• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Teaching creationism - what does it look like?

C_Felix

Master Poster
C_Felix
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
2,953
Location
Just outside Raleigh, NC
Being an ex-teacher, in the Bible belt, I had my fair share of hearing, "Well, you should teach both sides."

This is the way the conversation usually goes...

"Okay...Both sides," I begin.

"There is a belief, some people have looked at a few different animals and connected the dots. Some believe that animals have changed slowly over thousands of year, or millions of year, so they have a better chance at surviving. Penguins. Their wings have changed slowly over time from a traditional bird wing to more of a flipper, since that helps them in their envrionment. Do we know for sure this is happening? No. Do we have good idea that this is happening? Yes."
"So far so good?" I ask.
"Yes."
"There is a belief, that a God or Gods* or some type of creator, some type of higher being, made everything in a few days. The penguin flipper? It was designed that way by this God or Gods, or some type of creator since penguins would do more swimming than flying. Our evidence of this? A few thousand year old book."
"Good?" I ask.
"Sure."
"So, what is it that I have to teach again to expose students to both sides?"

They usually fall silent at this point.

Usually..."Well, evolution can't explain "this or that", or what about irreducible complexity?!"
"Just because a theory, which is a work in progress, just because a theory that is being changed over time can't explain a few somethings, doesn't mean
the whole thing should be thrown out and replaced with something else. Just because air conditioner usage can't explain my $450 electric bill, doesn't mean I should look to divine intervention to explain it."

They usually fall silent, again, at this point.

*I love saying God or Gods, since it is usually a Bible Thumper on the other side of this converation. Saying "Gods" annoys them. I have to point out that no religion has yet to prove their theory as how everything came to be as the correct one. After all, Odin could be responsible for everything.
 
C_Felix said:
"Well, you should teach both sides."
Click to expand...

Both? There are hundreds of creation stories out there. But we don't teach them because we recognize them for what they are--religious myths. There is only one explanation that is based on scientific evidence and only one that should be taught in science classrooms.


Steve S
 
True.

I'm with you.

I'd be up for teaching creationism if there was something to teach. If it was exposed to and run through the scientific method, and it was revised and run through the scientific method again...etc...Then, sure, I'd teach it.

I just give that little "speech" to get under their skin and show them what teaching the "other side" (read that as creationism) could possibly look like.

When I say what I say, they never really have anything else to add to my idea of what teaching creationism looks like.
 
I wouldn't mind creationism being taught in a Comparative Religions class, or something like it. I just cringe at having it taught in a science class.
 
I've actualy given a presentation on creationism in a science class.

The presentation also covered lamarckism which was a lot easier to cover since there is a cohernt core theory. It's wrong but the core theory is straightforward and coherent.
 
Concerning "creationism", I'm always reminded by an anecdote I heard about Galileo. Galileo was told to show the merits of both sides of the argument concerning whether the Universe was geocentric or heliocentric. Of course, it's acentric, but that's not the point. The point is that oftentimes an irrational side in an argument will attempt to establish itself as a viable alternative to rational fact. Often, the irrational side excludes all other irrational arguments.
 
I teach the evidence for both sides in my college bio class. That is to say, I don't talk about creationism or intelligent design except to point out why they aren't scientific.
 
C_Felix said:
Usually..."Well, evolution can't explain "this or that", or what about irreducible complexity?!"
"Just because a theory, which is a work in progress, just because a theory that is being changed over time can't explain a few somethings, doesn't mean
the whole thing should be thrown out and replaced with something else. Just because air conditioner usage can't explain my $450 electric bill, doesn't mean I should look to divine intervention to explain it."
Click to expand...

I think it wouldn't be so bad to talk about the subject of "irreducible complexity", or any of the other objections that have been made. Of course, the scientific explanations to these objections should also be provided.

Really, ID is mainly a collection of objections that evolution supposedly can't explain. Once you get beyond this, there's nothing left to teach. "God did it" takes about 1.2 seconds, and would only count as one trivial question on the exam.
 
dikkedeur said:
I think it wouldn't be so bad to talk about the subject of "irreducible complexity", or any of the other objections that have been made. Of course, the scientific explanations to these objections should also be provided.

Really, ID is mainly a collection of objections that evolution supposedly can't explain. Once you get beyond this, there's nothing left to teach. "God did it" takes about 1.2 seconds, and would only count as one trivial question on the exam.
Click to expand...

You could of course add in questions about on what day did god do what. And maybe throw in something about bats really being birds for good measure.
 
In the United Kingdom, it looks like this:

"One of the textbooks tells pupils: "Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie,' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jul/31/creationist-exams-comparable-to-a-levels

Most shockingly of all, the UK's qualifications body (as it happens, a private enterprise contracted by government, and not a government arm at all) have just granted this mess a qualificatory status equal to an A-Level.
 
Last edited:
It would be terrible if teachers were made to "teach both sides" somehow, as if such a thing could be logically and easily presented to students who have a hard enough time grasping the actual science.

But it would be a bad thing for the Creationists in the end. Good teachers would use it as a means of demonstrating to their classes what science is and what it is not... and why the scientific method is the dividing line between fantasy and reality.
 
lightfire22000 said:
Concerning "creationism", I'm always reminded by an anecdote I heard about Galileo. Galileo was told to show the merits of both sides of the argument concerning whether the Universe was geocentric or heliocentric. Of course, it's acentric, but that's not the point. The point is that oftentimes an irrational side in an argument will attempt to establish itself as a viable alternative to rational fact. Often, the irrational side excludes all other irrational arguments.
Click to expand...

Within the evidence that Galileo had the Tychonic system was equaly valid.

And at least one of his arguments for heliocentric system required makeing a rather significant asumption (that Venus was opaque)
 
lightfire22000 said:
The point is that oftentimes an irrational side in an argument will attempt to establish itself as a viable alternative to rational fact. Often, the irrational side excludes all other irrational arguments.
Click to expand...

Holocaust denial works this way. Establishing yourself as "the other side" is the wedge to get your voice heard at the table. Something that is patently false (Holocaust did not happen, Earth was made 6,000 years ago) is NOT a "side." It is a lie.
 
dikkedeur said:
I think it wouldn't be so bad to talk about the subject of "irreducible complexity", or any of the other objections that have been made. Of course, the scientific explanations to these objections should also be provided.
Click to expand...

The problem with that :

Why should one particular failed theory get singled out to be presented and dissected like that?

Science is built on the bones of dead theories. And the foundation is centuries deep. We don't expect geography class to spend time looking at how the ancients thought the world use to look and to present a detailed refutation of how the world does not look like a T with Jerusalem in the center. We don't go through Pliny in biology class and explain how there are not really Cyclopes who battle with gryphons to the north of the Alps. We don't discuss in detail how Heraclitus was wrong in his theory of fire and flux.

So why do we single out Behe's particular stupid idea? -- which is/was actually vastly more stupid than Pliny's or Heraclitus. Heraclitus wasn't presenting an idea that was already contradicted by the literature when he published it.
 
I don't think teaching both sides would necessarily be all that bad. Here is how I would approach it:
"Class I have been told that I have to teach both sides of this Evolution/ID debate. We will begin the semester by looking intensely at the ID/creationism side of the debate. Godidit. There you go. For the rest of the year we can focus on evolution."
 
Ausmerican said:
I don't think teaching both sides would necessarily be all that bad. Here is how I would approach it:
"Class I have been told that I have to teach both sides of this Evolution/ID debate. We will begin the semester by looking intensely at the ID/creationism side of the debate. Godidit. There you go. For the rest of the year we can focus on evolution."
Click to expand...

This is the essence of my OP.

What else apart from that is there to teach?

There's no evidence for ID.

Just pointing out where evolution fails is not teaching ID...
 
As a music teacher, something of an equivalent would be:

My position:

Music is a unique form of knowledge. Being knowledge and existing on a continuum of being able to learn and known within that domain, everyone can, at least to some degree, learn and know musically (just as one can learn and know numerically or literatelly). Therefore, we can all create and better understand our world through the study of and participation in musical activities.

An "alternative":

Music comes to us from divinely inspired genius(es). We are but pawns and conduits through which these few super-talented geniuses messages flow. We should learn only the technical "nuts-and-bolts" necessary to perform these works as closely as possible to each notated character (preserving the composers intent). We will never be able to understand this music, for we are moronoc simps, incapable of comprehending such powerful works of art. Therefore, we should never dig too deep or engage in futile straw-grasping but simply stand in awe of this God-given talent that very, very few people will ever have. Under no circumstances should we attempt to stray from the masters heel.

It's not exactly the same thing but the dichotomy does exist in music education circles. The "alternative" is no alternative at all but a refutation of the facts regarding each persons ability to learn, know and understand music. Again, "Don't be so open-minded your brain falls out."
 
It should be taught; however, it should be taught in a Philosophy class because it is a testamony to the fertility of man's imagination and man's imagination only.

It is not science and only science should be taught in a science class.

When you said that "you should teach both sides", I presume that this means teaching both sides in a science class?

Bob Guercio
 
C_Felix said:
Do we know for sure this is happening? No.
Click to expand...

Oh! I think we know.

We see it in real time in small and fast multiplying organisms.

And it makes perfect sense and is really not too difficult to understand. The problem is that people don't want to understand it for a couple of reasons, the main one being that it contradicts that which a holy roller has been brainwashed to believe.

Another reason is that some people find the concept of being related to apes "creepy". I find rejection of the obvious "creepy".

Bob Guercio
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom