Brit Prof Calls for Creationism in Science

[neonlyte]

Creationism should be discussed in school science lessons, rather than excluded, says the director of education at the Royal Society.

Professor Michael Reiss says that if pupils have strongly-held family beliefs about creationism such ideas should be explored.

Rather than dismissing creationism as a "misconception", he says it should be seen as a cultural "world view".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7612152.stm

My take: Give me evidence of Creationism as a world force before teaching an alternative to evolution. Cultural change is inevitable, that's how we evolve socially, which is different from how we evolved scientifically.

 

[amicus]

Cheap shot, Neon, and you know it.

Palin never ever pressed for Creationism to be taught in Alaskan schools and it is not and was never considered being taught.

Cheap, really cheap.

Amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

Oh for Christ sake!

You cannot teach creationism in science classrooms. It isn't science!

It's not falsifiable. It offers no problem solving tools. It makes no recourse to the laws of nature.

And which 'creationism' are we going to teach? The Christian one? The Hindu one? Norse? Ancient Greek? Ancient Egyptian?

If the creationists want creationism taught in the science classroom it's not to offer 'equal time'. It's a wedge so that eventually they can kick evolution, and all science for that matter, to the curb. They're free to do this but I wish they'd be honest about it.

 

[Recidiva]

I'd like to see the development of a Creationist "experiment."

I posit it'd be cool to see an equation that solved for "God's will."

 

[rgraham666]

I'm recalling a Larry Niven story where an extraterrestrial race did contact the afterlife through science.

The entire species committed suicide shortly thereafter. So did everybody that sought to discover why.

Maybe somethings should be better left alone.

 

[Recidiva]

I'm recalling a Larry Niven story where an extraterrestrial race did contact the afterlife through science.

The entire species committed suicide shortly thereafter. So did everybody that sought to discover why.

Maybe somethings should be better left alone.

Well, now, I object. Aren't we trying to avoid making choices based on fiction?

 

[rgraham666]

Well, now, I object. Aren't we trying to avoid making choices based on fiction?

Snerk. Good one.

 

[3113]

he says it should be seen as a cultural "world view"

That's fine if the class is "cultural world views" where all kinds of cultural world views are taught and not dismissed. But I get so sick an tired of these people refusing to "get it" because, obviously, they want to proselytize their pet "world view" to children.

The laws of gravity are not a "world view." Neither is evolution. Anyone who breeds chickens or dogs can see the facts of evolution, and evolution, like everything in science, is constantly under the gun to present facts, evidence, etc. So if someone wants a "World view" presented in a science class then they're going to have to risk getting it dismissed because science doesn't respect any world view that can't support itself with facts and evidence. If the facts don't support your world view, science will tell you so. It doesn't give a shit about respecting your believes, feelings or culture.

 

[gauchecritic]

Cheap shot, Neon, and you know it.

Palin never ever pressed for Creationism to be taught in Alaskan schools and it is not and was never considered being taught.

Cheap, really cheap.

WWW in computer terms stands for World Wide Web. Look up the word 'parochial' to see what an ass you just made of yourself.

 

[neonlyte]

Cheap shot, Neon, and you know it.

Palin never ever pressed for Creationism to be taught in Alaskan schools and it is not and was never considered being taught.

Cheap, really cheap.

Amicus...

Are you wearing your glasses? Who mentioned Palin???

 

[Safe_Bet]

Are you wearing your glasses? Who mentioned Palin???

He did!

 

[rgraham666]

Are you wearing your glasses? Who mentioned Palin???

The flashing neon sign in his head.

 

[neonlyte]

That's fine if the class is "cultural world views" where all kinds of cultural world views are taught and not dismissed. But I get so sick an tired of these people refusing to "get it" because, obviously, they want to proselytize their pet "world view" to children.

The laws of gravity are not a "world view." Neither is evolution. Anyone who breeds chickens or dogs can see the facts of evolution, and evolution, like everything in science, is constantly under the gun to present facts, evidence, etc. So if someone wants a "World view" presented in a science class then they're going to have to risk getting it dismissed because science doesn't respect any world view that can't support itself with facts and evidence. If the facts don't support your world view, science will tell you so. It doesn't give a shit about respecting your believes, feelings or culture.

Nice

 

[neonlyte]

I'd like to see the development of a Creationist "experiment."

I posit it'd be cool to see an equation that solved for "God's will."

It could be an educational milestone, unfortunately the UK is struggling with English and Math currently (according to employers).

 

[Boxlicker101]

Simon Underdown - now that's an interesting name. It sounds like something out of Dickens.

 

[Recidiva]

It could be an educational milestone, unfortunately the UK is struggling with English and Math currently (according to employers).

I actually am fine on having Creationism in any class that covers creation myths.

However, I can't get anyone to answer how these "test questions" would be framed in any scientific terms.

No equations. No real-world observations. No experiments.

All essay. Philosophy and Theology. Which the school systems have decided are advanced-education classes.

Teach that in school, expand your budget, and we'll talk. I'm fine with talk.

I'm not really fine with everything being on the test.

 

[impressive]

Oh for Christ sake!

That's what they said.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Okay, but I want Christ's DNA checked for metochlorians, then.

 

[Recidiva]

Okay, but I want Christ's DNA checked for metochlorians, then.

Top of my list, I know.

 

[3113]

Okay, but I want Christ's DNA checked for metochlorians, then.

Jesus was a Jedi? Hmmm. Well, he does have the robe and the beard...but where's his light saber?

 

[neonlyte]

Jesus was a Jedi? Hmmm. Well, he does have the robe and the beard...but where's his light saber?

Tcch...tcch... shame on you (psst it's under his Turin shroud)

 

[oggbashan]

What is being suggested is that Creationism should be "discussed".

That is a long way from advocating that Creationism should be TAUGHT.

When I took science lessons at school we "discussed" the Phlogiston theory and how scientists viewed the operation of the heart before the circulation of blood was discovered by Harvey.

That was part of teaching about scientific methodology - observe, record, formulate a theory and then test it to see if reproducible results can be obtained.

There are shades of Creationism - the one most able to sit with scientific theory is that everything we know and find out about the origins of the Universe is not incompatible with believing (but being unable to prove) that what we know could have had a divine origin. Therefore a believer can accept that all scientists are doing is examining the results of God's handiwork.

Discussing Creationism can lead to a debate about whether Creationism is rational or just a matter of belief which doesn't accord with the observed "facts".

It is possible to be a practising scientist and a practising Christian, Muslim, Hindu or of other faiths. A discussion of the conflict between your beliefs and your practical observations can illuminate both.

After all, I believe that when I hit the return key this message will be posted. I can't prove exactly how it is posted and disseminated but it could be proven. For this message my belief and my observation are identical but not scientific...

Og

 

[Recidiva]

What is being suggested is that Creationism should be "discussed".

That is a long way from advocating that Creationism should be TAUGHT.

When I took science lessons at school we "discussed" the Phlogiston theory and how scientists viewed the operation of the heart before the circulation of blood was discovered by Harvey.

That was part of teaching about scientific methodology - observe, record, formulate a theory and then test it to see if reproducible results can be obtained.

There are shades of Creationism - the one most able to sit with scientific theory is that everything we know and find out about the origins of the Universe is not incompatible with believing (but being unable to prove) that what we know could have had a divine origin. Therefore a believer can accept that all scientists are doing is examining the results of God's handiwork.

Discussing Creationism can lead to a debate about whether Creationism is rational or just a matter of belief which doesn't accord with the observed "facts".

It is possible to be a practising scientist and a practising Christian, Muslim, Hindu or of other faiths. A discussion of the conflict between your beliefs and your practical observations can illuminate both.

After all, I believe that when I hit the return key this message will be posted. I can't prove exactly how it is posted and disseminated but it could be proven. For this message my belief and my observation are identical but not scientific...

Og

But the Phlogiston was a scientific historical fact.

Creationism has no history as a science subject.

It's not in the Bible anywhere.

I think it's a modern philosophy subject. Or comparative religion.

But it has no scientific pedigree at all.

It came about to refute evolution. Not to prove anything.

I'm absolutely fine with discussing Creationism. Just not calling it science.

 

[neonlyte]

What is being suggested is that Creationism should be "discussed".

That is a long way from advocating that Creationism should be TAUGHT.

When I took science lessons at school we "discussed" the Phlogiston theory and how scientists viewed the operation of the heart before the circulation of blood was discovered by Harvey.

That was part of teaching about scientific methodology - observe, record, formulate a theory and then test it to see if reproducible results can be obtained.

There are shades of Creationism - the one most able to sit with scientific theory is that everything we know and find out about the origins of the Universe is not incompatible with believing (but being unable to prove) that what we know could have had a divine origin. Therefore a believer can accept that all scientists are doing is examining the results of God's handiwork.

Discussing Creationism can lead to a debate about whether Creationism is rational or just a matter of belief which doesn't accord with the observed "facts".

It is possible to be a practising scientist and a practising Christian, Muslim, Hindu or of other faiths. A discussion of the conflict between your beliefs and your practical observations can illuminate both.

After all, I believe that when I hit the return key this message will be posted. I can't prove exactly how it is posted and disseminated but it could be proven. For this message my belief and my observation are identical but not scientific...

Og

Semantics, Ogg. School children generally regard 'lessons' as teaching. Education has progressed since you and I were at school and the 'discussion format' is a way of presenting new information. Yes it can be 'discussed' in Science classes, most children will regard it as a 'lesson' particularly if they are assessed or tested on the information.

 

[fieryjen]

That why I liked the Ethics/Religion classes we have in Germany. A wide spectrum of ideas is covered throughout the years, from world religions to philosophy. Discussing creation myths - which I think is where this fits - would make a great unit for this class that fits in seamlessly with the rest of the curriculum for that class.

In science class it would just look ridiculous.