View Full Version : Teaching creationism in science lessons...
the_lone_wolf
05-10-07, 07:32 AM
So, there's new guidelines out on how to handle creationism in science classes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7028639.stm
If you'll ignore the slightly MCN headline, what do you reckon? Without allowing your own beliefs to alter your answer, do you reckon it's OK to teach creationism in science classes? Or should it be dismissed outright as non-scientific?
More on my opinion later
an other example of how we are bowing down to the muslims in this country!!
Evolution has proof, so should be in the sience curiculum full stop, if the stupid muslims are to dumb to accept that F*** them!!
the_lone_wolf
05-10-07, 07:47 AM
that's funny, i thought i asked if creationism should be taught in science classrooms:rolleyes:
Alpinestarhero
05-10-07, 07:49 AM
No no no no no no no. Its a beleif based on a book written thousands of years ago. There is no evidence, so it can't even be a theory. It has place in religious education classes, not science classes where kids should be taught the scientific method - how evidence must be compiled to make a solid conclusion based on that evidence in order for something to be a theory. Creationism tends to be told as a proved thing, totally unfalsifiable. Nothing is proven, everything is falsifiable, even the great theories of einstein and newton are falsifiable (they dont really work at the small levels where quantum theory applies)
I'm all for kids being taught this, because of the philisophical debate that it all throws up. But its not science, and therefore should not be taught as such.
Otherwise, I can put in my exams "because god made it so" and still get marks.
Matt
that's funny, i thought i asked if creationism should be taught in science classrooms:rolleyes:
ah yes you did, but no it should not and it appears from that news thread that it has only become and issue of whether it should or not due to the increase in muslims in our schools and their beliefs
No it shouldnt....I think the poll is fairly conclusive. :)
I hate the thought of half the crap young kids are taught nowdays, its no wonder half of them are messed up.
the_lone_wolf
05-10-07, 07:56 AM
cause and effect, this thread only concerns the latter...
the_lone_wolf
05-10-07, 08:01 AM
interesting poll results...
if you don't discuss creationism at all, and dismiss it outright, will you not only harden the beliefs of the creationists and lose the opportunity to educate the undecided?
if you don't discuss creationism at all, and dismiss it outright, will you not only harden the beliefs of the creationists and lose the opportunity to educate the undecided?
yes true, but as one of your options was to have it out of science and into religious studies it would still be taught.
I am not saying it should not be taught but taught in RE not Science!!
In the beginning there was cat and it was good
mieow
Cat shall not kill cat....
21QUEST
05-10-07, 09:16 AM
Yet more proof......... what a load rubbish.
I think Dr Hilary Leevers has got it right.
Ben
Bluewolf
05-10-07, 09:17 AM
Otherwise, I can put in my exams "because god made it so" and still get marks.
:winner:
I think Dr Hilary Leevers has got it right.
Ben
:confused:
an other example of how we are bowing down to the muslims in this country!!
Evolution has proof, so should be in the sience curiculum full stop, if the stupid muslims are to dumb to accept that F*** them!!
Just becaue the article is written in a sensationalist way doesn't make it true...
While I'm sure this has had an impact I saw nothing in the article suggesting that we should teach it as a valid theory just to please those with diferent views, quite the opposite... Still people do like to get up on a soap box.
Mousetrapper
05-10-07, 09:25 AM
Any science should be hypothesis based, if a hypothesis has no chance of being disproved (as in creationism) then it has no place in science.
I think yes, early on in school life before it gets all exam focused. It would be interesting to examine the theory from a scientific point of view. Not to rubbish it, but just to give the chance to let the kids make up their own mind.
If the science teacher teaches them about fossils, & how creatures have evolved over time to adapt to their changing environment and Darwin's theories, and then also teaches them that there is a different POV that one day man was created and everything was good, then woman was created & man never heard the end of it :lol:
IMHO it could be confusing for children for their science teacher to teach them one theory as fact and their RE teacher to teach them the alternative also as fact, and the 2 completely different theories can not be reconciled leading to confusion rather than an understanding of both with a preference based on belief.
metalmonkey
05-10-07, 09:34 AM
I saw a program a while can't what/when but they where teaching that in place of real of science, what total crap.......I remember when i was doing my a-level a mad god person chased me down in the street to try to convert me, I was I'm a science student you can't force that crap on me....he got message and left me alone.....
I hate the way the relgions try to convert you, I went to my cousion chriteining a few months back and it was in a a local church to them. Apart from the namimg part the whole service was spent trying to convert us in joining the church me and the other kids in the family made a break for the door soon as we could what a load of crap.
Its not science, not based on fact so should not be taught in school, college or Uni.
I think yes, early on in school life before it gets all exam focused. It would be interesting to examine the theory from a scientific point of view. Not to rubbish it, but just to give the chance to let the kids make up their own mind.
If the science teacher teaches them about fossils, & how creatures have evolved over time to adapt to their changing environment and Darwin's theories, and then also teaches them that there is a different POV that one day man was created and everything was good, then woman was created & man never heard the end of it :lol:
IMHO it could be confusing for children for their science teacher to teach them one theory as fact and their RE teacher to teach them the alternative also as fact, and the 2 completely different theories can not be reconciled leading to confusion rather than an understanding of both with a preference based on belief.
i dont think it can be taught in science, as school science deals with facts, not a few book written 1000's of years ago by people who if alive today would be called cult nutters!!
Religion has a place in school yes that place is called the RE classes.
MiniMatt
05-10-07, 09:43 AM
interesting poll results...
if you don't discuss creationism at all, and dismiss it outright, will you not only harden the beliefs of the creationists and lose the opportunity to educate the undecided?
In that case, I'd say discuss it as much as you discuss Flat Earth Theory. "Some people used to believe, and some still do that the world is flat. All scientific evidence has now disproved this theory, now lets move on to some real science."
the_lone_wolf
05-10-07, 09:46 AM
yes true, but as one of your options was to have it out of science and into religious studies it would still be taught.
how is refusing to discuss creationism because it "isn't science" different from people refusing to discuss evolution because it "isn't christian/muslim/whatever"
shouldn't science be the bigger man and be willing to discuss creationism from a scientific viewpoint?
the_lone_wolf
05-10-07, 09:49 AM
In that case, I'd say discuss it as much as you discuss Flat Earth Theory. "Some people used to believe, and some still do that the world is flat. All scientific evidence has now disproved this theory, now lets move on to some real science."
i seem to remember talking about that back in science classes, or at least it might have been geocentricity
the difference being that i don't think one in ten pupils are being told at home that the world is flat;)
Biker Biggles
05-10-07, 10:20 AM
So if you mad scientists are saying God didn't create the world in 7 days who the hell did? :confused:
the_lone_wolf
05-10-07, 10:43 AM
So if you mad scientists are saying God didn't create the world in 7 days who the hell did? :confused:
FSM
;)
the white rabbit
05-10-07, 10:50 AM
Of course not. You teach it in other classes they now have such as ...I don't know...world religions, social stuff, divinity it was called in my day or whatever stuff kids get taught. In science classes the getout is easy as evolution is of course like most things a theory, although with a fair amount of evidence. Kids dont get taught enough basic science these days anyhow. I see Stu's point tho, a balance is good, its just a matter of time and dilution. Another point is that science is facts. Not strictly true its based on evidence. Thats said much of this we know know as fact, but not all. Much is still ideas based on best evidence, as is Darwinism.
the_lone_wolf
05-10-07, 11:37 AM
evolution is of course like most things a theory, although with a fair amount of evidence
it's not a theory by the general definition of the word
it's a scientific theory, which is something very different
;)
phil24_7
05-10-07, 12:08 PM
an other example of how we are bowing down to the muslims in this country!!
Evolution has proof, so should be in the sience curiculum full stop, if the stupid muslims are to dumb to accept that F*** them!!
What are you basing this assumption on, or is it just the one's who believe that Allah created everything?
If this is true surely all Christians are stupid for believing God made everything??
I happen to believe in evolution, with no form of higher being whatsoever but everyone is entitled to their viewpoint and shouldn't be considered stupid or dumb!
phil24_7
05-10-07, 12:20 PM
So if you mad scientists are saying God didn't create the world in 7 days who the hell did? :confused:
Oh come on, no man coulda ever created the world in 7 days, for a start, if he had 7 days off he'd have to mow the lawn, paint the spare room, re-seal the bath, build the extension, take a trip to see the in-laws........... Well, you get the point, so he'd never of had time!!:rolleyes::D
Biker Biggles
05-10-07, 12:28 PM
Maybe he got Satan round to lend a hand.
Flamin_Squirrel
05-10-07, 12:49 PM
the difference being that i don't think one in ten pupils are being told at home that the world is flat;)
That's only because proof of the world being round is alot easier to understand.
phil24_7
05-10-07, 01:10 PM
Maybe he got Satan round to lend a hand.
But then they'd have just sat around drinking beer, smoking fags and cooking a BBQ!!
the white rabbit
05-10-07, 01:14 PM
it's not a theory by the general definition of the word
it's a scientific theory, which is something very different
;)
Can you explain further (genuine interest not because I dont agree with you, I''m interested)?
the_runt69
05-10-07, 01:17 PM
I beleive kids should be taught the sience facts in sience and the religous views in RE and to debate the issuees in both lessons until they find something THEY belive to be true, kids are not stupid and will take one side or the other or will question what theyve been told before in the case of evidnece
phil24_7
05-10-07, 01:18 PM
I beleive kids should be taught the sience facts in sience and the religous views in RE and to debate the issuees in both lessons until they find something THEY belive to be true, kids are not stupid and will take one side or the other or will question what theyve been told before in the case of evidnece
+1
philipMac
05-10-07, 01:25 PM
The definition of science is knowledge obtained by the Scientific Method.
Religion, creationism and so on, has not come from the Scientific Method, therefore it simply is not science.
It's something else. If that is being taught in a science classroom, the actual science class has stopped.
It's equivalent to going to woodwork and being taught cooking. Its just not part of that subject.
Flamin_Squirrel
05-10-07, 01:32 PM
I beleive kids should be taught the sience facts in sience and the religous views in RE and to debate the issuees in both lessons until they find something THEY belive to be true, kids are not stupid and will take one side or the other or will question what theyve been told before in the case of evidnece
Disagree. Kids, stupid or not, are impressionable. They won't question, they'll just adopt the opinion of the person who presses their view the hardest.
an other example of how we are bowing down to the muslims in this country!!
Evolution has proof, so should be in the sience curiculum full stop, if the stupid muslims are to dumb to accept that F*** them!!
+1 i also served in the first Gulf war mate with 26 airmobile
the_lone_wolf
05-10-07, 01:36 PM
Can you explain further (genuine interest not because I dont agree with you, I''m interested)?
i would try to explain it, but i reckon wikipedia does a much better job than i ever could:
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_%28abstract%29) or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) evidence (see scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic) and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory. Commonly, a large number of more specific hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses) may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a general rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Basically a scientific theory must account for all previous experimental evidence and observations, it must be able to be tested, and also be able to predict future observations
A hypothesis is probably something closer to the general definition of theory, as it is something logically assumed, but not experimentally confirmed
Zombie Jesus
05-10-07, 01:37 PM
Can you explain further (genuine interest not because I dont agree with you, I''m interested)?
A scientific theory is able to explain a large body of evidence as in the theory of gravity.
The word theory can also be used casually along the lines of something that may or may not be true, we just do not know for sure. Although this sort of statement is more of a conjecture.
This is why the "Evolution is only a theory" argument, often used by creationists is very misleading.
edit: beaten
I'm sure that all thats covered in science these days is not only factual, it all started out as theory anyhow
the_lone_wolf
05-10-07, 01:42 PM
I'm sure that all thats covered in science these days is not only factual it all started out as theory anyhow
no, it started as a hypothesis;)
how can the kids make up there mind what they want to believe if there only given one option
Flamin_Squirrel
05-10-07, 01:47 PM
how can the kids make up there mind what they want to believe if there only given one option
They're not supposed to, as science isn't an opinion.
neither is Islam if your born a Muslim, they should teach all the beliefs if it cuts to evolution or not cover the subject as the argument goes how come we still have apes miss if thats where we came from
Flamin_Squirrel
05-10-07, 01:59 PM
Ah yes, the age old response from the religious. When everything else fails, just say, "well, it's what I believe in, you have to respect it".
Religion simply isn't part of the scientific discussion.
Ah yes, the age old response from the religious. When everything else fails, just say, "well, it's what I believe in, you have to respect it".
Religion simply isn't part of the scientific discussion.
don't get me wrong im not religious but how would they teach evolution without saying but some people believe
Flamin_Squirrel
05-10-07, 02:08 PM
don't get me wrong im not religious but how would they teach evolution without saying but some people believe
Because evolution isn't a belief. Simple.
neither is Islam if your born a Muslim, they should teach all the beliefs if it cuts to evolution or not cover the subject as the argument goes how come we still have apes miss if thats where we came from
How come I have a cousin if we both have the same grandfather?:D
That's not teaching creationism, that's just answering a question. Teachers should be aware of the issues in case such a question is asked. But this doesn't mean giving credence to creationist statements as if there is any validity to them, that there is an actual controversy.
Does school level science actually teach the scientific method etc, or is it just learning basic facts? I can't remember.
Because evolution isn't a belief. Simple.
yes but by teaching it you would be calling some of your students beliefs lies so maybe they should leave the subject alone or tell every side of the story
what about scientology does that not have anything to do with science
yes but by teaching it you would be calling some of your students beliefs lies so maybe they should leave the subject alone or tell every side of the story
Why do false beliefs in this one area get special treatment?
For pretty much every fact you can be taught in school there will be someone that disagrees. In history when they mention Napoleon died in 1821 do they also have to respectfully say "But that's just one theory, there are plenty of people alive today who believe that they are Napoleon"
Flamin_Squirrel
05-10-07, 02:26 PM
yes but by teaching it you would be calling some of your students beliefs lies so maybe they should leave the subject alone or tell every side of the story
Again, you're talking as if science and creationism carry the same weight in an argument. They don't. If that means belittling a few peoples beliefs so be it.
slark01
05-10-07, 02:29 PM
Lets face it, it's not hard to work out what belongs in a science class and what does'nt!
Some people just luuuuv to create an issue.:smt104
Anyway I think the mechanics of how santa can fly around the world in one night should be in a science class.:joker:
Why do false beliefs in this one area get special treatment?
For pretty much every fact you can be taught in school there will be someone that disagrees. In history when they mention Napoleon died in 1821 do they also have to respectfully say "But that's just one theory, there are plenty of people alive today who believe that they are Napoleon"
thats just it you carnt say false beliefs to beleve doesnt have nothing to do with false or true, this discussion has never and will never be solved as our evolution isnt even fact
thats just it you carnt say false beliefs
Yes, I can say false beliefs.
Unless you want to get extremely PoMo and relativistic, then surely you'll admit that there are such things as objective facts. That it is is possible to make statements that are true, and statements that are false.
What odds would you give that any one of the random nutters that think they're Napoleon actually are? 50:50? 0.001? or absolutely none at all.
Ceri JC
05-10-07, 03:07 PM
I went to a church school. We were taught creationism in RE, evolution in Biology. Neither teacher would be drawn into our (mischevious) attempts to ask them which was right. Personally I don't see how any reasonable person could object to this approach, irrespective of whether or not it was a church school. I'm a Christian, but I wouldn't want creationism taught in a science class, any more than I would want evolution taugh in an RE class.
Zombie Jesus
05-10-07, 04:29 PM
what about scientology does that not have anything to do with science
Nothing
Scientology is complete fiction transformed into a cult for the purposes of making quite a significant ammount of money.
the white rabbit
05-10-07, 04:54 PM
i would try to explain it, but i reckon wikipedia does a much better job than i ever could:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Basically a scientific theory must account for all previous experimental evidence and observations, it must be able to be tested, and also be able to predict future observations
A hypothesis is probably something closer to the general definition of theory, as it is something logically assumed, but not experimentally confirmed
Ok, I couldnt think of any other definition of theory :lol: :smt087. I always think along the lines of evidence based and naively hope all theories are evidence based :lol:. Hence I have never thought of creationsism as a theory as theres no evidence AFAIK :lol: .
Nothing
Scientology is complete fiction transformed into a cult for the purposes of making quite a significant ammount of money.
yeah and they are a bunch of Fing wierdo's
seedy100
05-10-07, 07:03 PM
Clearly there will be problems fitting creationism into the science ciricluum.
Theres not much time left now, what with the latest facts about the flat earth, the newly revealed geocentric facts of the universe, and of course they have to spend hours learning about the new science of tealeafology.
Things were simpler in my day, we only had to learn the old faiy stories about relativity.
yorkie_chris
05-10-07, 10:52 PM
Disagree. Kids, stupid or not, are impressionable. They won't question, they'll just adopt the opinion of the person who presses their view the hardest.
Nah, I was always the awkward little bugger more likely to do exactly the opposite.
Impressionable yes, but give people some credit, you don't have to be old and wise to question any theory (in any sense of the word) or generally accepted idea.
an other example of how we are bowing down to the muslims in this country!!
Evolution has proof, so should be in the sience curiculum full stop, if the stupid muslims are to dumb to accept that F*** them!!
Wow you should really do some research before posting something like this. Modern Astronomy and mathemetics wouldnt be where it is if it wasnt for them "dumb muslims" Although ancient muslim countries had very strong beliefs in there religion they still had the foresight to devote considerable resource to scientific endevours such as Astronomy and Mathematics (I think the abstract number 0 came from there too).
Anyway I am personally an Aetheist but believe strongly that RE belongs in school as much as Science. Rightly or wrongly, religion is a big part of the human experience and therefore should be taught as just that. Science is pretty self-explanatory as to why it should be taught. But, and this is a big but "never the twain shall meet" IMHO
Oh and on the Theory debate, the reason they use the word theory is that you can never prove absolutely true cause and effect in science. Einstein's "Theory of relativety" will always be a theory as while every experiment to date has given more evidence to its validty we can not say that there will not be an experiment one day, which challenges its absolute application as truth.
gettin2dizzy
06-10-07, 01:06 AM
I believe in the tooth fairy who lives in a teapot circling the earth to the sound of chas and dave...oh and the earths not round at all, it's flat. Madeline fell off the edge I reckon
the_lone_wolf
06-10-07, 07:17 AM
Einstein's "Theory of relativety" will always be a theory as while every experiment to date has given more evidence to its validty we can not say that there will not be an experiment one day, which challenges its absolute application as truth.
no theory is absolute truth, and none can explain everything, hence why physics is looking for a unified theory that can. there are a few things relativity can't explain, and no theory can explain the physics at a gravitational singularity... yet...;)
no theory is absolute truth, and none can explain everything, hence why physics is looking for a unified theory that can. there are a few things relativity can't explain, and no theory can explain the physics at a gravitational singularity... yet...;)
I have a theory that can.
God made it that way.
Or
My mate Jeff made it that way.
Or
I don't know some stuff and that scares me, so I'm gonna invent a mystical figure to whom I can devolve all sense of responsibility for my life in the vain hope that it'll repay me in some highly dubious next life...
I may sound bitter, but that's probably because I spent 14 hours filming a gospel choir last night, and couldn't sleep in this morning 'coz I've got Christian songs running through my head.
Feckin' Christians...
I have a theory that can.
God made it that way.
Or
My mate Jeff made it that way.
Or
I don't know some stuff and that scares me, so I'm gonna invent a mystical figure to whom I can devolve all sense of responsibility for my life in the vain hope that it'll repay me in some highly dubious next life...
I may sound bitter, but that's probably because I spent 14 hours filming a gospel choir last night, and couldn't sleep in this morning 'coz I've got Christian songs running through my head.
Feckin' Christians...
lol. Poor you!
I need something loud, with lots of crunchy guitars and breaky-noises!
the_lone_wolf
06-10-07, 11:01 AM
I have a theory that can.
God made it that way.
Or
My mate Jeff made it that way.
don't forget flying spaghetti monster...
but seriously, saying "God did it" isn't actually a scientific theory because you can't disprove it
;):p
Flamin_Squirrel
06-10-07, 12:09 PM
Nah, I was always the awkward little bugger more likely to do exactly the opposite.
Impressionable yes, but give people some credit, you don't have to be old and wise to question any theory (in any sense of the word) or generally accepted idea.
You'd be in a very very tiny minority then.
If you indoctrinate kids at a young enough age then they'll believe what you tell them and that includes being taught not to question anything.
Alpinestarhero
06-10-07, 02:04 PM
don't forget flying spaghetti monster...
but seriously, saying "God did it" isn't actually a scientific theory because you can't disprove it
;):p
You can, if you have photographic or video evidence that, in actual fact, hovis did it ;)
Matt
Alpinestarhero
06-10-07, 02:06 PM
You'd be in a very very tiny minority then.
If you indoctrinate kids at a young enough age then they'll believe what you tell them and that includes being taught not to question anything.
As what happens in school nowadays.
In my final year of university, only now am I arguing back at lecturers when I think they are wrong, insread of thinking "hmm, thats not right...no, wait, they are more experianced, it must be me thats wrong, me that has missed something..."
Matt
northwind
07-10-07, 10:19 PM
You've got to address it though... Otherwise, you have kids coming into the class with an idea of how this works which is completely at odds with the curriculuum, they have to be provided with the ability to understand why this is, otherwise it's just a contradition that they won't be able to deal with. What a lot of people do in that case is just dismiss the new idea as wrong, out of hand. And that's fine, but we're talking about teachers here, once kids start dismissing one part as contradictory to their understanding of the world, they'll do it again.
an other example of how we are bowing down to the muslims in this country!!
Rubbish. You went on to say "it appears from that news thread that it has only become and issue of whether it should or not due to the increase in muslims in our schools and their beliefs"
The article itself says:
"That's one reason why it's more of an issue in schools."
If the 1/10 estimate is right, then it's blatantly not a muslim-originated issue at all, because less than 1/10 kids in UK schools are muslims ,actually 1/22 are- so at the absolute most, less than one half of these creationist kids are muslims. In practice, probably far less, since not all muslims hold fundamentalist creationist views, just as not all christians do.
MiniMatt
08-10-07, 03:29 AM
I've revised my thinking. You might say, I've had a revelation. Seen the light. Etc. As has been mentioned above, a scientific theory must be testable, and must be able to predict. In my school days (and I'm guessing it's much the same nowadays) every science experiment was structured around a hypothesis, a methodology, results, and conclusions. Therefore, if any kid raises creationism in a science class, the teacher suggests that if they can come up with an experiment along those lines, the next lesson will be spent testing it.
Experiment 1. Testing evolution.
Hypothesis
Two fruit flys, with different coloured eyes, when bred will produce offspring with a third colour of eyes.
Methodology
Daddy fruit fly (with blue eyes) is introduced to Mummy fruit fly (with yellow eyes). Insect based porno is provided, lights are dimmed, and Barry White CD put on repeat.
Results
Fruit fly couple number one produced offspring with green eyes. Fruit fly couple number two produced mega mutant fly-zilla which destroyed most of the science block before being taken out from orbit. It was the only way to be sure.
Conclusions
Evolution works. Genetic traits can be predicted. Sometimes.
Experiment 2. Testing creationism.
Hypothesis
Two fruit flys, with different coloured eyes, when bred will produce offspring just as god intended. We'll ask god if the results obtained were as (s)he intended to validate the experiment.
Methodology
Daddy fruit fly (with blue eyes) is introduced to Mummy fruit fly (with yellow eyes). After a long, celibate, courtship, the two exchange marriage vows and consumate their marriage. Insect based porno is ungodly and as such was not provided, lights were turned off as sex is dirty, Barry White CD was optional.
Results
Fruit fly couple number one produced offspring with green eyes. Fruit fly couple number two produced mega mutant fly-zilla which destroyed most of the science block before being taken out from orbit. It was the only way to be sure.
Conclusions
Creationism works. The results were indeed as god intended. Or maybe they weren't. He hasn't actually gotten back to us to confirm. We've emailed and everything.
phil24_7
08-10-07, 04:11 AM
Blah, blah!
WOW, tou have got FAR too much time on your hands! :-)
Ceri JC
08-10-07, 04:15 AM
If the 1/10 estimate is right, then it's blatantly not a muslim-originated issue at all, because less than 1/10 kids in UK schools are muslims ,actually 1/22 are- so at the absolute most, less than one half of these creationist kids are muslims. In practice, probably far less, since not all muslims hold fundamentalist creationist views, just as not all christians do.
What he said. Although, Christians having a problem with evolution being taught is generally an American thing. The only Christian friend I have who does hold creationist views, still thinks evolution should be taught in schools (albeit that creationism should be taught alongside it in church schools). In his own words, "Well, if they don't believe in God already, I don't think the idea of creationism is going to be particularly successful at converting them, when up against evolution." I don't have stats on the matter, but I would imagine a higher proportion of Muslims fall into the creationist camp, but I suppose this is offset by:
a) A greater number of people who are nominally Christian, IE don't really practice regularly, compared to nominal Muslims.
b) A greater number of Christians in total (at the moment; if you include the nominals, but this is decreaseing, whereas the number of Muslims is going up)
so even if a smaller % of them are creationists, it's still probably almost on a par with the total number of creationist Muslims.
IMHO science lessons should be about 'how things work' - Physics/Chemistry/Biology. The 'how we all got here in the first place' should be firmly slotted into another subject. Perhaps schools could divide RE/RI into two modules - one for those that believe in greater glorious being with trumpets and sunshine etc, the other for the evolutionists. They can then all meet up once a term say and have a good old lengthy debate about both sides of the divide - thus clearing the air for the following term to crack on and learn about 'how things work' again.
So, that's why I reckon creationism should be kept seperate (creationism is not about 'how things work').
:smt069
That is the theory what I have, and what it is too!
SoulKiss
08-10-07, 07:07 AM
FSM
;)
All hail his noodly appendage !!!!
Flamin_Squirrel
08-10-07, 08:15 AM
You've got to address it though... Otherwise, you have kids coming into the class with an idea of how this works which is completely at odds with the curriculuum, they have to be provided with the ability to understand why this is, otherwise it's just a contradition that they won't be able to deal with. What a lot of people do in that case is just dismiss the new idea as wrong, out of hand. And that's fine, but we're talking about teachers here, once kids start dismissing one part as contradictory to their understanding of the world, they'll do it again.
You sure about that?
My impression of the education system is that it's on the decline and has been for decades. Perhaps going back to a Victorian style class room would be a bit much, but one thing you could be sure on in is in those days it was the teachers asking the questions. IMO it seems that style produced better educated kids.
yorkie_chris
08-10-07, 10:01 AM
The victorian style approach to RE was b#llocks, very much "this is what you believe" learning the catechisms etc. That did nobody any favours as IMO debate is the best way to learn and expand your mind, way better than crosswords :p
The victorians did have one part of their schooling perfect though;
No homework eh?:smt075
Chris
I came to this thread thinking of posting popcorn...
No no no no no no no. Its a beleif based on a book written thousands of years ago. There is no evidence, so it can't even be a theory. It has place in religious education classes, not science classes where kids should be taught the scientific method - how evidence must be compiled to make a solid conclusion based on that evidence in order for something to be a theory. Creationism tends to be told as a proved thing, totally unfalsifiable. Nothing is proven, everything is falsifiable, even the great theories of einstein and newton are falsifiable (they dont really work at the small levels where quantum theory applies)
I'm all for kids being taught this, because of the philisophical debate that it all throws up. But its not science, and therefore should not be taught as such.
Otherwise, I can put in my exams "because god made it so" and still get marks.
Matt
Matt, a slight correction there fella, a theory doesn't need evidence. A theory needs thought. A conclusion needs evidence.
Any science should be hypothesis based, if a hypothesis has no chance of being disproved (as in creationism) then it has no place in science.
Since when is it impossible to disprove creationism? By implying that, you would also imply that it is impossible to prove it. That doesn't stop it being a theory (aka hypothesis). I was taught that hypothesis start with "I/We think that...".
Disagree. Kids, stupid or not, are impressionable. They won't question, they'll just adopt the opinion of the person who presses their view the hardest.
Exactly why I play devils advocate. My partner & her parents are very religious (Christians for what it matters). I'm not. So I gladly open the eyes of my children to the fact that god may not actually exist. That doesn't mean I tell them that their mother & grandparents are wrong, because I can't prove that, but I certainly argue all the points. Can you imagine the fun that is sunday lunch with the inlaws? :D
They're not supposed to, as science isn't an opinion.
As above, a hypothesis is someones opinion that has to be tested. All science is an opinion until it is proven to other people.
Because evolution isn't a belief. Simple.
So I suppose you're telling me that someone has proven beyond all doubt that one day, the gorilla's stood up & walked over to the cave, started drawing, and lit a fire to cook their dinner huh?
There are large steps in evolutionism that are not filled in. It's believed that certain things happened in those gaps, but it hasn't been proven.
My personal opinion? Well, the way I was taught, science subjects (electronics, chemistry & biology) were taught in Science. The theories of various religious studies were taught in R.E. (Religious Education). I see nothing wrong with that the way I was taught it.
yorkie_chris
08-10-07, 10:29 AM
My personal opinion? Well, the way I was taught, science subjects (electronics, chemistry & biology) were taught in Science. The theories of various religious studies were taught in R.E. (Religious Education). I see nothing wrong with that the way I was taught it.
+1
Seems to work alright...
lots of stuff and opinions etc...
As above, a hypothesis is someones opinion that has to be tested. All science is an opinion until it is proven to other people.
some stuff and opinions etc..
Hang on a minute. Surely science is fact. That's why it's science. Ohms law, Faraday's law, Dalton's law of partial pressures blah blah blah etc. Water is made of oxygen and hydrogen, the heart pumps blood etc...:confused:
MiniMatt
08-10-07, 12:02 PM
Hang on a minute. Surely science is fact. That's why it's science. Ohms law, Faraday's law, Dalton's law of partial pressures blah blah blah etc. Water is made of oxygen and hydrogen, the heart pumps blood etc...:confused:
Nah, fundamental tenet of science is that it lays itself open to be disproved. Probably closer to say "if it can't conceivably be one day disproved, then it's not science".
Water being made of hydrogen & oxygen. Well, everything we know so far points to this as being as close to "fact" as we can get. Yet still we haven't the foggiest what the bits in the middle are. And at an atomical level you get some really vague answers if you ask what an electron actually is. Is it a particle? Or a wave? Or some kind of probability density definition? So water being made of hydrogen and oxygen is by no means fact, it fits all our models at the moment, and our models allow for prediction, but they also allow, indeed invite, future scientists to disprove this and theorise, with supporting evidence, that water is actually made of hydrogen, oxygen and pink elephants.
Nah, fundamental tenet of science is that it lays itself open to be disproved. Probably closer to say "if it can't conceivably be one day disproved, then it's not science".
Water being made of hydrogen & oxygen. Well, everything we know so far points to this as being as close to "fact" as we can get. Yet still we haven't the foggiest what the bits in the middle are. And at an atomical level you get some really vague answers if you ask what an electron actually is. Is it a particle? Or a wave? Or some kind of probability density definition? So water being made of hydrogen and oxygen is by no means fact, it fits all our models at the moment, and our models allow for prediction, but they also allow, indeed invite, future scientists to disprove this and theorise, with supporting evidence, that water is actually made of hydrogen, oxygen and pink elephants.
Surely if science lays itself open to be disproved, it must therefore have already been proven and so be fact as opposed to be maybe.
Flamin_Squirrel
08-10-07, 12:56 PM
So water being made of hydrogen and oxygen is by no means fact, it fits all our models at the moment, and our models allow for prediction...
And here we have the most important point yet brought up. Unless you're one of a tiny number of research scientists, an appriximate model is all that's important.
99% of the time we use science to achieve a practical end. Water being made of hydrogen and oxygen might not be a 100% verifiable fact, but to someone designing a new kettle, who cares?
Same goes for things like evolution. It's the most accurate model we have for explaining bio-diversity and tends to do a good job of explaining what we see. Just like science is unable to say 100% that waters wet, evolution doesn't need to be proven to be useful, nor should it prevent it from taking precidence over less creditable theories.
MiniMatt
08-10-07, 02:30 PM
Surely if science lays itself open to be disproved, it must therefore have already been proven and so be fact as opposed to be maybe.
We get into semantics here, but I suppose the best way to approach it is to take an extremely narrow view of what you're actually "proving". I'm sure a proper grown up scientist will correct me but I *think* you'd have difficulty finding a scientist who says they can prove water is made from hydrogen and oxygen. What I suspect they'll be more open to is "proving" that water contains hydrogen and oxygen, and as a side note they may mention that no-one's really found anything else in there.
So for all practical purposes, as the Squirrel points out, for example kettle manufacturers, water=hydrogen+oxygen = fact.
You can test this again and again, and thus far the results appear to be the same every time. Water does indeed contain hydrogen and oxygen. But we're leaving open the possibility that water could contain other things too, just that nobodys found it yet. We also leave open the possibility that under different conditions (eg. at near light speed, super high gravity) water might not contain hydrogen and oxygen at all. But for the kettle manufacturer, they're not interested in that.
One day, someone will figure out what the bits in the middle, between the atoms are, and find out all sorts of things that can be done with them which may or may not tally with our existing models of how molecules and atoms work. I'll adopt my armchair scientist pose, and invoke the wrath of proper gown up scientists everywhere (you know, the ones with bushy beards) and call this stuff in the middle "dark matter". At this point, mere mortals and kettle manufacturers become interested and Tefal will bring out their new kettle that seperates the hydrogen, water, and dark matter before individually boiling them and then re-combining them, in the process actually generating more electricity than it took to boil and in the same process apparently breaking the previous given "law" of conservation of energy.
This is the great asset of the scientific approach, it invites people to say "I think this is wrong, and here, I've devised some experiments which support my revised model". Beliefs (typically religious beliefs) don't really invite people to disprove them. While a belief will ultimately fall back to a position of "because God made it so", science says "Why?"
Sidenote: I don't think any of this means that a belief in a God or many Gods can't sit quite happily alongside science. The creationism versus evolution debate typically gets dragged into this, with God being pitched against science. On this debate however the reality is that evolution is up against the closest thing the creationists can muster as a scientific text, that is the Bible. And only the first dozen or so chapters of Genesis at that. Belief in God does not (in my mind at any rate, and the great thing about belief in God is that no-one can tell me I'm wrong) require a literal belief in every word of the Bible.
See what I did there? Nobody can tell me that my belief in God is wrong, no matter what they produce, I can always fall back to belief. Ergo my belief in God is not science.
Sidenote 2: If anyone's really interested in my own personal beliefs, then yes, I'm fairly sure in myself that I believe in some form of cosmic karmic devine entity. And I'm fairly happy with a lot of the basic tenets and moral parables found in any religious text you care to mention. There's a lot of waffle in them about what meat you can and can't eat on what days, what you can and can't do on a Friday and the like, but every religous text has some fundamentals which I believe to be a basic Good Thing(tm), don't kill, don't steal, don't shag yer best mate's missus, altruism and good will to your fellows. All of those can be found in the Bible, the Koran, Torah, Brahmana, etc.
MiniMatt
08-10-07, 02:38 PM
Sidenote 3: Unless of course, you live in a Severn Trent Water region, in which case for three weeks this year, water contained hydrogen, oxygen, raw sewage and donkey poo. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a Fact. :D
slark01
08-10-07, 04:29 PM
Going a little off track:-
Just for a joke I thought I would say " why don't they teach cretinism in science lessons ", however when I was double checking the meaning of Cretinism I came across something which I did actually find funny, due to the religious as well as the scienctific meaning.
THIS IS TAKEN FROM WIKIPEDIA:-
The term cretin was brought into medical use in the 18th century from an Alpine French dialect prevalent in a region where persons with such a condition were especially common (see below). It was used widely as a medical term in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but in recent decades has spread more widely in popular English as a markedly derogatory term for a person who exhibits stupid behaviour. Because of its pejorative connotations in popular speech, the term has been largely abandoned by physicians and health care workers.
The etymology of the word cretin is not known with certainty. Several hypotheses have been proposed. The most common derivation provided in English dictionaries is from the Alpine French dialect pronunciation of the word Chretien - (a) Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian), which functioned as a form of greeting in those parts. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary), the translation of the Latin term into "human creature" implies that the label "Christian" is a reminder of the humanity of the afflicted, in contrast to brute beasts [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism#_note-0). Other sources have suggested "Christian" refers to the "Christ-like" inability of such a person to commit sin, because of an incapacity to distinguish right from wrong [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretinism#_note-1).
:smt069
Sidenote 3: Unless of course, you live in a Severn Trent Water region, in which case for three weeks this year, water contained hydrogen, oxygen, raw sewage and donkey poo. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a Fact. :D
So - not withstanding all the donkey poo that you have to hand in the the Severn trent area, and that this substance is inclusive when you pay your water rates - not exclusive - do you believe that creationism should be taught as part of the science curriculum in schools? Or should it be tuaght as a standalone subject - bearing in mind that we are dealing with the minds of children who do not know what semantics are and are still being 'moulded' in many ways, and that the school term is finite, not infinite - AND that many other subjects are to be taught such as mathematics, English etc?
:smt102:cyclopsani:
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.