I'd like to thank James for a very thoughtful
comment on these issue, and recognise the good
sense of much of what he is saying.

I'd offer a brief observation:


At 22:17 +0000 29/9/08, evonot_id wrote:

>ŠCreationism is about your faith and belief.
>Science is not about faith or belief, it is
>about the aceptance of evidence. Š We don't talk
>in science about belief in gravity or atoms.

If 'we' is science teachers generally, then I am
not sure. 1) I think the language used in
classrooms is sometimes generated under pressure
and in response to unexpected comments/questions;
2) teachers have to try to model scientific
language yet get quick clear messages across.
(a) therefore sometimes teachers say thing such
as 'scientists believe that everything is made of
tiny particles' and 'this led Newton to believe
that the moon stayed in its orbit due to the same
force that makes things fall when we drop them'
or similar. I'm sure a lot of scientists and
science teachers would have no problem with that
use of belief.
(b) even where this does not happen, teachers
will say things like 'everything is made of tiny
particles' rather than always saying something
like 'scientists have found that modelling the
world as consisting of tiny particles offers
considerable explanatory power' - which surely
implies beliefs. I suspect sometimes this is a
deliberate attempt to simplify language; often it
is just generation of language with a lot of
tacit 'taken-for-granted' but not made explicit
caveats; but sometimes it may be because -
despite what James suggests ought to be - I
suspect many scientists and science teachers do
believe (i.e. take to be a truth) that
'everything is made of tiny particles', etc.

Finally, I am not sure about separating belief
and evidence. I believe that 'modelling the world
as consisting of tiny particles offers
considerable explanatory power' based on the
evidence available to me at this time, but as a
scientist I am in principle open to changing my
mind if I come to interpret the weight of
evidence available to me differently. (However,
as a science educator I also know that my current
understanding will influence how I interpret any
new evidence, so that my beliefs may not seem
rational to others.)

So if James is suggesting that the best response
to a child offering questions and arguments from
a creationist standpoint is 'that is a matter of
belief, it belongs in RS not science' then I am
not sure the distinction will be clear to most
pupils who probably consider much of what they
are told in science to be beliefs rather than
models. So I have much sympathy with James'
position, but am not sure if offers a demarcation
criterion what would be clear to students.

Best wishes

Keith




--
Dr. Keith S. Taber

http://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/staff/taber.html
http://people.pwf.cam.ac.uk/kst24/

University Senior Lecturer in Science Education

Science Education Centre
University of Cambridge Faculty of Education
184 Hills Road
Cambridge CB2 8PQ
United Kingdom

to join an electronic discussion list on
learning in science
please visit
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/learning-science-concepts