape them, but to teach them how to think and reason for themselves.

If you only teach that evolution is 100% factual without informing them of the facts of science that make it highly unlikely, then you are not really teaching them to think and reason it out. So you are not acting as a 'teacher' now, you are acting as a mind manipulator.

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

you can't see it with eyes wide shut.

 

[Photonic]

No, what they are describing is how the scientific 'facts' do not fit with the theory. They are trying desperately to find a way to make those facts fit the theory and will keep working at it, but they still teach the theory regardless...and they admit that, but because you are so focused on the theory, you dont seem to realise that the facts of science do not actually fit in the theory.

So yes absolutely they should allow the kids to know this....its dishonest to keep teaching a theory as fact when the facts dont fully support it.



Of course you should. Dont they deserve to knew the full story? it is completely dishonest to teach them something that is not fully understood as if it is 100% understood and confirmed by scientific fact.

If you dont teach them all the controversies, you are manipulating them....we could say you are in fact lying to them.




romeo and juliet is a work of fiction whereas the theory of evolution has the ability to change their entire outlook on life. those who teach children have a responsibility not to mold & shape them, but to teach them how to think and reason for themselves.

If you only teach that evolution is 100% factual without informing them of the facts of science that make it highly unlikely, then you are not really teaching them to think and reason it out. So you are not acting as a 'teacher' now, you are acting as a mind manipulator.



you can't see it with eyes wide shut.

No one, not even the most hardcore evolutionary biologist, would EVER claim that evolution is 100% true. But most, if not all of it, is based on facts. Facts that are for all intents and purposes, 100% true.

 

[Pegg]

No one, not even the most hardcore evolutionary biologist, would EVER claim that evolution is 100% true. But most, if not all of it, is based on facts. Facts that are for all intents and purposes, 100% true.

if it were all based on 'facts', then we wouldnt be having this debate.

 

[jarofthoughts]

if it were all based on 'facts', then we wouldnt be having this debate.

Yeah, we would, and we are.
Look, I can't imagine no-one hasn't told you before, but the debate about creationism is one that is purely political, almost purely located in the US, and has nothing to do with science.
There is no debate in the scientific community about whether evolution is correct or not.
Rather, it is an overwhelming consensus.
That doesn't mean that we've stopped testing and checking and trying to find out more, and that doesn't mean that there is no discussion about the details of the hows and whys.
But there is no debate about the fact that evolution happened and still happens.

 

[McBell]

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

let us go down this road of your choosing...

So god is a life, right?
I mean, he HAS to be a life because we are alive and life can only come from pre-existing life, right?

So, from what life did god come from?

Now if you want to go the route that god is not a life, then all you have done is shown that god could not have created life.

Either way, you have defeated your own argument with your very first premise.

 

[McBell]

if it were all based on 'facts', then we wouldnt be having this debate.

:biglaugh:

If only there was any truth to your above quoted claim.

 

[Noaidi]

if it were all based on 'facts', then we wouldnt be having this debate.

As you are (rightly) concerned with facts, I take it you are not an advocate for the teaching of creationism in schools, then?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No, what they are describing is how the scientific 'facts' do not fit with the theory.

No, they aren't. Everything that they are talking about fits within the theory, they're just discussing the much finer points of the explanation.

They are trying desperately to find a way to make those facts fit the theory and will keep working at it, but they still teach the theory regardless...and they admit that, but because you are so focused on the theory, you dont seem to realise that the facts of science do not actually fit in the theory.

This is total garbage. Not a single one of the scienists you quoted say any such thing - they're talking about very specific facts within the theory and various explanations within the theory. Nothing is being "altered" about evolution theory in general - it still occurs, they're just examining the finer points of how. This is exactly what you would find with scientists discussing gravity, germ or atomic theory. The level of dishonesty you are displaying here is baffling.

So yes absolutely they should allow the kids to know this....its dishonest to keep teaching a theory as fact when the facts dont fully support it.

Again, this is downright dishonest. The facts do support evolution. The very words from the scientists you quoted say as much. The fact that you feel you can directly quote scienists and then flat-out lie about what they are saying just shows you how little you understand what they are actually discussing.

Of course you should. Dont they deserve to knew the full story? it is completely dishonest to teach them something that is not fully understood as if it is 100% understood and confirmed by scientific fact.

1) Evolution is a fact.
2) Evolution is understood.
3) The finer points of gravity, atoms and germ theory are less well established. Do you suggest teaching them absolutely every single debate on the particulars of those subjects as well?
4) Stop lying.

If you dont teach them all the controversies, you are manipulating them....we could say you are in fact lying to them.

Once again: there are no "controversies". The scientists you quoted all accept evolution theory, the only things they are debating are the finer points of how the process occurs. This is exactly what you would find in discussion about any scientific theory ever. To represent this as if these scientists are indicating the facts don't fit the theory is utterly dishonest.

romeo and juliet is a work of fiction whereas the theory of evolution has the ability to change their entire outlook on life. those who teach children have a responsibility not to mold & shape them, but to teach them how to think and reason for themselves.

And why should lying to them about the facts of how biological diversity occurs help that?

If you only teach that evolution is 100% factual without informing them of the facts of science that make it highly unlikely,

What facts?

then you are not really teaching them to think and reason it out. So you are not acting as a 'teacher' now, you are acting as a mind manipulator.

Do you apply the same logic to atoms and germs?

you can't see it with eyes wide shut.

You cannot teach with lies.