Hi James M. Clark Professor of Psychology 204-786-9757 204-774-4134 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08-Jan-06 1:30:58 AM >>> Back on December 22, 2005, I boldly proposed the heresy that Intelligent Design (ID, that sham for creation science which is itself a sham for Biblical creation myths) should be taught in the classroom. What I had in mind was not an uncritical presentation, but an examination of ID claims in the light of science. I said that many students came to the classroom already conversant in ID explanations, and that refusing to counter these misguided views merely lent them legitimacy. Jim Clark disagreed, primarily, I believe, on the grounds that allowing any opportunity for ID in the classroom could be disastrous. JC: ... largely because I was NOT convinced (a) that public school teachers would be well positioned by education or inclination to take the appropriately critical stand against ID or (b) that, once religion was in the science class door, creationists would let criticism of creationism in science classes stand without refutation by their "science" spokespeople. Nonetheless, the study Stephen found is certainly interesting and informative about what might be obtained under rather ideal circumstances: university students (i.e., a select group from public school classes), university science professors (i.e., a group with much more science training and commitment than many public school teachers), and a pro-science agenda (vs. what could be a pro-creationist agenda under less ideal circumstances). SB: ... Verhey assessed attitude change toward creationism and evolution at the end of the course, on a six-point scale from Christian literalist through atheistic evolutionist. Return rate was modest, only 64%. He found that 61% of the responding students critically exposed to ID showed some change in attitude compared with 21% for the students in sections omitting it. Unfortunately, this data is actually useless, because it lumps together change _towards_ evolution with change _against_ it. More usefully, Verhey reported that for the 38 responding students given exposure to ID, 9 changed toward evolution (24%) and 3 against it. For the 28 students in the sections without ID, 5 changed, all towards evolution (18%). This is not a persuasive result. JC: I agree with Stephen's assessment, although similar comparisons might lead us to be skeptical about our achievements in many areas of instruction. It is amazing how students who you once taught how to do and understand a t-test forget it all over the summer. Most important types of learning probably require lots of repetition and happen over an entire academic program rather than in a single class. Who was it did the comparisons of psych and science students in their development of critical thinking skills or research skills? That may be more the kind of comparison that we need. But somewhat comparable surveys again are not auspicious. A recent article in Skeptical Inquirer showed that believe in paranormal and like phenomenona "increased" (cross-sectional) from 23% in first year to 31% in seniors, and 34% in graduate school. Level of belief was also highest in Social Sciences (31%) and education (29%), vs. 25% in sciences and 24% undecided. Although these figures may be lower than the general population (no comparison in this study), we clearly have lots of work to do! Take care Jim --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
