When you make statements like "So then, it seems you're not talking about generally teaching kids critical thinking, as I'd imagined you were doing" or go on about creating special re-education classes for students with a religious upbringing (as if this is my intent) then I am not so sure.
When I saw you advocating here for critical thinking in science class, I thought that you’d identified, correctly in my view, the lack of proper grounding in critical thinking as an issue that needs addressing. And following that line of thought, I pointed out that that would apply not just to science but to most subjects kids are taught: most conspicuously religious studies (in institutions where such are taught), but also history, and literature, and civics, et cetera. And you seemed to agree. And I pointed out that the right way to do this would probably be to start a separate class, a separate subject, specifically to teach critical thinking. But your later posts addressed to me made clear that you were interested in discussing only critical thinking as it applies to science, and not to critical thinking in general (so that you yourself posted that ideas about general teaching of critical thinking in subjects other than science ought to be discussed not in this thread but separately). Clearly then, and like I said, “you’re not talking about generally teaching kids critical thinking, as I’d imagined you were doing,” so that such an idea, although probably a good one, is better left out of this thread. It’s amazing that I’m needing to spell this out to you like this: What part of this do you find other than “in good faith”?
As for the second part of what you complain about there: You agreed with me that this critical thinking business need not necessarily be discussed in science class itself, and that you were onboard with my idea of doing it separately. You pointed out to me that your concern was that kids who’d been taught religious ideas might end up conflicted when taught regular sane rational science in class, when the content of such teaching is at variance with what their religion has taught them. I thought that a valid concern, and suggested --- very rightly, I think --- that the correct way to address such a concern would be to hold correctional classes for these (potentially) critically challenged kids, much like you hold correctional classes for kids challenged in other respects. This was most certainly and most emphatically not said “as if this was (your) intent”. It was
my suggestion --- and a very good one, it seems to me, pedagogically speaking, even if I say it myself, except that is for the practical aspect of religious parents protesting such a move --- I repeat,
my suggestion, not yours, but presented as a solution to the concern that you raised. I’ve no clue why you imagine this was said “as if this was (your) intent”; it wasn’t, because this is my idea, not yours, you only identified the problem, the solution occurred not to you but to me. In what way is this not engaging with you in good faith?
You seem confused about what engaging in good faith amounts to. You seem to imagine it consists of echoing your ideas and intent, which is a very weird approach to looking at things. It is perfectly possible to engage in good faith with you while introducing an idea that you hadn’t been able to think up yourself, or even that you might disagree with. I engaged with the concern you raised, and put forward an excellent proposed solution to address that concern: I don’t see what on earth you’re whining on about here, and why on earth you accuse me of not engaging in good faith.
Maybe I haven't said it in so many words but science students should understand the "how" and not just the "what". Just giving them the facts without justification is not critical thinking.
Agreed. And, like I’ve already pointed out, that applies not just to science but to practically every subject taught in school. So that, while the concern you raise is valid, the proper way to address this would be to introduce a separate Critical Thinking class.
I’m surprised you’re back to repeating this as if this is a point of disagreement, seeing that you’ve already said that you were onboard with my suggestion of conducting the detailed discussion of the “how” of things, the critical thinking part, outside of the particular class (the science class, in this case), so as to do this better and also so as to not derail individual subject classes.
Re Genesis, many students have been raised to believe that it is a valid alternative explanation for the world. So I say, let Genesis be subject to scientific scrutiny in a science class. If you disagree then that's fine but don't go on about special re-education classes.
Why the hell not? You raised a concern. And I did you the courtesy of engaging in good faith with your concern, and acknowledging your concern, and what is more suggesting an excellent resolution for your concern. If you were here to discuss this honestly and in good faith yourself, then you’d have thanked me for engaging with the problem you’ve identified, and for offering you a solution to that problem. Instead, you pretend that just because for some reason best known to yourself you don’t like this solution that I’ve proffered, therefore having presented this idea makes my own engagement not in good faith? How utterly warped is that thinking?!
-----
And I note that from a general discussion on critical thinking in science class, you now show your true colors and focus down to specifically discussing Genesis. I’m afraid this gives away your intentions entirely, that you’ve been hiding so far under the fig leaf of your pretend concern about critical thinking.
As I’ve pointed out at least two or three times to you: Even if for the sake of argument we agree with the rest of your warped logic, even then, all of this will apply not just to Judeo-Christian creation myth, but to all creation myths of all religions. Even if time constraints keep us from including a discussion on each and every religion, but still, certainly we’d need to discuss the relevant portions from all of the major religions like Buddhism, and Daoism, and Hinduism, maybe somewhat smaller religions like Shintoism, maybe Jainism, and maybe a few others as well, as well as Christianity and Islam and Judaism. (Note also that often different denominations of each of these religions say different things, so we’d need some discussion around that as well.)
eta:
Ah, I see that the title of the thread has recently been changed to “Should creationism be taught as Science?” That’s fine, that at least makes your ideas upfront. It’s an utterly cock-eyed proposal, nakedly shameless in the closed-minded bigotry it betrays, but at least it is honest, at least it does away with the subterfuge of pretending a concern for critical thinking in general, and hones in on what you’re actually interested in, which is the teaching/discussion of specifically Judeo-Christian superstitions in science class. Cool.
