I'd like to offer another view here if I may.

I am very interested in the creationism/evolution issue in schools. I
attend creationist meetings to find out about their point of view and
tactics. I talk to creationists to try and understand thier mindset
and try not to jump to judgements about the issues which can be very
sensitive ones for children, parents and some teachers.

Michael Reiss knows where I stand on this issue and in general our
positions are not far apart at all. Leaving aside the conduct of the
RS in this matter, the issue seems to boil down to WHERE creationism
is addressed, and addressed it should be, in schools.

There already exists in schools a place for this to happen, RE.
Indeed, one of the creationist organisations has had opportunity to
put forward its view on the subject of creation vs evolution in a
schools programme in RE. Paul taylor who openly derides science
education and calls for the creationist opposing view to be presented
in science (he is a former state science teacher) appears in this
programme. The unit in the RE scheme of work exists in year 9 to
discuss issues of science vs religion and origins as well as the big
bang an evolution and opposing viewpoints. Yet he never tells his
congregation that he has prticipated in this programme and that the
creationist viewpoint can openly be discussed in KS3 and beyond in
all state schools.

So my question to all creationists is, given that the opportunity
denied them in the USA is not an issue in UK schools, i.e. the
discussion of their views and their religious standpoint in RE
lessons, why do they spend so much time pushing their congregation to
challenge science and science teachers?

I hear plenty of creationist pseudoscience about 'challenge your
science teacher to explain how something camne from
nothing'; 'challenge your science teacher to explain how evolution
cannot produce a single transitional fossil'; 'challenge your science
teacher to explain how evolution is able to explain the origin of
complexity and the increases in information in DNA required to
produce new species?'

The reason that they are encouraging attacks to 'science' is that in
reality it is not about a genuine discussion of the issues (they have
that officially in the school curriculum). It is about the pushing of
their views into other subjects so that their minority view
is 'respected' and discussed in all areas. They are quite open on
this. This want ALL education to be from a biblical standpoint with
the authority of the Bible being the authority and word of all
subjects.

The fact is that context is very important in school science. When
children discuss what they have done in school it is related to the
subject; 'today we did this in science' 'we did this in technology'
etc etc. What the creationist movement wishes is for their viewpoint
to reside within science so that it is, in the minds of children,
linked with science. Their books and pamphlets are also about this
linking of good science and creationism (e.g. their books on
dinosaurs filled with good science and nonsense such as T.rex in the
garden of Eden and humans and dinosaurs co-existing with dinosaurs on
the ark.

Creationists know that discussing creationism in RE (where I believe
it belongs) is not enough, it must pervade all areas of the school
curriculum if they are to 'convert' the godless (me included).

My answer to 'what do you do when a child brings up creationism in
science' is quite simple.

Creationism is about your faith and belief. Science is not about
faith or belief, it is about the aceptance of evidence. beliefs are
often irrational and without evidence, science cannot deal with this
issue, in the same way that science cannot deal with other issues of
faith and belief such as how many Gods are there really? Or which
religion is the 'true' one. These are maters for RE not science.

We don't talk in science about belief in gravity or atoms. Science is
about our understanding of the natural world and does not deal with
the supernatural.

In essence science does not need to be a challenge to faith or
belief. I accept evolution because of the weight of evidence for it
(in the same way as I accept gravity and atoms). I may still believe
in a God (a personal one perhaps) that may be irrational to Dawkins
and others but that's my belief.

Evolution is not about the oprtigin of life, it is about the
diversity and development of life. Evolution is no challenge to any
faith.

My apologies for the long post, but there is a lot to 'unpack' in
this issue.

James Williams
University of Sussex
James.Williams@...


--- In learning-science-concepts@..., Brian wakeman
<brianwakeman@...> wrote:
>
> Thank you for this Dewey......wise counsel.....
>
> Brian
>  
> Brian E. Wakeman
> Free-lance Educational Consultant
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Dewey Dykstra <ddykstra@...>
> To: learning-science-concepts@...
> Sent: Thursday, 25 September, 2008 23:43:08
> Subject: Re: LSC: Royal Society decision
>
>
> Keith's suggestion about sowing seeds is fundamentally sound. The
> decision to change one's mind and what to change it to can only be
> made by the person her or him self. Confrontation person to person,
> esp when there is a power asymmetry, is the best way to cause
someone
> to 'dig in' instead of engaging in a real interaction, eliminating
any
> possible meeting of the minds.
>
> We owe students respect. Without this, little if any change in
their
> understanding will happen. They and we need to learn that respect
does
> not mean agreement. While many would claim that we as teachers are
> supposed to present the established canon as if it is some kind of
> unchallengeable truth to the students, our real mission is to
engage
> students in making sense of their world, but making and testing
> explanations against the evidence at hand. Whether a certain
> conceptual change happens or not, experiencing this process we use
as
> scientists will have far more lasting effect and sow more seeds of
> change than anything else we can do.
>
> Pushing one's version of the truth generally results in zero change
in
> understanding on the part of the intended recipients of this
supposed
> truth. It is easy to see that this is the result of typical,
present
> the canon, science teaching. Just look at the bibliography on
> students conceptions kept at Univ of Kiel. ( < http://www.ipn. uni-
kiel. de/aktuell/ stcse/stcse. html
> >). It literally has thousands of published works in refereed
> journals. All of these works support this contention.
>
> As long as we act as if there is a superior truth we know and
insist
> the students agree with, the students will never experience knowing
> this process we claim to use as scientists. If they never
experience
> the process, how can we even begin to expect that they will use any
> aspect in their lives? If they never come to use the process in
> making sense of their world, why should we expect any better world
> than we have seen in the last few years--wars for no good reason,
> politics where if you repeat something often enough it
becomes 'true'
> regardless of any lack of basis in fact, etc.? (Sorry I let US
> politics and world economy spill in here.)
>
> Dewey
>
> On Sep 25, 2008, at 3:43 PM, Dr. Keith S. Taber wrote:
>
> > In my view, there is little question that educationally we should
> > engage with children's ideas, both to show their ideas the
respect we
> > want them to show ours, and because conceptual change is not
likely
> > otherwise.
> >
> > I accept that in this case, with pupils who are committed to
> > creationist beliefs, discussion is unlikey to change their minds,
but
> > it may sow more of a seed of doubt than either denying their
input or
> > simply telling them that their ideas are inadmissible or just
> > crazy/stupid/ ignornat, etc.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> >
> >> so, should we or should we not?
> >>
> >> Dr E. Demoncheaux
> >>
> >>
>
> ++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ ++++++++
> Dewey I. Dykstra, Jr., Ph. D. Phone: (208)426-3105
> Professor of Physics Dept: (208)426-3775
> Department of Physics/MCF421/ 418 Fax: (208)426-4330
> Boise State University ddykstra@boisestate .edu
> 1910 University Drive Boise Highlanders
> Boise, ID 83725-1570 novice piper: GHB, Uilleann
> <http://www.boisesta te.edu/physics/ Dykstra/Dyks. html>
>
> "The problem in science is you never get to see the yak!"
> --D. Dykstra, Science for Monks Project, 2006.
>
> "...a physics major has to be trained to use today's physics whereas
> a physics teacher has to be trained to see a development of physical
> theories in his students' minds." -- H. Niedderer in
> "International Conference on Physics Teachers' Education
Proceedings"
> Dortmund: University of Dortmund, p. 151, 1992.
>
> "It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods
of
> instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of
> inquiry; for
> this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly
in
> need of
> freedom; without this the plant goes to wreck and ruin without
fail."
> --A.
> Einstein in "Autobiographical Notes," 1949.
>
> "Now there are two theorems that form together the cardinal hinge on
> which the whole structure of physical science turns. These theorems
> are: (1) THERE IS A REAL OUTER WORLD WHICH EXISTS
> INDEPENDENTLY OF OUR ACT OF KNOWING, and, (2) THE REAL
> OUTER WORLD IS NOT DIRECTLY KNOWABLE." --M. Planck in
> "Where Is Science Going?," 1932. (EMPHASIS in the original)
>
> "As a result of modern research in physics, the ambition and hope,
> still cherished by most authorities of the last century, that
physical
> science could offer a photographic picture and true image of reality
> had to be abandoned." --M. Jammer in "Concepts of Force," 1957.
>
> "If what we regard as real depends on our theory, how can we make
> reality the basis of our philosophy? ...But we cannot distinguish
> what is real about the universe without a theory...it makes no sense
> to ask if it corresponds to reality, because we do not know what
> reality is independent of a theory."--S. Hawking in "Black Holes
> and Baby Universes" 1993.
> ++++++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ +++++++++ ++++++++
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>