Be Excellent To Each Other

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7612152.stm

Old arguments, but, in fairness, a decent enough comment from Prof Reiss.

Then the child should be mocked and poked with sticks.

Fucking liberal.

What ever happened to the great British education tradition of mocking and undermining a child through sarcasm?

I have a strongly-held belief that 2+2 = 5. It's my cultural world view. I believe that teaching this will be more valuable than banging on about how 2+2 = 4. Will they teach that in schools too?

Indeed. It would be nice to debunk tosh like creationism, but I can't help that even slightly covering it in school gives it a thin veneer of, you know, something worth teaching.

I think that died along with teachers that smell. Our geography teacher reeked of BO. The man never washed and seemed quite unaware that he utterly stank.

Mr Myle, I salute you Sir for the worst personal hygine known to man and how you spent 4 years totally unaware of this despite kids dropping unsubtle hints every single day.*




* Unless it was some kind of medical condition in which case I'm still not sorry you stinky old git.

What lesson would they be teaching creationism in, though? If they thinking of teaching it in science then I would feel strongly against it. If they were teaching about the idea in religious education, however, then I think that is another thing all together. I do not think that there is any room for the teaching of creationism in a biology class, because it is nothing to do with biology.

Hehe, that's ace, Dimrill

Presumably when they say creationism they mean "every different religion's creation myth"? No? Oh, right.

Teach it in R.E if you must, but don't let any of these crackpot theories anywhere near the Science labs.

They could certainly discuss it, but they wouldn't entertain the notion of teaching it.

Same with this Creation-in-Science push. This guy wants to discuss Creationism, and tell students why it's bullshit, not actually teach it as a plausible alternative view, from my understanding.

I don't really have an objection to it, unless it takes up too much of their time. There are more important things to get on with, but debunking stuff is what science is all about.

Not sure about that mate, he's a Church of England minister after all.

Aye, but he seemed to have his head screwed on. He did say, several times, that Creationism has no scientific basis.

You do seem to get, every so often, a religious person in a position of authority who isn't an idiot.

From my understanding, this all seems mostly fine. However, my understanding is rarely something to be taken seriously.

yeah I don't know what to think about this.

It seems reasonable at first glance but I've only chance to glance at what he's saying.

I think a majority of the creation myths should be taught. But only in RE or a related subject. They have no place in a science class. However, a science class should explain why these creation myths are simply myths and could never have happened.

Taking the Sumerian belief, for example:

"Seriously kids, the gods didn't just jizz and the earth existed. There was a big bang instead"

Nothing to do with teaching creationism in schools, but this made me smirk and I wanted to post it somewhere, and this seemed like the only vaguely relevant thread.

Yeah, it's this.

The problem isn't teaching it. The problem is teaching it as science. ID nutballs want their fairytales to be presented on an equal footing with evolution, and usually justify it with a disingenuous misunderstanding of what "theory" means in a scientific context. Grrrrrrr.

Why stop at creation myths? What about myths explaining why the sky is blue, or why women dressed in black are witches? Why not just sit around reading Kipling's "Just So" stories?

If you spend all of your science lessons explaining why patently stupid ideas are false, you'll never get around to explaining why plausible ideas are false or why other ideas are possibly correct.

Creationism can be proven to be a nonsense theory (and if you assume that all the evidence to the contrary was placed there by a deity having a joke, there's no point in science anyway as the laws of nature can be changed at any moment by a whimsical god with nothing better to do). I don't remember being taught all of the pre-Newton theories explaining why things fall down in science class.

Perhaps they should replace those ridiculous "citizenship" classes with a philosophy course and teach creationism in that, which is where it really belongs if the nutters don't want it taught in RE.

Aye. It shouldn't be discussed in a science class for longer than it takes to say "be quiet, this is a science class".

"And no, intelligent design doesn't count as science. Pipe down or you'll have to sit outside".

I think you'll find that was how the elephant child got his trunk...

http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html

Me:
hey God
God:
Hello child. What's your name?
Me:
Kalmar.
God:
It's good to meet you, Kalmar.
Me:
Likewise. Say, that intelligent design stuff is a load of nonsense, right?
God:
It goes without saying. " that intelligent design stuff is a load of nonsense right".
Me:
Thanks for you help, bye
God:
See you later. NO problem.

could you please send that transcript to the Kansas City School Board, please.

Is approximately a transcript of the discussion about it on the Today programme, which confused the interviewer who it appeared was expecting a teach creationism as fact angle and seemed a bit disappointed not to get.

This is fine, so long as an equal amount of science creeps into the RE curriculum.

Indeed.

But it would certainly be valuable to explain to you why it doesn't equal 5.

Getting away from the 2+2 analogy, do you really think that it is necessary or useful to have to explain why the earth and all life within it was not created by a higher being in 7 days? What I mean is, by giving proof and teaching why evolution is the correct explanation, do you have to discount all other possibilities? Will you explain not only why creationism is bunk, but also why we are not all born of marshmallow clouds, why human beings are not sculpted from salt by a giant sea newt, why a verruca did not give rise to the entire human race?

Is the only theory that needs debunking the Christian creation myth because it is the most prevalent false theory in the west?

Should you spend all those hours testing failed therories in order to prove the truth? Can you imagine if we did this in all learning?

It needs discussing because it's the belief of a very decent proportion of the world.

If your other 3 scenarios are believed by a double figure % of all humans than yes, they should.

Were you taught of creationism at school, and if so, how?

See, in my Biology class we learned of evolution, nothing else.

We never had R.E. because they were stopping the R.E. option in two years, so instead our RE teacher taught us of classical music, let us watch war films, taught us about art, architecture, mythology - whatever popped into his head that day - they were probably the best lessons I ever had, but we never learned about the creation myth, and I don't think that any of us are the worse for it.

Apart from Mohamed, and the ones in prison for stuff

Oh man, we're now going to teach creationism, scientology and the flat earth theory in science lessons.

No, we're going to teach that some people think it and why they're wrong.

Dispelling myths should absolutely be a part of science lessons.

It will probably be a complete waste of everyone's time though, but I guess you've got to give the poor, brain-washed little bastards some chance of getting a grip on reality.

That way lies silliness, Dudley. You'll have no time left to teach science if you start exploring all the mad stuff that people decide to believe.

And refusing to discuss it at all is a pretty clear lesson IMHO: it ain't science.

And that's what RE class is *made* for, surely?

I think science teachers need training in how to cope with pupils who say, 'but it's only a theory - what about the transitional fossils' or similar. If someone asks that question and refuses to shut up it could wreck a whole lesson plan.

Thinking about it I'm struggling to imagine how, during an actual lesson, debunking creationism would amount to anything much different than explaining the basis for evolution. In fact the original article is just bollocks, it says:

"I realised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didn't lead some pupils to change their minds at all "

but also:

"I think a better way forward is to say to them 'look, I simply want to present you with the scientific understanding of the history of the universe and how animals and plants and other organisms evolved"

There might be some subtle distinction that I've missed between "banging on about evoution" and "present you with the scientific understanding of the history of the universe and how animals and plants and other organisms evolved" but I can't really see it.

The problem is that including creationism in a science lesson legitimises it. Even if you intend purely to debunk it, you leave people with the impression that creationism is something that deserves attention in the same space as evolution.

Did the borg develop over time by cubism?

Been thinking about this point. Most of the creationist stuff I've read consists of a series of questions about evolution which, even if they are based on a misunderstanding of the science, would make the easily-influenced question what's being told. When you try to answer one point, such as the fossil record, say, they then dart to another supposed flaw. Unless you have a mastery of the subject it's very easy to get tongue-tied.

(I found 'Finding Darwin's God' by Miller to be a good introduction to coutnering standard creationist arguments - it's let down by some unnecessary cod-theology at the end)

Even if you use it just to help define what is and is not a scientific theory? I don't see how to be honest.

If a good proportion of your pupils have a belief that is acting as a barrier to gaining a basic understanding of science then I can't see anything wrong with what he is suggesting even though what he is suggesting seems to be nothing other than teaching science.

There was a bit on The Skeptic's Guide To The Universe a few months ago where they mentioned a study that showed that the inclusion of a scientist in TV programmes about the supernatural led to more people coming away from the show believing in the phenomenon, whatever the scientist actually said.

Why isn't entirely clear, but the best theory was people having the mindset of "Well, there must be something to it or they wouldn't be talking about it".

I realise it's not directly analagous with what we're talking about here, but I think the potential problem of inadvertantly giving creationism/ID a cachet it doesn't deserve is a real one.

Well amongst the pupils who believe it already has all the cachet it could possibly ever need. Context is everything and without knowing exactly what is going to be said I don't think that any such statement can be made.

I don't remember ever having basic lessons about what science actually is, I always kind of knew what it was but not everyone seems to. In that context creationism could even provide a useful illustration.

That's definitely a real danger. I.D. has been "designed" exactly to exploit this, in order to "compete" as a scientific theory.

Giving it a formal place in the science class, even if the intention is purely to debunk it, would be falling into that trap. For one thing, it would immediately open the door to complaints and meddling in *how* it's taught.

That said, it doubtless comes up in science class anyway, so as Kern said above, teachers will have to be able to deal with kids that have been indoctrinated (or are just trying to waste time), but it absolutely should not be on the curriculum.

There's plenty of time to spend a lesson or two on myths that double figure percentages of the population believe.

There's plenty of time in home economics to spend a couple of lessons on "ordering pizzas by telephone", but they don't tend to do that either.

It's not the pupils who believe it I'm worried about. Creationism / ID is a matter of faith not of reason, and there's very little chance that logical argument will change the mind of someone who's bought into it. My concern is that this would help evangelise creationism to pupils who don't believe in it.

By all means make sure biology teachers are primed to shoot down anyone who raises creationist fairy-tales in class. But making it a formal part of the curriculum is treating it with a respect it doesn't deserve and seems a dangerous, slippery road to start down.

edit - For clarity.