h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4793198.stm


I am utterly horrified by this.

It really depends how it's taught, and to whom it's taught to. If they are too young it would be a disaster, but to kids who have an appreciation of science it might be worthwhile for them to understand why science is in conflict with creationism and what the core issues are.

If it's an issue that getting more and more coverage in the press, with religious groups indoctrinating kids outside of the school environment anyway, then it is probably better that science teachers not avoid the subject. After all, it's the scientists who have the upper hand here, not the creationists.

Not necessarily a bad thing. Before you disprove something, you've got to understand its' precepts after all.

It isn't science. So why is it being taught in science lessons. I will be dissapointed if the school I went to doesn't change exam board because of this.

From the article:

"A spokesperson for the exam board said candidates needed to understand the social and historical context to scientific ideas both pre and post Darwin's theory of evolution."


I see no problem in teaching what came before Darwin, in fact, to properly understand where the concepts of evolutionary biology come from, you do need to see them in their historical context. Science *used* to think along creationist lines. It doesn't now.

It certainly isn't a "Creationism GCSE".

Ste

I agree that it depends on how it is taught. After all, most science started somewhere and I know in my science books, they started off saying something like "Once upon a time, people believed *this*, even the scientists".

There has to be some caution used in how it is handed out, though, and I can see the possiblility of certain factions not being satisfied with how it is being taught and the context. I can also see the problem of whose creation story one follows. After all, every culture has their own story (the various American Indian tribes each have their own, numbering in the hundreds). Whose story gets discussed? Whose story is dismissed?

Creation stories can have historical value, as well. Some stories give a fairly clear picture of where a culture came from and how they traveled upon the land (even the story of Noah's Ark -- the flood story, at least-- is being given some credence by archaelogists after the recent discoveries in the Black Sea: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

Do I think God created the the earth and everything on it in 7 days? No.
Do I think the Bible tells the factual story of creation? No.
Do I think that there are historical events which can be found in Biblical stories and other stories (such as the related stories of Gilgamesh)? Yes.

There are commonalities in the stories of many cultures and I think we can learn from them. But, as I said, I think that IF they are used, they need to be used cautiously and with a great deal of discretion.

from the linked article:
"Candidates are asked to discuss why the opponents of Darwinism thought the way they did and how scientific controversies can arise from different ways of interpreting empirical evidence," he said.


Fine in theory, bad in practice. If you really want to teach how different theories arise from different arguments, discuss the ether vs special relativity, or another, more modern scientific debate. How about the structure of DNA? THere are millions to choose from that *don't* involve religion.

This really seems like trying to sneak it in, and like it gives people the opportunity to be horribly abused.

Also creationism more or less ignored the empircal data because it didn't fit with their world view. So isn't really how two views can come about by diffrent ways of looking at emperical data more what happens if you ignore it,

You have to remember that before Lamarck, Darwin, et al., there simply was no idea other than divine creation. When Origins was published biologists rapidly switched over to this new theory.

On of my favourite biology quotes is of Thomas Huxley after Darwin sent him an advance copy or Origins: "How exceedingly stupid not to have thought of that."

Ste

Absolutely - bring on the thought police - "you will only learn the theories that we don't like - you will not know about other ideas."

On the other hand of course there are "philanthropists" who are talking about paying for the set-up of new "acadamies," strangely, most of these seem to be religious individuals.

<>

Yes! It all seems a bit of a fuss over nothing to me, after all, Creationism isn't being advocated, merely discussed, or even just mentioned!

"you will only learn the theories that we don't like - you will not know about other ideas."

Most societies and social groups attempt this, to some extent. That doesn't make it right, but it does make it commonplace. Everybody does it - this isn't some sort of new outrage. It's nice to keep it at a minimum, though.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Alas, the idea that its wrong, but the others do it, is all too common nowadays.

I think I'll just kill myself now. Our species has no future.

(mind you, with an expanding universe and a local sun that will ultimately give up, that's a given, but it'd be nice if we could enjoy & understand stuff in the meantime.)

I think it's a very good idea to try and get pupils to compare different ways of looking at things. But religion is not science, so teaching creationism in a science lesson doesn't make sense to me.

How about a class on philosophy, to learn this kind of thing on a more neutral level?

If it's to be taught in an introductory bit as a discussion of the history of science, fine--as long as they also give equal time to phlogiston, flat earth, Ptolomaic planetary dynamics and Aristotilian gravity, to name a few things.

If, however, they discuss creationism as something somehow different from those things I just mentioned, as something that is still a matter of scientific discussion as opposed to a useless and discarded world-view, or if it is mentioned outside of such an introductory historical bit, then there is something wrong and it is inserting religion into the science curriculum.

un

*tiptoes in*

imho this business of "legislating" the mention of creationism or ID in science classes is asking for trouble on several counts. Firstly, once it begins happening all over the country, it becomes "normal" to do and there is a next step at some point. Second, it is open to all sorts of different interpretations by all sorts of teachers with different opinions. This is not a scientific subject and is not proven and I fear it will be abused by some.

Having said that, I went to a convent secondary school and I especially remember three teachers who stood out for me in this area.

One was our Welsh Physics teacher. He made physics very exciting and enjoyable. Once - just once - he talked about the dichotomy of science and faith. I think someone asked him how he could be a faithful Catholic and also a true scientist. He said we still don't have the answers as to how things came about, that he was teaching us what was known and yet in our lifetimes we would have things revealed to us through science that in his lifetime were inconceivable. So he said that we are on the road to discovery, that we daily discover more of the wonders that God created, but that it was not necessary to know how or why. Yes, very I know.

The other was our Botany teacher. She was a mad old bat, also Catholic and she kept banging on about how insignificant mankind was in absolute terms. She also was very clear on the wondrous creations of God and was another excellent teacher.

I don't know whether this approach was orchestrated. Chemistry etc God was absent from but we did discuss science in RE (our RE teacher was a medical doctor in her pre-retirement life) and the same message was communicated again: God is the creator but how or why we do not know. We were encouraged to read the Creation Story as a parable - so Monday is a gazillion years, Tuesday is a gazillion years, etc.

I was very lucky in that my parents are not "religious" but they are privately faithful and I was sent to a school which encouraged inquisitive enquiry and debate, despite being Catholic.

Do I add in any way to this debate, I don't know. All I seem to be saying is: it depends



W

Actually, we covered phlogiston, and how they worked out it was wrong. flat earth, ptolemaic planetary dynamics, all sounds familiar, all mentioned and evidence against it presented. I think creationism is likely to be treated the same way (was already in my classes, in history of medicine) and i think the best people to present evidence against it are the science teachers who hopefully know what they're talking about and have a good idea of how to treat evidence.

Since this is a British question, shall we consider a British solution? You want to teach science in the schools? Maybe the curriculum should be selected from details under the purview of the Royal Society.

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/

Oh, look. They've got a convenient little search window. I'll just tap in Creationism . . .

right. four hits:

'Why creationism is wrong and evolution is right'

'Twilight for the Enlightenment?'

'Core values of science under threat from fundamentalism , warns Lord May'

and something about bird flu.

Doesn't look like creationism has much of a place in the British science class (except perhaps in the position I mentioned in my earlier post)

simulpost, not him.

It strikes me that what you describe is exactly the correct way to do it. Better to put creationism in its appropriate place rather than to ignore it completely.

I also just noticed that the fourth hit on the Royal Society search was a mention of criticism being directed at the decision to include creationism.