I think that there is some confusion developing early in this
discussion, I may or may not have contributed, but to keep us on the
right track I believe that Loren's original post simply dealt with
teaching origins in science classes in schools.
thus..
> 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.
strays from the original intent... what to present regarding origins
and how to present it. Besides, the teaching of origins by its very
nature is controversial.
>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.
Agreed, but neither is the notion of an old-earth.
>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.
Perhaps you missed my point. In fact, I explicitly called for a
disussion on how evidence can result in different or conflicting
conclusions, not to focus on young-earth arguments, or engage in
"titillating, if somewhat one-sided, controversy". I doubt that the
argument would be one-sided in favor of a young-earth.
I said..
>> I see nothing wrong with teaching students about new, emerging 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
You have assumed I implied only young-earth theories but this idea can
apply to others as well.
>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?
Simply because they are there and represent the antithesis of the
old-earth picture that is usually the only one painted in schools.
The teaching of origins should be complete and comprehensive, or it
smacks of indoctrination and not education. It should include...
- free and open presentation and discussion on the wide range of
theories in the scientific community regarding origins
- a thorough discussion on the modern scientific method and how it has
evolved throughout history
- discuss the historic development of the various theories and the
philosophical bases that contributed to them
- integrate the teaching with other disciplines, such as mathematics,
history, philosophy, etc..
As a result the educational process is not merely the presentation of
information but contributes to meaning and understanding.
The subject of origins speaks to the heart and soul of man, of his
destiny and of his beginnings. It must be relevant to the student to
have worth. Yes, this will be controversial, and yes, inevitably lead
to questions of religion and faith. It deserves nothing short of a
complete presentation. Anything less paints only an incomplete picture.
Thus, I can find no reason why one would want to simply dismiss
out-of-hand a presentation or discussion on young-earth evidence .
>I have a Middle-Aged "attitude"? Hey, I'm still on the low side of
>my thirties...
I am 40 and perhaps am developing one! :-)
Stay young if you can,
Paul Durham