Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A kick in the teeth for the evolutionists
Collapse
X
-
A kick in the teeth for the evolutionists
I read this last night and was waiting for someone to post it on the thread.
Now, although ID has no scientific merit and shouldn't be on the curriculum, I don't agree that teachers should bury their heads in the sand if the subject rears its head.
Instead, teachers should explain that it is a theory – however sincerely held – based on faith and should be seen as such. It's also a useful primer to explain what qualifies as a scientific theory, bringing in topics such as making predictions based on that theory and falsifiability.
Comment
-
- Mar 2008
- 14186
- The Deep South of England
- JPS Lotus
- Shortcake ...no, Custard Cream! ...no, Jammie Dodger...
A kick in the teeth for the evolutionists
Guy Potger wrote:
From that article:
He said that around one in 10 children comes from a family with creationist beliefs. "My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science," he said.
As for the second point, I'd like to quote Chris Morris: "Can I just say... You're wrong. And you're a hideously ugly freak!"
Furthermore, just how much of an effort could this bloke have put into teaching biology, when one of its fundamental tenets is evolution - which he is completely against? Talk about not having your heart in something!
Comment
-
A kick in the teeth for the evolutionists
I don't have a problem with bringing up ID as such (although I'm very skeptical about having it in the curriculum, especially in the States, where there's a fairly high chance the teacher will favour it over evolution). It could be very instructive to illustrate the difference between a true theory, which is an explanatory framework which can drive research, and a mere assertion, which in this instance actually closes off research. You could use it to show that Not P does not imply Q in science.
I'm less keen on talking about old-school creationism, partly because it's the sort of thing that should be covered in RE, and partly because it is a theory, of sorts. It's an explanatory framework that at least pretends to address the totality of the evidence, rather than just picking holes in evolution. The problem is that it can always fall back on an untestable, non-scientific solution, Goddidit, and that its proponents are notoriously cavalier with the evidence. Far better to just present the various lines evidence for evolution/deep time/the big bang etc and direct explicitly religious questions to the RE teacher.
Comment
-
A kick in the teeth for the evolutionists
I'm less keen on talking about old-school creationism ...
Splitters!
Comment
-
A kick in the teeth for the evolutionists
Furthermore, just how much of an effort could this bloke have put into teaching biology, when one of its fundamental tenets is evolution - which he is completely against? Talk about not having your heart in something!
Reiss said he used to be an "evangelist" for evolution in the classroom, but that the approach had backfired. "I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe," he said
Comment
-
- Mar 2008
- 20969
- The House with the Golden Windows
- Fast falling out of love for football.
- WasPlain Hobnobs
A kick in the teeth for the evolutionists
JtS wrote:
They might as well add in Planet of the Apes as reference too.
But Scientology should be in with a shout of inclusion
Comment
Comment