Teaching creationism in science lessons...

[northwind]

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.

Originally Posted by neio79

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.

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]

Originally Posted by MiniMatt

Blah, blah!

WOW, tou have got FAR too much time on your hands!

Originally Posted by northwind

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.

[Stingo]

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').




That is the theory what I have, and what it is too!

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

FSM

All hail his noodly appendage !!!!

Originally Posted by northwind

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]

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
The victorians did have one part of their schooling perfect though;
No homework eh?

Chris

I came to this thread thinking of posting popcorn...

Originally Posted by alpinestarhero

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.

Originally Posted by Mousetrapper

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...".

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

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?

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

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.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

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]

Originally Posted by Baph

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...