Here in Bible-Belt-Buckle north Louisiana the idea of letting teachers teach creationism in science class seems like a questionable idea. However, a zoo administrator in Tulsa had a good idea when put upon by creationists who noticed Ganesh on the grounds and wanted them to include their story. Their story was to be included with several other creation stories.
If that was done when teaching creation in the classroom, the Christian explanation put in there with the rest of the creation stories, it would put things in context. *http://tinyurl.com/yjcl96x* <http://tinyurl.com/yjcl96x> You want creationism? How about the Cherokee buzzard that gouged the valleys and mountains? And why should Chinese-Americans tolerate neglect of P'an Ku and the cosmic egg at the zoo, or Norse descendants not speak up for Audhumla, the giant cow? The futility of this exercise was emphatically made clear last week when a crowd of critics demanded reconsideration. With the speed of the Mayan jaguar sun god, zoo directors reversed themselves, realizing they had opened a Pandora's box (which see). In stumbling upon so many worthy cosmogonies, Tulsa did us all a favor by underlining how truly singular the evolution explanation is, rooted firmly in scientific demonstration. On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Paul Brandon <[email protected]> wrote: > All well and good but .... > "Teaching Creationism" is too easily construed as "teaching that > Creationism is a validly scientific theory", which of course it isn't. In > these terms, the response is that if you want to teach it (as opposed to > teaching _about_ it (that is, exposing its weaknesses in scientific terms) > you should do so in a class on religion. > We don't want to give a wedge to those public school (in the American > usage) teachers who want the right to teach Creationism as valid science on > equal terms with evolution, as you point out. > I'm not sure that the average junior high school science teacher (who may > have taken two science courses in college) is equipped or inclined to lead a > class through a critical analysis. > > > On Oct 28, 2009, at 6:39 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > On 28 Oct 2009 at 17:43, Christopher D. Green wrote: >> >> More Brits than Americans now favor creationism in science classes... >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/25/teach-evolution- >>> creationism-britons >>> >> >> For shame! And on Darwin's home ice too. >> >> Opinion among scientists seems to be uniformly against >> allowing any mention of creationism in the classroom. The >> understandable fear is that allowing creationism to be discussed >> will elevate it in the eyes of students to the status of an >> alternative scientific theory worthy of attention. In a worst-case >> scenario, it might allow creationist teachers the chance to >> promote creationism over evolution. >> >> But I think this misses an important opportunity. Students are >> likely to be confused because, on the one hand, they are told >> that science operates, not by decree, but by asking questions >> and examing the evidence dispassionately, and on the other, >> are told that what may appear to them as a credible alternative >> theory cannot be discussed in the classroom. Yes, science >> promotes free and open inquiry. No, you may not talk about >> intelligent design in the classroom. >> >> So creationism should be taught. But it should be taught in order >> to contrast it with evolution as a scientific theory, supported by >> evidence, capable of being disproved, subject to modification >> as new evidence is obtained, and leading to new knowledge and >> applications. Creationism as a religious belief can do none of >> these things. Students should be able to appreciate the >> difference, and where better to teach this than in the science >> classroom. In short, I think it is important to teach students not >> only why evolution is a scientific theory, but why intelligent >> design is not. >> >> This seems to be a distinctly minority position. But I notice that >> one person quoted in the Guardian article comes close to this >> position: >> >> "But Alison Ryan, policy adviser of the Association of Teachers >> and Lecturers Union, said that if a "good teacher handled the >> lesson", presenting creationism and intelligent design need not >> be problematic. "Science teachers could introduce creationism >> as a theory that some people hold, but that is not based on >> evidence." >> >> Much better, it seems to me, than saying "Creationism is not a >> scientific theory and we will not discuss it here. Try Sunday >> school". >> >> On a related note, as a member of the privileged group "Project >> Steve", I have now received my (free!) t-shirt from the National >> Center for Science Education ( www.ncseweb.org ). >> >> It says on the front "Over 1000 scientists named Steve agree" >> and it then lists them in tiny letters (I'm between Steven D. >> Black and Stephen Blackmore). At the bottom it advises "Teach >> Evolution!" >> >> More names on the back. At the bottom it says "In memoriam >> Stephen Jay Gould 1941-2002". >> >> It's very cool. Tom, Dick (and Jane), Harry, and all the Michaels >> on this list, I'm sorry, but you can't have one. >> >> Project Steve at http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve >> >> Stephen >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. >> Professor of Psychology, Emeritus >> Bishop's University >> e-mail: [email protected] >> 2600 College St. >> Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 >> Canada >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly ([email protected]) >> > > Paul Brandon > 10 Crown Hill Lane > Mankato, MN 56001 > [email protected] > > > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > -- Rick Stevens Psychology Department University of Louisiana at Monroe [email protected] SL - Evert Snook --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
