Evolution vs Creationism

[Azza]

Britain became detached from continental Europe around 200,000 years ago, not 17-20,000. As for the Mediterranean, that is thought to have been formed 5.3 million years ago so you are out by a slightly larger margin there Phantom. Geology takes a loooooooong time to change.

In other words, keep religious mumbo-jumbo out of science classes.

Ahem - actually he's right. There was a land bridge from England/Scotland/Wales to Europe during the low sea levels of the glacial maximum, "peaking" at about 18,000 years ago. The Med would have been a couple of inland seas.

The same as Tassie and NG were part of mainland Australia.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Touchy subject, I know, views on either side will be appreciated though.

I don't see why it should be touchy. People can choose to believe whatever they like but that shouldn't inform what gets taught in a science classroom. Is this conversation really happening in an Australian school today? What state? Creationism isn't a science. It attempts often poorly to use sciencey sounding statements but it doesn't conform to any of the precepts of science.

On another point. Not since the Greeks gave us geometry have a "majority" held that the earth was flat, certainly not at Columbus' time.

 

[AngryAnt]

Ahem - actually he's right. There was a land bridge from England/Scotland/Wales to Europe during the low sea levels of the glacial maximum, "peaking" at about 18,000 years ago. The Med would have been a couple of inland seas.

The same as Tassie and NG were part of mainland Australia.

Actually, he's right on the most recent land-bridge (20-9000 BC) so I stand corrected on that, but still 5 million years off on the Med.

The Med was an inland sea, but dried out. Eventually it was reflooded 5.3 million years ago.

 

[Azza]

Actually, he's right on the most recent land-bridge (20-9000 BC) so I stand corrected on that, but still 5 million years off on the Med.

The Med was an inland sea, but dried out. Eventually it was reflooded 5.3 million years ago.

Yeah, ok, he did say the Med was created by the post glacial transgression. Fair enough.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Rather than looking at mutually exclusive examples why not teach critical thought? How to interrogate the world to find the facts. How to ask the fundamental questions and how to understand the answers. (and how to root out the weasel words and pseudo-science and shamanism) In my - catholic educated multiple decades old - experience this type of thinking is only taught in the science classroom so those with little interest or who drop science in later years have little experience with it. With a solid grounding in this type of thinking the idea of creationism wouldn't pass any reasonable test. I feel there is a hole in the curriculum in this area.

 

[evo]

djevv must've voted.

 

[Liverpool]

All this talk of rising water and disappearing lands.... thought I was on the "it's manmade carbon' fault" thread again :hihi

However, I think evolution should be taught in science, and religious studies as an elective subject for people who want to look in more depth at the "alternative" without it interfering with less than tolerant people, as religion seems to be something that people get all uptight and aggressive about.

 

[WesternTiger]

I'd be more comfortable with the question

Should creationism be taught in science as an alternative theory?

- Yes

- No

No place for it in science. Maybe creative writing?

 

[This Is Anfield]

Maybe you could argue that we've evolved to a point where the science of creationism can take over!

 

[AngryAnt]

Yeah, ok, he did say the Med was created by the post glacial transgression. Fair enough.

Yeah but you did catch me out on the land bridge so good pickup dude

 

[mld]

Where I'd the option for only creationism to be taught?

 

[poppa x]

This thread was debated on PRE a few years back and only the Tambling and Dusty "Bull" Martin threads were longer.
FWIW I voted for teaching evolution only because it's a SCIENCE.
Creationism belongs in the Mythology class room and should be an optional subject.
At my daughter's Private Christian School, she had a choice of studying Religion or Philosophy.
Smart school.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

If you can answer without giving too much away Coburg are you in a faith based school or state school? Is it rural or city? From where is the pressure coming to teach creation as science, is it parents or a parents group? Are we talking about Prmary or Secondary school?

Not trying to draw out your specific school just interested as I can't believe this suggestion has been raised as a real proposition at an Australian school.

 

[Coburgtiger]

If you can answer without giving too much away Coburg are you in a faith based school or state school? Is it rural or city? From where is the pressure coming to teach creation as science, is it parents or a parents group? Are we talking about Prmary or Secondary school?

Not trying to draw out your specific school just interested as I can't believe this suggestion has been raised as a real proposition at an Australian school.

Well, it's based on a lit review of both Australian and American educational journals. It's also based on personal experience from some colleagues of mine teaching in schools with predominately religious students and families. Anyway, here is part of the assignment as it stands, to show you where I was coming from:






Whilst the process of evolution details how complexity arises from simplicity, the education of evolution seeks to make simple the complexity of Biology. Indeed, evolution is now described as the ‘Unifying Force’ of biology (Pickrell, 2006). That is, evolution is the process which underpins and connects every single fragmented field within the study of life. Genetics, microbiology, anatomy, zoology, any singular aspect of Biology is related to any other when viewed through an evolutionary lens. A true understanding of biology as a subject cannot be gained without a basic understanding of the process by which all modern life arose.

Yet the ringing clarity of evolution is often lost amongst the noise of logistics. Misconceptions prevail amongst both students and educators (Burton & Dobson, 2009; Gledhill, 2009). School curriculums often compartmentalise biological studies, away from an overall understanding (VCAA, 2013). Religious opposition, public preconceptions and political persuasions often undermine purely scientific efforts (Moore et al, 2003; Royes, 2012). Miscommunications between scientists and the public have led to widespread misunderstandings about the very nature of a ‘theory’ (Caldwell, 2006). Through all this, the basic message is lost, evolution is not an explanation that simply happens to fit, it is the only possible explanation we have for the world around us (Dawkins, 1986).

A friend of mine, a teacher at a government school taking his first ever VCE biology class, came to me distraught. As a chemist by background, he had never found himself confronting the wide range of issues that oppose the teaching of evolution. He was at a loss.
“My students flatly refuse to listen to anything to do with evolution. What do I do?” He was teaching at a Victorian Government school at the time, and the majority of his class held strong religious beliefs. So what should he do?

Most would say, “Teach the facts”. Give students the information they need to pass the subject. Teach them to think critically, perhaps remind them that their religious beliefs need not exclude the science (Seals, 2010). Indeed, I’ve spoken to experienced VCE teachers who say the same. But is that enough? Worrying surveys in predominately Muslim countries show that up to 60% of science educators and students believe evolution to be ‘unproven’ (Gledhill, 2009). This is the science academics. Surveys show many American teachers avoid evolution because they are unsure of the legality of teaching it to people with a right to their religious beliefs (it is, by the way, completely legal) (Moore et al, 2003). Australian teachers have been dragged into the press for refusing to discuss their own beliefs when trying to simply teach the facts (Royes, 2012).

The fact is, it is difficult to teach evolution due to the emotive background of its conceptual enormity. It is the origin of life. But it must be taught within this enormity in order to avoid the misconceptions that eat away at a true understanding. Student misconceptions arise when students are given unrelated facts or rules, and forced to connect these on their own (Steinle, 2004). We now have access to a plethora of resources for immersing children in the beautiful simplicity of evolution. Such as,

http://charliesplayhouse.com/#sthash.LaCnD6p7.dpbs
A website containing games and toys with a scientific slant.

http://museumvictoria.com.au/melbournemuseum/education/education-kits/evolution/
A chance for students to investigate the wonders of evolution themselves.

Yes, evolution can be a touchy subject. But it is too important to reduce to facts alone. It unifies biology, and, more than that, it gives people a perspective on the very basis of life. There are opportunities in the curriculum to unify the separated topics, to immerse students in understanding, and oppose misconceptions. They must be taken.


References:

Adams, D. (1998) Is there an artificial god? Digital Biota 2 in Cambridge, U.K. (September 1998). Retrieved from:
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Adams_Is_There_An_Artificial_God_sec.pdf

Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York Norton & Company, Inc.
Learner, R. (2012). Biology. Victorian Certificate of Education Study Design. Melbourne, Victoria, 3002: Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
Private discussion with an anonymous first year VCE biology teacher at a Victorian Government school.
Discussions with Biology Lecturer;
Moore, R., Jensen, M., & Hatch, J. (2003). Twenty questions: What have the courts said about the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools? Bioscience, 53(8), 766-771. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/216472948?accountid=12372

Seals, M. A. (2010). Teaching students to think critically about science and origins. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(1), 251-255. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9251-0

Bridgstock, M. (2003, 05). Paranormal beliefs among science students. Australasian Science, 24, 33-35. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/223744874?accountid=12372

Burton, S. R., & Dobson, C. (2009). Spork & beans: Addressing evolutionary misconceptions. The American Biology Teacher, 71(2), 89-93. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/219039534?accountid=12372

Pickrell, J. (2006). Introduction: Evolution. New Scientist (04 September 2006). Retrieved From
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9953-introduction-evolution.html#.Uk4ZmCp-_mQ

Archer, M. et al (2005) Intelligent Design is Not Science, Australian Academy of Science (24 October 2005) Retrieved from
http://science.org.au/reports/intelligent-design.html

Royes, L. (March 21, 2012). Evolution a 'touchy' subject for teachers, The Gold Coast Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2012/03/21/401095_gold-coast-news.html

Gledhill, R. (November 17, 2009) Muslim teachers ‘misrepresenting’ Darwin’s evolution theory, The Australian. Retrieved from
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/muslim-teachers-misrepresenting-darwins-evolution-theory/story-e6frg8y6-1225798645677

VCAA. (2013). Science, AusVELS Retrieved 4/10/2013, from
http://ausvels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Science/Curriculum/F-10#level=1

Evolution for Kids
http://charliesplayhouse.com/#sthash.LaCnD6p7.dpbs

Steinle, V. (2004). Detection and remediation of decimal misconceptions. In B. Tadich, S.
Tobias, C. Brew, B. Beatty, & P. Sullivan (Eds.) Towards excellence in mathematics (Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Mathematical Association of Victoria, pp. 460-478). Retrieved 4/10/2013 from
https://gismodb.fi.ncsu.edu/gismodb/files/articles/561ded4202ff15af02d70f63126135f4.pdf

Caldwell, R et al, UCMP (2006) Confusing terms & Phrases, Potential Pitfalls, Retrieved 4/10/2013 from
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/IIterms_phrases.shtml

Caldwell, R et al, UCMP (2006) Understanding Evolution for Teachers;
Retrieved 4/10/2013 from
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

Melbourne Museum, (2013) Evolution Retrieved 4/10/2013 from http://museumvictoria.com.au/melbournemuseum/education/education-kits/evolution/

Education Services Australia (2013) ‘Scootle’, available at:
http://www.scootle.edu.au/ec/search?q=evolution&Submit=Search&field=title&field=text.all&field=topic

 

[This Is Anfield]

Well, it's based on a lit review of both Australian and American educational journals. It's also based on personal experience from some colleagues of mine teaching in schools with predominately religious students and families. Anyway, here is part of the assignment as it stands, to show you where I was coming from:






Whilst the process of evolution details how complexity arises from simplicity, the education of evolution seeks to make simple the complexity of Biology. Indeed, evolution is now described as the ‘Unifying Force’ of biology (Pickrell, 2006). That is, evolution is the process which underpins and connects every single fragmented field within the study of life. Genetics, microbiology, anatomy, zoology, any singular aspect of Biology is related to any other when viewed through an evolutionary lens. A true understanding of biology as a subject cannot be gained without a basic understanding of the process by which all modern life arose.

Yet the ringing clarity of evolution is often lost amongst the noise of logistics. Misconceptions prevail amongst both students and educators (Burton & Dobson, 2009; Gledhill, 2009). School curriculums often compartmentalise biological studies, away from an overall understanding (VCAA, 2013). Religious opposition, public preconceptions and political persuasions often undermine purely scientific efforts (Moore et al, 2003; Royes, 2012). Miscommunications between scientists and the public have led to widespread misunderstandings about the very nature of a ‘theory’ (Caldwell, 2006). Through all this, the basic message is lost, evolution is not an explanation that simply happens to fit, it is the only possible explanation we have for the world around us (Dawkins, 1986).

A friend of mine, a teacher at a government school taking his first ever VCE biology class, came to me distraught. As a chemist by background, he had never found himself confronting the wide range of issues that oppose the teaching of evolution. He was at a loss.
“My students flatly refuse to listen to anything to do with evolution. What do I do?” He was teaching at a Victorian Government school at the time, and the majority of his class held strong religious beliefs. So what should he do?

Most would say, “Teach the facts”. Give students the information they need to pass the subject. Teach them to think critically, perhaps remind them that their religious beliefs need not exclude the science (Seals, 2010). Indeed, I’ve spoken to experienced VCE teachers who say the same. But is that enough? Worrying surveys in predominately Muslim countries show that up to 60% of science educators and students believe evolution to be ‘unproven’ (Gledhill, 2009). This is the science academics. Surveys show many American teachers avoid evolution because they are unsure of the legality of teaching it to people with a right to their religious beliefs (it is, by the way, completely legal) (Moore et al, 2003). Australian teachers have been dragged into the press for refusing to discuss their own beliefs when trying to simply teach the facts (Royes, 2012).

The fact is, it is difficult to teach evolution due to the emotive background of its conceptual enormity. It is the origin of life. But it must be taught within this enormity in order to avoid the misconceptions that eat away at a true understanding. Student misconceptions arise when students are given unrelated facts or rules, and forced to connect these on their own (Steinle, 2004). We now have access to a plethora of resources for immersing children in the beautiful simplicity of evolution. Such as,

http://charliesplayhouse.com/#sthash.LaCnD6p7.dpbs
A website containing games and toys with a scientific slant.

http://museumvictoria.com.au/melbournemuseum/education/education-kits/evolution/
A chance for students to investigate the wonders of evolution themselves.

Yes, evolution can be a touchy subject. But it is too important to reduce to facts alone. It unifies biology, and, more than that, it gives people a perspective on the very basis of life. There are opportunities in the curriculum to unify the separated topics, to immerse students in understanding, and oppose misconceptions. They must be taken.


References:

Adams, D. (1998) Is there an artificial god? Digital Biota 2 in Cambridge, U.K. (September 1998). Retrieved from:
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Adams_Is_There_An_Artificial_God_sec.pdf

Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York Norton & Company, Inc.
Learner, R. (2012). Biology. Victorian Certificate of Education Study Design. Melbourne, Victoria, 3002: Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority.
Private discussion with an anonymous first year VCE biology teacher at a Victorian Government school.
Discussions with Biology Lecturer; Fiona Trappani
Moore, R., Jensen, M., & Hatch, J. (2003). Twenty questions: What have the courts said about the teaching of evolution and creationism in public schools? Bioscience, 53(8), 766-771. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/216472948?accountid=12372

Seals, M. A. (2010). Teaching students to think critically about science and origins. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(1), 251-255. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11422-009-9251-0

Bridgstock, M. (2003, 05). Paranormal beliefs among science students. Australasian Science, 24, 33-35. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/223744874?accountid=12372

Burton, S. R., & Dobson, C. (2009). Spork & beans: Addressing evolutionary misconceptions. The American Biology Teacher, 71(2), 89-93. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/docview/219039534?accountid=12372

Pickrell, J. (2006). Introduction: Evolution. New Scientist (04 September 2006). Retrieved From
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9953-introduction-evolution.html#.Uk4ZmCp-_mQ

Archer, M. et al (2005) Intelligent Design is Not Science, Australian Academy of Science (24 October 2005) Retrieved from
http://science.org.au/reports/intelligent-design.html

Royes, L. (March 21, 2012). Evolution a 'touchy' subject for teachers, The Gold Coast Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2012/03/21/401095_gold-coast-news.html

Gledhill, R. (November 17, 2009) Muslim teachers ‘misrepresenting’ Darwin’s evolution theory, The Australian. Retrieved from
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/muslim-teachers-misrepresenting-darwins-evolution-theory/story-e6frg8y6-1225798645677

VCAA. (2013). Science, AusVELS Retrieved 4/10/2013, from
http://ausvels.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Science/Curriculum/F-10#level=1

Evolution for Kids
http://charliesplayhouse.com/#sthash.LaCnD6p7.dpbs

Steinle, V. (2004). Detection and remediation of decimal misconceptions. In B. Tadich, S.
Tobias, C. Brew, B. Beatty, & P. Sullivan (Eds.) Towards excellence in mathematics (Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Mathematical Association of Victoria, pp. 460-478). Retrieved 4/10/2013 from
https://gismodb.fi.ncsu.edu/gismodb/files/articles/561ded4202ff15af02d70f63126135f4.pdf

Caldwell, R et al, UCMP (2006) Confusing terms & Phrases, Potential Pitfalls, Retrieved 4/10/2013 from
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/footshooting/IIterms_phrases.shtml

Caldwell, R et al, UCMP (2006) Understanding Evolution for Teachers;
Retrieved 4/10/2013 from
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

Melbourne Museum, (2013) Evolution Retrieved 4/10/2013 from http://museumvictoria.com.au/melbournemuseum/education/education-kits/evolution/

Education Services Australia (2013) ‘Scootle’, available at:
http://www.scootle.edu.au/ec/search?q=evolution&Submit=Search&field=title&field=text.all&field=topic

There endeth my interest in this subject!

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Right. Thanks CT. Wow it really does look like a minefield when put like that. Physics and chemistry teachers have been able to get away with teaching around the edges of some of the complexity inherent in their subjects in order to establish the basics at a Secondary level but I didn't study biology so I don't have any experience with how it is taught. It seems the push back is recent so why can't the old methods hold? The fact that there are some incongruities between classroom physics and the best understanding isn't an impediment to it's teaching so I don't see why it should be so for biology and it's evolutionary underpinings.

I would refuse to discuss philosophy in the science classsroom and suggest the students bring up their issues in the appropriate class (philosophy? religious instruction?) or start a discussion group of their own. It disappoints me greatly that any religious affiliation could be allowed to make demands of a public institution.

 

[Coburgtiger]

I guess it's less about the demands of any religious institutions, and more about the political difficulties in teaching a science which can be seen to be in direct opposition to the religious beliefs that may make up the majority of your classroom.

At what point are you infringing on the students religious rights? And, as an educator, at what point are you undermining your own efforts to teach students how to be informed, critical thinkers by avoiding the holistic nature of what evolution actually means. It's a topic that's very difficult to appreciate or understand accurately by just remembering components of it's theory.

 

[Azza]

I guess it's less about the demands of any religious institutions, and more about the political difficulties in teaching a science which can be seen to be in direct opposition to the religious beliefs that may make up the majority of your classroom.

At what point are you infringing on the students religious rights? And, as an educator, at what point are you undermining your own efforts to teach students how to be informed, critical thinkers by avoiding the holistic nature of what evolution actually means. It's a topic that's very difficult to appreciate or understand accurately by just remembering components of it's theory.

I was at a religious school in the late 70's/early 80's - although not a very rigorous one, stretching to having chapel once a fortnight and a full church service once or twice a year. It seemed to be implicit that the bible was a religio-philosophical document and science was science, and there the story ended. I went to Sunday school as a kid and much the same philosophy applied.

I guess it was in the mid 80's I began to be aware that some people took the bible literally, and tried to justify it in scientific terms. The attitude seemed to come from America, and struck me a weakness of faith - rather than just accepting the word of God, these people had to find some sort of earthly proof to justify their beliefs.

This seems to have expanded, and is getting more traction even in Australia. It makes me wonder whether it's always been there in the US, or whether people are for some reason turning their backs on science? Is technology getting to the point where its complexity seems magical and so challengeable by faith? Has the education system failed to engage kids? Have Americans buckled to fear through their perpetual war (on communists, drugs, terrorists, crime, rogue states) and taken shelter in fundamentalist faith?

I've always disliked the phrase 'in this day and age' because it implied that people were always becoming smarter and society better. It seemed to ignore the cycles of history where enlightenment alternated with darkness, and demonstrated a smug assumption that things would always get better. The growing stand-off between science and religion reinforces that dislike.

 

[Coburgtiger]

It couldn't be that society is increasingly undermining the importance of science in cultural growth could it?

Just ask our Science Minister.... oh, wait..

 

[Azza]

It couldn't be that society is increasingly undermining the importance of science in cultural growth could it?

Just ask our Science Minister.... oh, wait..

But why?