tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35273376.post2506651113950934051..comments2011-03-19T07:16:56.867-07:00Comments on Vancouver Island Psychosis: Creation vs Evolution, how is either a bad thing?Driving Miss Crazyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16119245814742456150noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35273376.post-37018250275750353082007-03-23T11:34:00.000-07:002007-03-23T11:34:00.000-07:00Hi Ben, Yes we agree to a point and obviously we b...Hi Ben, Yes we agree to a point and obviously we both know this is a hot issue that will keep the educational system hopping for awhile. However, I really hope I made my point that- I was not so concerned with the creation/vs/evolution in the classroom as I was concerned about the reaction to it. I believe my fingers hit the keyboard shortly after I saw the statement by the one father saying he wondered how many other kids had this teacher polluted. Yes everything has a time and a place, but I worry that we are getting too compartmentalized and too pc that children today will never have the benefit of being exposed to other ideas, and other ways of thinking other than the pc versions of today. It just makes me angry that freedom of speech is covering things like internet porn and not ideas that may have (and I say may) a positive influence. The scales just seem to be tipping in the wrong way. I absolutely agree with you on what you said about teaching past theories that have since been refuted, excellent ways indeed to show how science corrects itself. However so many other areas in "science" or what we thought was an area in science became but myth as time went on. I feel until we have undeniable absolutes on the theories of anything to do with Creationism or God if you will; we cannot in good faith reject and dimiss. I am not sure we have proven or disproven enough to say that this isn't a theory to be entertained. <BR/> Dark Matter itself cannot be seen, it may be "proven" by mathematics and scientific equations to compensate for a theory but it has not and may never be fully ascertained to be an absolute. We as humans are always striving for understanding and will always want to prove we are right. It always boggles my mind(not a scientific statement I know) but it always boggles my mind to see how many different "scientific" theories there are that claim to solve one scientific question. So my question is, if we are to be true scientists, as we all are in one way or another, then shouldn't we be open to investigating every avenue of how we came to be? Our views of the universe change and grow as much as it does, and yet we have such stunted views of what we deem to be science. Sorry I started rambling again, truly I really just meant to say what I said at the beginning. It is not what had happened or what was being challenged in that school that upset me. What I was upset about was the closemindedness of the parents. Sure I agree that this incident needed someone to clarify the curriculum for this teacher, not because I feel he was completely wrong, but as a teacher he probably knew full well what was and wasn't in the corriculum. In this regard he showed disrespect for the schoolboard. However, the response of the parents considering what was taught I felt was inappropriate at best. Polluting a child's mind is an extremely strong statement and in my idea (not everyone's) I don't beleive this incident qualified.<BR/>Thank you for your insightful and enlightening response. It is appreciated and I look forward to you weighing in on any of my other harmless rants. I hope I didn't repeat myself too much for you. C HannahDriving Miss Crazyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16119245814742456150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35273376.post-69383124306954057482007-03-21T07:37:00.000-07:002007-03-21T07:37:00.000-07:00You sound like a good parent and teacher, and I ag...You sound like a good parent and teacher, and I agree that exposing children to alternative ideas is never a bad idea.<BR/><BR/>The problem with Creationism/Intelligent Design in a science classroom is that has no basis in science. Scientific inquiry did not lead the field of biology to explain the world in terms of a Creator. Controversy is important in science, but most topics (I would say all, but there is probably a counterexample that I'm not thinking of) of true scientific controversy are beyond the level of high school biology. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, it is important to teach the process of science alongside the facts. (I can observe X and Y are interacting somehow... how can I test the relationship between X and Y? from these results, what conclusions can I make?) That is the most important part of science curricula. Introducing students to ideas outside the realm of science is a reasonable scholarly pursuit, but it is better suited to philosophy or religious history classes.<BR/><BR/>Teaching past theories that have since been refuted (such as Lamarckian evolution by acquired characteristics) is an excellent way to demonstrate how science corrects itself and would be far more beneficial to students learning the process of science than teaching them non-scientific worldviews.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com