What should schools teach?

[Noaidi]

Meantime? I don't think there will be much of a meantime. The focus will just change; in time the zealots will forget about creationism and pick up some other fancy. Perhaps some will take it to their heads that religion shouldn't be tolerated and zealously try to interject that into our schools.

I think you are underestimating the influence of creationists, Jeremiah. How many people in your country don't accept evolution? It's a considerable number and, if left unchallenged, they will continue to make in-roads into the science curriculum. In the UK, creationism was pretty much ignored, but since it re-invented itself as 'Intelligent Design', it is making its voice more prominent (see my post above re. the distribution of free DVDs). Our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is very much in favour of faith schools, granting creationism (in whatever guise) unhitherto access to the science curriculum in certain schools, prompting scientists like Dawkins and Attenborough, as well as more enlightened members of the clergy, to write to him expressing their dismay at his approach.

If creationism isn't debated and exposed in science classes, where will our young people learn about proper scientific procedure and what constitutes science?

I'm of the opinion that we can't just sit back and wait for creationist thought to die out.

 

[Noaidi]

"Intelliegent Design", the pseuodscience that YECers tried to attach to Creationism, has been shot down in US courts every time it comes before a bench.

Even the most fundamentalist of judges cannot be persuaded by Behe and other YECers that ID holds any credibility, or approaches being a science.

Yes, but that doesn't stop them trying to get creationism / ID into the classroom. This is my point. Whether people see creationism / ID for what it is or not is irrelevant. The fact is that they will continue trying to force it into the curriculum. For this reason, it needs to be debated and, ultimately, stopped.

 

[Noaidi]

I suppose it's fair to say at this point that I am a biology teacher. I live in an area of the UK (northwest Scotland) that is very christian fundamentalist in its outlook. The majority of pupils I teach are either outright creationists or IDers. I would be doing them a disservice if I didn't acknowledge their views. What I can do, though, is lay out all the evidence garnered post-Darwin and invite them to refute it. If I can make at least a few of them think about their views and what they are based on, then I will have done my job as a teacher. To me, being a teacher is more than just presenting facts and figures - it's about making my pupils think.

 

[Jeremiah]

I think you are underestimating the influence of creationists, Jeremiah. How many people in your country don't accept evolution? It's a considerable number and, if left unchallenged, they will continue to make in-roads into the science curriculum. In the UK, creationism was pretty much ignored, but since it re-invented itself as 'Intelligent Design', it is making its voice more prominent (see my post above re. the distribution of free DVDs). Our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is very much in favour of faith schools, granting creationism (in whatever guise) unhitherto access to the science curriculum in certain schools, prompting scientists like Dawkins and Attenborough, as well as more enlightened members of the clergy, to write to him expressing their dismay at his approach.

If creationism isn't debated and exposed in science classes, where will our young people learn about proper scientific procedure and what constitutes science?

I'm of the opinion that we can't just sit back and wait for creationist thought to die out.

"Our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is very much in favour of faith schools, granting creationism (in whatever guise) unhitherto access to the science curriculum in certain schools,"

That is why I am glad we have separation of church and state here. And that is why it is important to up-hold these laws. Here, in the US, we can not simply make exception to these laws. We have to find other ways; be better then them; use our creativity, our minds, instead of sinking to their level.

This is bigger then creationism vs. evolution. Persevering our laws that protect the integrity of religious freedom, in our nation, is more important then refuting silly religious beliefs.

 

[Jeremiah]

I suppose it's fair to say at this point that I am a biology teacher. I live in an area of the UK (northwest Scotland) that is very christian fundamentalist in its outlook. The majority of pupils I teach are either outright creationists or IDers. I would be doing them a disservice if I didn't acknowledge their views. What I can do, though, is lay out all the evidence garnered post-Darwin and invite them to refute it. If I can make at least a few of them think about their views and what they are based on, then I will have done my job as a teacher. To me, being a teacher is more than just presenting facts and figures - it's about making my pupils think.

Once when I was 17, a girl in science class stood up and said dinosaur never existed. The teacher held up a dinosaur fossil and said, "Then what is this?" She sat down and we moved on. Other then that, that was the only encounter I had with anything related to creationism in public schools.

Perhaps it is not the same problem here in the US as it is in the UK?

 

[AxisMundi]

Yes, but that doesn't stop them trying to get creationism / ID into the classroom. This is my point. Whether people see creationism / ID for what it is or not is irrelevant. The fact is that they will continue trying to force it into the curriculum. For this reason, it needs to be debated and, ultimately, stopped.

Agreed to your first point. However, watchgroups are ever vigilant, and the nubmer of Christians in the US is fading fast.

And if you are stating "debated" as in publics chools, I don't agree in the least.

 

[Noaidi]

Once when I was 17, a girl in science class stood up and said dinosaur never existed. The teacher held up a dinosaur fossil and said, "Then what is this?" She sat down and we moved on. Other then that, that was the only encounter I had with anything related to creationism in public schools.

Good. The teacher was doing their job. The pupil expressed an opinion and it was refuted through evidence. The pupil was challenged and learned something.

 

[Noaidi]

And if you are stating "debated" as in publics chools, I don't agree in the least.

Can I ask why you disagree?

 

[Jeremiah]

Good. The teacher was doing their job. The pupil expressed an opinion and it was refuted through evidence. The pupil was challenged and learned something.

Yes, and he didn't have to debate her religious beliefs to do it. All he did was present hard evidence, for her own eyes to see.

 

[AxisMundi]

Can I ask why you disagree?

As I noted above, Creationism has some powerful symbology purposely built in, and kids are very impressionable.

To include theosophy in a public school ciriculum would be to lend credibility to the myth.

Compounding this concern is WHOSE Creation Myth should be debated.

 

[AxisMundi]

Can I ask why you disagree?

Answered on the other thread.

 

[Noaidi]

Yes, and he didn't have to debate her religious beliefs to do it. All he did was present hard evidence, for her own eyes to see.

This is my point. The OP talked about what schools should teach. By allowing the girl to express her opinion and have that refuted is what education is all about.

Are we really in disagreement here?

 

[Noaidi]

To include theosophy in a public school ciriculum would be to lend credibility to the myth.

Compounding this concern is WHOSE Creation Myth should be debated.

Credibility would not be granted if it were refuted adequately through evidence. Regarding what creation myth should be debated, then my statement above should cover it. ALL creation myths which run contrary to the evidence should be debated, if they arise.

 

[Noaidi]

Answered on the other thread.

OK, I'll check out your answers. Hopefully they'll take into account the diversity of opinions that young people hold and, what we as teachers, have to deal with without dismissing them out of hand.
Although we may not agree with the views they hold, they do deserve a response. From experience, the views that young people hold have come from their parents or the church, and not from their own logic.

 

[Jeremiah]

This is my point. The OP talked about what schools should teach. By allowing the girl to express her opinion and have that refuted is what education is all about.

Are we really in disagreement here?

"Are we really in disagreement here?"

As long as you think creationism should be included, for whatever reason, in school curriculum, then yes, we are in a disagreement.

 

[Noaidi]

"Are we really in disagreement here?"

As long as you think creationism should be included, for whatever reason, in school curriculum, then yes, we are in a disagreement.

Good grief!! I haven't said that creationism should be part of the curriculum! I've been advocating that creationism be debated within the science classes when / if it arises. Please read my posts.

Edit: Sorry for getting annoyed

 

[Jeremiah]

Good grief!! I haven't said that creationism should be part of the curriculum! I've been advocating that creationism be debated within the science classes when / if it arises. Please read my posts.

Edit: Sorry for getting annoyed

"Please read my posts."

Perhaps "curriculum" was a poor word choice; but I have been reading your post. And you are, in my opinion, a little to eager to interject you personal opinion, on a religious belief, in to public schools.

So don't give me this nonsense that we are suddenly now in some type of vague agreement. Because we are clearly not.

I don't think challenging anti-evolutionist views is nonsense. We pay tax dollars (well, pounds, in my case) to educate children. Allowing them to consider different views is part of education. I don't think Smoke (or myself, who voted for the same statement in the poll) is advocating teaching creationism, but instead, teaching how creationism is not a valid scientific approach. If teachers are teaching the next generation of biologists, then we need to let them see how scientific inquiry is conducted and, equally importantly, how science shouldn't be done.

But creationists are trying to get their ideas taught in science classes as a valid alternative to evolution, making it very much a subject for discussion in the classroom. You only need to look at Answers In Genesis or the Discovery Institute to see their motives. If they were content to keep their views out of the curriculum, then yes, creationism shouldn't be discussed in science - but that's not the case, is it?

Edit: As an example of this, last year, all UK high school Biology teachers were sent a free DVD from an organisation called Truth In Science. The DVD was called 'Unlocking The Mystery Of Life - The Scientific Case For Intelligent Design', produced by the Discovery Institute (emphasis added).

I think you are underestimating the influence of creationists, Jeremiah. How many people in your country don't accept evolution? It's a considerable number and, if left unchallenged, they will continue to make in-roads into the science curriculum. In the UK, creationism was pretty much ignored, but since it re-invented itself as 'Intelligent Design', it is making its voice more prominent (see my post above re. the distribution of free DVDs). Our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is very much in favour of faith schools, granting creationism (in whatever guise) unhitherto access to the science curriculum in certain schools, prompting scientists like Dawkins and Attenborough, as well as more enlightened members of the clergy, to write to him expressing their dismay at his approach.

If creationism isn't debated and exposed in science classes, where will our young people learn about proper scientific procedure and what constitutes science?

I'm of the opinion that we can't just sit back and wait for creationist thought to die out.

 

[Jeremiah]

You, Noaidi, seem like you want to use school to actively refute a religious belief.


So clear it up for me, Noaidi: Is that or is that not the case?

 

[Noaidi]

And you are, in my opinion, a little to eager to interject you personal opinion, on a religious belief, in to public schools.

So don't give me this nonsense that we are suddenly now in some type of vague agreement. Because we are clearly not.

Firstly, it's about science education, not my interjection of personal opinion. If a pupils view conflicts with science education, then, to me, a discussion is warranted. If the pupils hold a certain view that is in conflict with science, then it should be discussed.

Secondly, I'm not giving you any 'nonsense' regarding agreement. You are entitled to your view and I am entitled to mine. Are you involved in education at all? Do you regularly encounter views held by young people that may conflict with your own or with the curriculum? Do you dismiss them as nonsense, or do you encourage them to think them through?

 

[Noaidi]

You, Noaidi, seem like you want to use school to actively refute a religious belief.


So clear it up for me, Noaidi: Is that or is that not the case?

I'm not refuting a religious belief per se. I'm challenging the emphasis they place on the role of science within that belief.