John:
>""Science studies natural phenomena by formulating explanations that can
>be tested against the natural world. Some scientific concepts and
>theories (e.g., blood transfusion, human sexuality, nervous system role
>in consciousness, cosmological and biological evolution, etc.) may differ
>from the teachings of a student's religious community or their cultural
>beliefs. Compelling student belief is inconsistent with the goal of
>education. Nothing in science or in any other field shall be taught
>dogmatically."
>
>I both applaud and view with alarm those last two sentences.
>Understanding how they came to be, and what they are trying to guard
>against, they seem far too strong. Surely we wish to teach our
>youngsters that gravity works, so don't jump off the roof; that drugs can
>kill, so "just say no." Surely we do not wish to teach science in such a
>way that "this is the best explanation for X, but if you want to believe
>in a different explanation, that's OK for your beliefs are just as valid
>(to you) as others' beliefs are to them."
Welcome to the real world! If those qualifying statements were not
included in the standards, it would not have been approved. Saying this, I
also agree with the intent of those words. Teaching science is not about
compelling belief, it is always about introducing students to a way of
learning about the world around us, and demonstrating the observation basis
for our current theorectical understanding.
Keith
Keith B. Miller
Department of Geology
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS 66506
kbmill@ksu.edu
http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 17 2001 - 15:35:10 EST