Wikipedia:
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge” or “to know”) is the effort to discover, and increase human understanding of how the physical world works. Through controlled methods, scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data, and analyze this information to explain what and how things work. Such methods include experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments. Knowledge in science is gained through research.
Michael Reiss, “Professor” of Science Education at the Institute of Education, University of London, and Director of Education at the Royal Society, Idiot:
Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from the science lesson…
I’m sorry, but I do not want Creationism discussed in my children’s classroom. It is akin to discussing whether Goldilocks did, or did not, break and enter. I do not need classroom time dedicated to fairytales. To use Reiss’ own words:
When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.
There can be no logical argument for Creationism. Period. End of discussion.
Most importantly: The video clip is one of my favorite snippets from one of the best movies ever produced. Thanks.
I personally went through 12 years of rather conservative Catholic education. It is precisely because of that education that I am much more comfortable with my understanding of evolution than many of my contemporaries who were raised in religious homes and educated in public schools. (a reminder – in the US, public schools are those run by the government). My personal experience is admittedly only anecdotal and obviously highly biased. However, the fact that evolution, and all aspects of science, were taught in an atmosphere that openly acknowledged there were dogmatic pressures to resist believing in the scientific evidence, and therefore took stronger and more direct approaches to overcome those dogmatic pressures, seems a very reasonable approach. Am I missing something here?
By: TubbyHubby on September 13, 2008
at 8:01 pm
In what way? I was raised a catholic by a strict catholic family. However, there was never any question that the Bible was to be taken as allegory. We concentrated on the New testament – not the old. The old was considered stories. Interesting stories. We never discussed creation, the story of Genesis, as a valid possibility. Even as children, we knew the story was absurd.
By: crazybengal on September 13, 2008
at 8:39 pm
Interestingly, now that I think about it…we were never taught evolution in school…
I picked it up on my own. Read a lot of Gould. Took paleontology in university. Hmmm.
By: crazybengal on September 13, 2008
at 8:41 pm
I suppose that’s why I stressed the anecdotal nature of my premise. In my personal experience, much credence was given to the “infallible word of God” nature of the Bible in the homes of my neighborhood. Granted, the neighborhood was an island of Catholicism from many 1st and 2nd generation nationalities in an urban center. The small private schools took great pains to allow us to wrangle with the concepts of dogma and science and reason. The public schools didn’t seem to provide the proper arguments to counter dogmatic teachings, leaving their proponents to merely continue believing the Bible was the only true source of enlightenment.
By: TubbyHubby on September 13, 2008
at 9:16 pm
I attended public schools in the US and we were taught evolution.
To me, creationism = religion and therefore it does not belong in science classes. At most it should be mentioned parenthetically. For example, “We are studying science. Religious texts and teachings may contradict what we learn in this class. Please remember that this is a science class and we will focus on facts and evidence.”
By: Michele on September 13, 2008
at 9:26 pm
God was never brought into the school after grade 3. That is when the Lord’s prayer was discontinued in our province. There was no discussion of God ever. And that is the way it should be.
By: crazybengal on September 13, 2008
at 9:37 pm
Whereas in my schools, the teacher’s were aware of the content of the previous Sunday’s sermon. They knew the messages of Vatican II, the various Papal pronouncements, the history of the church and were themselves true belivers in our faith. They were able to take such stands as “Faith is just that – belief without proof. Science requires proof. The more science explains our universe, the more we must marvel at our inability to comprehend such a powereful creator.” In my case, at least, that was a pretty powerful argument that continues to give me joy in both my curiosity and my faith.
By: TubbyHubby on September 13, 2008
at 9:46 pm
(Apologies for the poor diction. I don’t know why I put an apostrophe in the word “teacher’s”.)
By: TubbyHubby on September 13, 2008
at 9:58 pm
that’s okay.
By: crazybengal on September 13, 2008
at 10:04 pm
We discussed Creationism in my Evolution class at college. There is no empirical data to support it. Something as vaguely based as Creationism, upon the will of a creator, can’t be proven. I guess the one thing that could possibly, although I hate to say it, wind its way into classrooms is Intelligent Design. Its a bit more scientifically based, but again there’s that Creator problem. I’d rather leave religion out of public schools as it seems to have no place in an academic setting.
By: lonepair on September 14, 2008
at 9:12 am
Intelligent Design IS Creationism, repackaged.
By: crazybengal on September 14, 2008
at 9:26 am
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/30496_The_Discovery_Institutes_Wedge_Strategy
By: crazybengal on September 14, 2008
at 10:07 am