IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th May 2022, 02:09 PM   #201
EaglePuncher
Critical Thinker
 
EaglePuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I had requested a title like "Should science classes include critical thinking?"
Let's make a deal and name it "Should water be wet?"
__________________
You know you found a real "conservative" when they complain about virtue signalling while not realizing that they are virtue signalling.
EaglePuncher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 03:40 PM   #202
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,762
No. Any discussion of creationism does not belong in a science classroom -or any public school building, really. The only thing that needs to be said about it is, “Talk to your parents and pastors about that.”

I get that a small minority of kids is going to be hostile to science classes. I think it would be ok for the teacher to tell those kids, “I’m not asking you to abandon your religious beliefs; I’m asking you to learn this material. You can reject it as a lie if you want to; all I care about is that you pass my class.”
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 05:06 PM   #203
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13,625
As far as I am aware school science classes already teach every theory as challengeable. "Any theory is only as good as the next experiment" and all that. That was the way I remember it and that is the way it is taught to my sons.

Maybe the title of the thread should be "should every minority theory be taught in science classes?".

Creationism/intelligent design is the minoritiest of minority theories, even among scientists who believe in God.
Political and in particular legislative pressure to boost a minority theory in science has nothing to do with critical thinking or the free exchange of ideas.

Proponents of creationism/intelligent design already have full access to the free exchange of ideas.
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 05:38 PM   #204
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,172
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
So like the GOP, you are against teaching critical thinking, which has "the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority." ?

Should we just be giving them instructions and not allowing any questions?
tEArCh TheRE COnTRovesEE!!!1
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 05:47 PM   #205
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,172
Anyone genuinely interested in this Creationist weaseling should look over the Dover trial. You should find a couple of excellent documentaries on YouTube.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitz...chool_District
https://youtu.be/x2xyrel-2vI
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 06:03 PM   #206
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 28,736
Originally Posted by Resume View Post
Yes.

As long as it's being demonstrated as a good example of pseudoscience.
I agree. I suspect Psion10 agrees, mostly, as well. There's a few subtle differences. I haven't read every single post here, but I think I understand where he's going with it. Maybe I'm just projecting my own opinion.

The real question is what is the best way to get students to get to a better understanding both of the general approach to determining scientific truth and, specifically, getting students to understand the reality of evolution, as understood by people who study it using scientific methods.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 06:28 PM   #207
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 76,367
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
If you don't like the idea that science is theologically neutral then that is your problem. I have answered the question. Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about anything religious. So stop trying to make this about religion.
Except in as much as religion makes testable claims. Which it does. All the time.
__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 06:41 PM   #208
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 76,367
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Anyone genuinely interested in this Creationist weaseling should look over the Dover trial. You should find a couple of excellent documentaries on YouTube.
Many many years ago I actually read through all the transcripts from the depositions to the trial, which at the time were available on the NCSE website. It was actually pretty fascinating.
__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 07:22 PM   #209
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,172
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Many many years ago I actually read through all the transcripts from the depositions to the trial, which at the time were available on the NCSE website. It was actually pretty fascinating.
Spent a lot of time myself. The attempt to put lipstick on the creationism pig in the rushed makeover to intelligent design and pretence to science was ironically exposed in analysis of the evolution through drafts of their text book. Including a sloppy find and replace operation that left the term “cdesign proponentsists” (design proponent in place of creationist) in the book. Their dishonest attempt to sneak the same old religious ideas into the classroom under a new name was exposed and punted.

https://ncse.ngo/my-role-kitzmiller-v-dover

I see some recent retrospectives on YouTube that I am going to watch. So many stars, so many great moments.

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 11th May 2022 at 07:23 PM.
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 07:41 PM   #210
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,172
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Except in as much as religion makes testable claims. Which it does. All the time.
The Noah’s flood myth can be (and was) treated as a history claim but one that fails in the face of observations including geological, fossil record, genetic and contemporary species distribution. All observations that the theory of evolution by natural selection beautifully accounts for and makes repeatedly tested predictions.


ETA: if you do search YouTube you will find Michael Behe with a mousetrap and talking about bacterial flagellums as examples of irreducible complexity as if 15 years ago people like Ken Miller never falsified these specific examples and exposed his whole argument from personal incredulity? What is he? Delusional? Loves the creationist talk circuit? Utterly dishonest.

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 11th May 2022 at 08:17 PM.
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 08:50 PM   #211
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,768
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Except in as much as religion makes testable claims. Which it does. All the time.
The general consensus seems to be against testing these claims in a science class.

That's fine. I only suggested Genesis as an exception since so many believe in it literally (and "children are our future"). The downside is that it could make science classes controversial and thus backfire.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 08:58 PM   #212
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,172
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The general consensus seems to be against testing these claims in a science class.

That's fine. I only suggested Genesis as an exception since so many believe in it literally (and "children are our future"). The downside is that it could make science classes controversial and thus backfire.
They are excellent claims for students in of philosophy of science in the context of the demarcation problem.
Sideroxylon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 09:29 PM   #213
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 17,700
I have a compromise solution: teach Both Science and biblical "science" as part of History, meaning that you introduce the knowledge we had at before the time of the OT, at the time of the OT, and the progress from there.
Then, after going through Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Planck, etc. and everything they discovered, we can have another lesson about how now, after two millennia of progress, some ******** want to got back to biblical knowledge.
__________________
"Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a thirty thousand page menu, and no food."

- Robert M. Pirsig
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 10:31 PM   #214
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 76,367
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The general consensus seems to be against testing these claims in a science class.

That's fine. I only suggested Genesis as an exception since so many believe in it literally (and "children are our future"). The downside is that it could make science classes controversial and thus backfire.
I'm all for students testing the claims of religion in science class, as long as they do so rigorously.
__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 10:38 PM   #215
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 16,692
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I only suggested Genesis... The downside is that it could make science classes controversial and thus backfire.
The category error such an unwarranted exception introduces is toxic to critical thinking about the natural world, source of the observations that form the sole foundation for science, the set of disciplines dedicated to examining nature. IOW, the controversy itself is fully contrived and serves to perpetuate poor thinking skills from the very start.

Science and religion are not competing explanations of nature. The latter is a rationalized construct about an imaginary realm, not nature, thus it often refers to the supernatural, its source being non-observations about idealized notions, along with accounts of human history that provide factual observations about believers, but never about the validity of their beliefs. This last distinction is often purposefully lost so that faithists can appear to adhere to objective standards.

To wit, religious artifacts, along with those scientific and artistic, represent the conceptual world humans inhabit made tangible by human hands. Religion is like art in that its artifacts substantiate human concepts and makes them tangible. Thus, religious artifacts are like comics and toy stores, human fancy in the flesh, not sources of factual observation of anything beyond human culture. Religious artifacts do not cut it, neither does religion, when it comes to the natural world. Art class and history class are where they belong, and dealt with as they are in nature: artifacts, not evidence.
__________________
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 10:44 PM   #216
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 76,367
One of the best examples of a religious claim being scientifically tested is the Shroud of Turin.

__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 10:53 PM   #217
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,487
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
One of the best examples of a religious claim being scientifically tested is the Shroud of Turin.

OK. So does it belong in the classroom? What exactly do you do when the Christian students start lying about it?
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 10:54 PM   #218
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 21,094
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
One of the best examples of a religious claim being scientifically tested is the Shroud of Turin.

... and found to be a 14th century fake.... conclusively... and the Catholic Church was told that by one of their own bishops...

Bishop Pierre d’Arcis wrote to the Pope that it was "a clever sleight of hand" by someone "falsely declaring this was the actual shroud in which Jesus was enfolded in the tomb to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them"..... he wrote that letter 632 years ago!!

They have been lying about it ever since!

But this is off topic, so carry on!
__________________
Science supplies evidence, invites you to analyse and evaluate that evidence, and then to draw conclusions from that
Religion supplies no evidence, demands you have faith, and expects you to uncritically and automatically believe that something is true simply because "the Bible tells you so"
If you don't like my posts, opinions, or directness then put me on your ignore list!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 10:56 PM   #219
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 76,367
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
OK. So does it belong in the classroom? What exactly do you do when the Christian students start lying about it?
In a lesson about radiocarbon dating - what it is and how and why it works - sure. Why not?
__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 10:59 PM   #220
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,487
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
In a lesson about radiocarbon dating - what it is and how and why it works - sure. Why not?
What do you do when the Christian students start lying about it?
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 11:10 PM   #221
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I think I have misconstrued your earlier response. Yes, with all the misinformation students are being subjected to via the media, courses for critical thinking in general does sound like a good idea.

However, my original response was to the article that reportedly claims that the GOP wants creationism taught in science classes as "valid science". To me critical thinking in a science class means understanding the scientific method and not accepting any unevidenced theory as a fact. Critical thinking in science is a more specialized area than critical thinking in general.


That's what happens when a mod creates a strawman title. They now have you believing that I want what the GOP wants.

I had requested a title like "Should science classes include critical thinking?" but for some strange reason they want to paint me as pro-creationist teaching.

Then you're being disingenuous, and the mods have ensured you stay honest in spite of yourself.

Here's why I say this:

First, even if you wish to keep out discussion about introducing critical thinking similarly in other subjects like history and literature and civics and religious studies, even then, and even within science, there's lots of things to which the same logic, of applying critical thinking and working out the theory from first principles, might apply; and yet you're raising this issue only in terms of this stupid creationism nonsense, and none of the other areas in science. So that a title that says "Should science classes include critical thinking" is singularly inappropriate, and the title the mods have elected to put in reflects your actual intent.

Second, even if one were to focus on only religious superstitions vis-a-vis what's taught in science, then the obvious solution is to discuss it, yes, and make sure that the concerned students' difficulties are addressed; but one very reasonable way to do it would be by introducing special correctional classes for kids that are uniquely challenged in terms of critical thinking by virtue of having had the misfortune to be born to and raised in superstitious families that subscribe to cockeyed belief systems. And yet when I raise this excellent solution that follows from a discussion on "Should science classes include critical thinking about religious superstitions?", then you accuse me of not engaging in good faith, and actually have the gall to tell me not to raise this subject in future. So that it is only under the narrow limits that mods have set for this discussion via that title that your POV even makes sense; only under these limits is your intent, although cockeyed, at least honestly presented.

Third, even if one were to grant you the rest of your warped arguments, even then, even when we focus on specifically creation myths vis-a-vis evolution, I've myself pointed out to you at least three times --- and others may have as well, on top of that --- that this would then necessarily need to also include creation myths from other major religions as well, like Buddhism, and Daoism, and Hinduism, as well as maybe somewhat smaller religions like Shintoism and Jainism --- even if time constraints keep us from discussing a larger collection of religious myths. Yet you steadfastly ignore this suggestion, and keep your going back to your line about Genesis, as if Christian creation myths are the only superstitions that large numbers of people subscribe to. Clearly, then, your focus is only on Creationism, and not even on general creation myths from religions. Your own suggested title, then, is no more than a fig leaf to hide your true intentions; and it is the mods that are keeping you honest in spite of yourself.

(Of course, if even now you agree to include in your proposal other creation myths and superstitions from other major religions, other than merely the Abrahamic ones, then I'll be happy to take back that last criticism (#3). The other criticisms I've raised here will continue to apply, and I'll continue to think of your proposal as utterly cockeyed and continue to disagree with it in the specific form in which you've presented it *, but I'll be happy to roll back that last criticism of mine, that like some closed-minded bigot you're focused only and solely on Christian superstitions, if even now you include those other creation myths from those other religions in your proposal.)



* I've put in that qualification, saying that "I'm opposed to your proposal in the form you present it", because I'm perfectly fine with my own amendment to your proposal, my amended proposal that addresses the issue you raise. To repeat, that would involve profiling students to weed out those whose parents subscribe to cockeyed religious superstitions, and are likely to have infected these kids with said supersitions; and holding correctional classes for these students, so that they can be clearly shown how utterly ridiculous their parents' beliefs are, and so that they do not carry those imbecile beliefs with them to the science class, and are able to attend to science class with a mind no longer infected with the imbecilic beliefs of their parents. In that amended form I'm perfectly willing to support your proposal of introducing critical thinking when it comes to religious superstitions as they apply to science class --- except outside of science class itself, and in special correctional classes. And hey, you've already agreed with me, upthread, that you're open to having these critical thinking lessons being held outside of science class, so perhaps you may yet find yourself able to applaud my proposed amendment to your proposal?

Last edited by Chanakya; 11th May 2022 at 11:12 PM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 11:10 PM   #222
EaglePuncher
Critical Thinker
 
EaglePuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The general consensus seems to be against testing these claims in a science class.

That's fine. I only suggested Genesis as an exception since so many believe in it literally (and "children are our future"). The downside is that it could make science classes controversial and thus backfire.
Won't anyone think about the children!!!!!

But seriously, you are making stuff up, just so your 'point' can make sense, at least from your point of view.

In reality, there aren't "so many"...
__________________
You know you found a real "conservative" when they complain about virtue signalling while not realizing that they are virtue signalling.

Last edited by EaglePuncher; 11th May 2022 at 11:42 PM.
EaglePuncher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 11:30 PM   #223
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 18,768
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Then you're being disingenuous, and the mods have ensured you stay honest in spite of yourself.
I suspect that some confirmation bias is coming up.

Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
First, even if you wish to keep out discussion about introducing critical thinking similarly in other subjects like history and literature and civics and religious studies, even then, and even within science, there's lots of things to which the same logic, of applying critical thinking and working out the theory from first principles, might apply; and yet you're raising this issue only in terms of this stupid creationism nonsense, and none of the other areas in science.
That is simply not true. I have consistently maintained the position that students should understand the "why" and not just the "what" in science (even if the words are not exactly the same). I have not limited that stance to just religion.

The problem is that every response to what I have posted is all about religion (hardly surprising considering the titles given to this thread).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

Last edited by psionl0; 11th May 2022 at 11:34 PM.
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 11:38 PM   #224
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 35,778
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to say about anything religious.

Then discussion of creationism/ID has absolutely no place in science lessons.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 11:43 PM   #225
EaglePuncher
Critical Thinker
 
EaglePuncher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2022
Posts: 483
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That is simply not true. I have consistently maintained the position that students should understand the "why" and not just the "what" in science
Which has been happening constantly for the last decades. What was your point again?
__________________
You know you found a real "conservative" when they complain about virtue signalling while not realizing that they are virtue signalling.
EaglePuncher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2022, 11:54 PM   #226
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 76,367
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
What do you do when the Christian students start lying about it?
You teach them science.

You teach them how and why science is reliable. Why evidence matters. That sort of thing.
__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава

Last edited by arthwollipot; 11th May 2022 at 11:55 PM. Reason: Original draft unnecessarily snarky.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 02:38 AM   #227
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 5,784
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post


* I've put in that qualification, saying that "I'm opposed to your proposal in the form you present it", because I'm perfectly fine with my own amendment to your proposal, my amended proposal that addresses the issue you raise. To repeat, that would involve profiling students to weed out those whose parents subscribe to cockeyed religious superstitions, and are likely to have infected these kids with said supersitions; and holding correctional classes for these students, so that they can be clearly shown how utterly ridiculous their parents' beliefs are, and so that they do not carry those imbecile beliefs with them to the science class, and are able to attend to science class with a mind no longer infected with the imbecilic beliefs of their parents. In that amended form I'm perfectly willing to support your proposal of introducing critical thinking when it comes to religious superstitions as they apply to science class --- except outside of science class itself, and in special correctional classes. And hey, you've already agreed with me, upthread, that you're open to having these critical thinking lessons being held outside of science class, so perhaps you may yet find yourself able to applaud my proposed amendment to your proposal?
No, that's a really bad idea.
If I go into a classroom (yes, I'm a teacher) and tell my students that their parents are idiots who have been filling their heads with imbecilic lies, three things will happen:
1. The students will tell their parents. There may well be furious arguments at home, and the students will inevitably come out of this worse.
2. The parents will go to the head teacher/principal and complain about that teacher. The teacher will be disciplined and may well lose their job, and/or,
3. The parents will pull their children out of that school, and either send them to a faith-based school or home-school them, so there will be no benefit at all in terms of improving critical thinking and challenging superstitions.

My preferred option would be to teach critical thinking skills to all, and let the students decide for themselves if they wish to follow the faith of their parents. It's not just about student autonomy: many religious communities are very close-knit, and public loss of faith can result in expulsion from that community. This is not, I would suggest, an ideal educational outcome.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 05:38 AM   #228
8enotto
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 2,387
9th grade science class, first day in about 1981 I experienced creationism being taught in public school.

The teacher introduced herself, a bit about her style and began.

She stated it was state law that she cover creation theory. Then she said the bible said the world was created in six days by a diety.
There was nothing more on this, the entire concept was covered.

Then she started on the science teaching and it took weeks to cover some subjects. There was data, variables and facts to cover.

Some was easy to grasp, other things took more effort but in the end was clear and ran far deeper than goddidit.

There was only one gal in my entire group trapped into a serious christian mindset and she wasn't in my science class. Her rants on pop music of the day being crass and evil while christian music was pure didn't seem to affect her ability to pass science classes . But her parents had her believing she was better somehow than others.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 05:53 AM   #229
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,405
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I have a compromise solution: teach Both Science and biblical "science" as part of History, meaning that you introduce the knowledge we had at before the time of the OT, at the time of the OT, and the progress from there.
Then, after going through Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Planck, etc. and everything they discovered, we can have another lesson about how now, after two millennia of progress, some ******** want to got back to biblical knowledge.


The study of the History of Science is the best way to understand the why and how of science as she exists today. As Newton said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 07:15 AM   #230
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
No, that's a really bad idea.
If I go into a classroom (yes, I'm a teacher) and tell my students that their parents are idiots who have been filling their heads with imbecilic lies, three things will happen:
1. The students will tell their parents. There may well be furious arguments at home, and the students will inevitably come out of this worse.
2. The parents will go to the head teacher/principal and complain about that teacher. The teacher will be disciplined and may well lose their job, and/or,
3. The parents will pull their children out of that school, and either send them to a faith-based school or home-school them, so there will be no benefit at all in terms of improving critical thinking and challenging superstitions.

My preferred option would be to teach critical thinking skills to all, and let the students decide for themselves if they wish to follow the faith of their parents. It's not just about student autonomy: many religious communities are very close-knit, and public loss of faith can result in expulsion from that community. This is not, I would suggest, an ideal educational outcome.

Agreed, absolutely.

Like I recognized myself, in my initial posts on this (post #159 and post #163), this practical and political consideration, that you mention, will make such a proposal untenable. However, seen purely in terms of pedagogy, it seems a sound idea, is my point. (Although even that latter is an arguable point, I realize, even outside of that political and practical constraint I mean to say; if there's some utterly superstition-addled child sitting there --- and there may well be many of these in actual RL classes --- then it may be best to let sleeping dogs lie and just let them register what is being taught without going too deep into rooting out the misinformation their parents have fed them. Trying to do that might be overly involved, and I don't know how many schools have teachers qualified enough and motivated enough to teach that kind of correctional class with the sort of depth, as well as sensitivity, that would be called for.)



eta:
psion10 keeps insisting, at least in his posts addressed to me, that he's not really pushing the creationism agenda; but on the other hand he keeps either ignoring, or else dismissing but without giving any reasons why, my suggestions about addressing his (alleged) concern about a lack of critical thinking teaching in school: like (a) doing this critical-thinking thing for other subjects as well, like religious studies (where taught), and history, and literature, and civics, et cetera, as well as science; and (b) doing this in a separate critical thinking class/subject, that will teach structured critical thinking, as well as encourage discussion based on critical thinking around what these kids are taught in other subjects; and (c) doing this not just for creationism ideas, but creation myths across (major) religions, not just the Biblical stuff.

And also, (d), this suggestion about special correctional classes for children of parents who self-describe as religious: both on grounds of addressing a general lack in structured critical thinking teaching, as earlier, as well as to address his (alleged) concern about the conflict that religiously indoctrinated children might potentially face when exposed to sane rational science in class.

Surprisingly --- or maybe not surprisingly --- he does not applaud any of these proposals, or even engage with them in depth, even though all of these proposals go some way in addressing what he keeps saying his actual concern is. Somehow he either ignores all of these, or dismisses them summarily without giving reasons, and returns to wanting to discuss only whether Genesis should be discussed in science class. Even as he keeps on claiming that that isn't his agenda, and that the mods are apparently misrepresenting him via the thread title they've imposed on his OP. *shrugs* I've given up trying to resolve this, after having tried a few times by engaging with him directly and in good faith.

Last edited by Chanakya; 12th May 2022 at 07:34 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 07:29 AM   #231
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 101,809
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
One of the best examples of a religious claim being scientifically tested is the Shroud of Turin.



We studied the Shroud as part of our religious studies class (late 70s early 80s.) That seems the right place to discuss such religious beliefs as the Shroud being the burial Shroud of Jesus. To me it would seem strange to teach about the Shroud in a science class, what part of a science curriculum would you use it on? Chemistry to explain valances and why pigments stick?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 07:55 AM   #232
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,487
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
You teach them science.

You teach them how and why science is reliable. Why evidence matters. That sort of thing.
Do you tell them they've been fed a pack of lies? If not, then you're giving them a watered down answer.

Just teach them the science with examples that are less likely to start to encourage them to lie. We can't actually adequately explain they've been lied to in the current climate.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 09:41 AM   #233
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
Moderator
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 25,579
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
9th grade science class, first day in about 1981 I experienced creationism being taught in public school.

The teacher introduced herself, a bit about her style and began.

She stated it was state law that she cover creation theory. Then she said the bible said the world was created in six days by a diety.
There was nothing more on this, the entire concept was covered.

Then she started on the science teaching and it took weeks to cover some subjects. There was data, variables and facts to cover.

Some was easy to grasp, other things took more effort but in the end was clear and ran far deeper than goddidit.

There was only one gal in my entire group trapped into a serious christian mindset and she wasn't in my science class. Her rants on pop music of the day being crass and evil while christian music was pure didn't seem to affect her ability to pass science classes . But her parents had her believing she was better somehow than others.
I can't criticise, because my posts are littered with typos, but I'm imagining some god of food being involved.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare
https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt

Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 12:31 PM   #234
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52,385
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Positive proof that God is good at hiding.

Interesting that miracles are hard to find in modern times. Take the knack of levitation. If you read about some of the RCC saints, it would seem the air was thick with flying holy men, many years ago.
I blame Newton and his theory of universal gravitation. Intelligent falling FTW!
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 12:37 PM   #235
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 52,385
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I'm all for students testing the claims of religion in science class, as long as they do so rigorously.
I am reminded of when 9 year old Emily Rosa debunked Reiki by proving that the reiki master could not detect the energy fields around a persons body if they can not see there being a person there or not.

https://www.iflscience.com/health-an...d-and-a-towel/
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 06:09 PM   #236
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 91,593
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The general consensus seems to be against testing these claims in a science class.

That's fine. I only suggested Genesis as an exception since so many believe in it literally (and "children are our future"). The downside is that it could make science classes controversial and thus backfire.
Years ago PZ Myers gave our local skeptics group a talk on the evolution of the eye. Biblical creation believers claimed everything was irreducible from the eye to your liver and more.

Anyway, he started with a Bible and tore out the first couple pages.
Quote:
"That's it, the whole history of the Universe you find in the Bible".

As for more irreducible complexity, Behe moved on from the flagella to mitochondria. They still send me email from the Discovery Institute here in Seattle advertising the latest speaker or book for sale on Intelligent Design. I'm really not sure how finding any irreducible organ or organelle is supposed to prove evolution theory is wrong. At most it would prove we need to look more deeply into the evolutionary tree.

If a teacher tried to teach ID or any other version of Biblical Creationism in a science class they would need to show why the theory or hypothesis was a fail. How would the parents like it if Jill or Jonny came home from school and reported to their parents they learned the Biblical creation story was disproved by science?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 06:15 PM   #237
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 76,367
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Do you tell them they've been fed a pack of lies? If not, then you're giving them a watered down answer.

Just teach them the science with examples that are less likely to start to encourage them to lie. We can't actually adequately explain they've been lied to in the current climate.
You don't need to. You just teach them how and why science is reliable and trustworthy, and they will come to their own conclusions about what their religious leaders are telling them.
__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 06:17 PM   #238
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 76,367
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
We studied the Shroud as part of our religious studies class (late 70s early 80s.) That seems the right place to discuss such religious beliefs as the Shroud being the burial Shroud of Jesus. To me it would seem strange to teach about the Shroud in a science class, what part of a science curriculum would you use it on? Chemistry to explain valances and why pigments stick?
Like I said before, you use it as an example of radiocarbon dating. Show what radiocarbon dating is, show why it is a reliable method of finding out how old organic matter is, then say "this is how we know the Shroud of Turin is a 14th century forgery".
__________________
Слава Україні
Героям слава
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 06:22 PM   #239
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 91,593
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
What do you do when the Christian students start lying about it?
Eugenie Scott, teaching science to college students who would not except things like evolution because it contradicted the Bible, started with a continuum from the most extreme literal Bible believer to Christians who accepted that science and the Bible could be compatible if the Bible had a lot of metaphors instead of literal accounts. She'd ask them to place where they were with their own beliefs on the continuum. Then she'd discuss how they might move toward accepting evolution given it wasn't completely antithetical to other Christian versions of Bible interpretations.

Sounded like a reasonable approach to the most resistant evolution deniers.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2022, 06:24 PM   #240
RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,487
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Like I said before, you use it as an example of radiocarbon dating. Show what radiocarbon dating is, show why it is a reliable method of finding out how old organic matter is, then say "this is how we know the Shroud of Turin is a 14th century forgery".
And that's the end of teaching evolution in school.

There are other examples.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.