>>I don't think that young-earth arguments have the support required to
>>justify their inclusion in a science curriculum (I don't think that
>>_popular_ support is sufficient reason for inclusion). I'm also not
>>sure that YECs will appreciate the way in which the their arguments
>>might be presented or discussed. Instead, I think there are examples
>>of other competing scientific models for students to investigate which
>>are less religious-oriented and less likely to draw heated debate.
>
>Boy, Tim, if this standard were applied to the whole curriculum then
>the logical conclusion is that the "theory with the mostest" gets
>taught. I thought we left that attitude behind with the Middle Ages.
I have a Middle-Aged "attitude"? Hey, I'm still on the low side of
my thirties...
>I see nothing wrong with teaching students about new, emerging theories
YEC is comprised of "new, emerging theories"?
I see nothing wrong with presenting students with new, emerging
theories. But I also wouldn't want to spend much time on highly
questionable ones when I can find other, less controversial ones
that better illustrate a point. For example, in biology we've got
topics such as EM effects on living tissue, pollutants that mimic
sex hormones, prions, a whole host of epidemiological debates
& etc. from which to choose.
FWIW - Why not teach Rupert Sheldrake's theory of "causative formation"
and "morphic fields" or Roger Penrose's microtubule-mediated quantum
consciousness if we're just interested in "new" theories?
>and introducing them to the idea that unpopular theories will at times
>eventually prevail and that popular ones are often proven false, as in,
>per your example... Ptolemy vs. Copernicus
How about ones that were already overthrown by the majority of earth-
scientists by the 1800's? The notion of a young earth is anything
but new.
[...]
>Why not show students that evidence can often be contradictory
>(example: with different dating methods) or that it can contribute to
>different conclusions.
That can be done in almost any field. I see no reason why one
should focus on young-earth arguments except perhaps to engage
students in a titillating, if somewhat one-sided, controversy.
Based on my experience, though limited, I see no "emerging"
young-earth arguments.
>A discussion on young-earth vs. old-earth claims could accomplish
>this. This can still be done from a strictly scientific perspective.
...with religious overtones that would be almost impossible to mask.
FWIW - If one is interested in "controversies" about geological dating
methods, there are no doubt plenty of examples that could be presented
without having to go into young-earth "territory". So why go? I can
understand the appeal: If I had a pet theory that I particularly
liked and couldn't get into the mainstream, I would certainly try to
claim that my theory was being subjected to "unjustified repression".
Whether I could legitimately convince others of this "repression" is
another matter. What criteria would you use to justify free "air-time"
for a theory?
Regards, Tim Ikeda (timi@mendel.berkeley.edu)