David Attenborough joins campaign

[Setton]

Setton basically you are saying that creationism is used as an example on how to NOT do science, is that correct?

More as an example of how people once approached science and how it has changed along with how it has been disproved. But basically, yes.

[aquatus1]

I would agree, with the caveat that it be done in college, in the advanced courses, where they are learning about the fine details of how scientific methodology works. Not in grade schools, where kids have enough to absorb as it is.

[questionmark]

I'm doing a Masters in Geoscience at Durham University. We were taught about it last year in order to, as I have repeatedly said, demonstrate the scientific process and the changing nature of science. That good enough for you?

Could it be that you are talking about a diamond specialist called Graham Pearson? Reading Dating and paragenetic distinction of diamonds using the Re-Os isotope system: application to some Siberian diamonds pretty much either denies Young Earth or he must have changed his opinion after getting an award for it. I can't see him"teaching"Young Earth theories

Or is it because Andrew Snelling cites him in some work that you thought he could make a good "expert witness" without being asked? Because I have failed so far to find a single publication by Pearson that could lead to the conclusion that he either advocates or considers Snelling's work sound, I believe that the sentence "Snelling is the first and hopefully the last editor of the Answers Scientific Journal" was from him. Doubtful he would "teach" Young Earth Creationism at Durham. (but he might have sneered a little about it in a lecture... which you then considered "teaching").

Edited September 28, 2011 by questionmark

[Setton]

Could it be that you are talking about a diamond specialist called Graham Pearson? Reading Dating and paragenetic distinction of diamonds using the Re-Os isotope system: application to some Siberian diamonds pretty much either denies Young Earth or he must have changed his opinion after getting an award for it. I can't see him"teaching"Young Earth theories

Or is it because Andrew Snelling cites him in some work that you thought he could make a good "expert witness" without being asked? Because I have failed so far to find a single publication by Pearson that could lead to the conclusion that he either advocates or considers Snelling's work sound, I believe that the sentence "Snelling is the first and hopefully the last editor of the Answers Scientific Journal" was from him. Doubtful he would "teach" Young Earth Creationism at Durham. (but he might have sneered a little about it in a lecture... which you then considered "teaching").

In a word, no. The lecture was delivered by Professor Jon Davison our former head of department.

So seeing as you've wasted your time and mine by assuming you know my lecturers better than me, you won't have found anything.

EDIT: Can you link that article? It's not listed among his publications on the uni site.

I would agree, with the caveat that it be done in college, in the advanced courses, where they are learning about the fine details of how scientific methodology works. Not in grade schools, where kids have enough to absorb as it is.

Depends what you mean by college. To me, that means age 16-18 and that's when I first covered it but I know college to some people is what I'd call uni. Either way, it needs to be at some kind of advanced level so people don't get confused and think the teacher is endorsing or supporting the theories.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Setton

[aquatus1]

Depends what you mean by college. To me, that means age 16-18 and that's when I first covered it but I know college to some people is what I'd call uni. Either way, it needs to be at some kind of advanced level so people don't get confused and think the teacher is endorsing or supporting the theories.

Right, it would be University over there (18 and above). Too many people confuse the familiarization (and too often, rote memorization) they learn in the lower levels to be the actual body of science.

I tend to think of it like a black belt. Many people think it is the final goal of training. In reality, it signifies that you are ready to start learning the important things.

This problem crops up a great deal on this site. Too many people believing that what they learned when they were in their early teens is all there is too know about a given scientific field.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Arguably, if we allow Creationism into science, even as a "and this is how not to do science" this is a "win" for the numpties who think it's a good idea. They'll then go onto trying to force more and more of their ideology into education. Christ, I've just made a "slippery slope" argument, I feel dirty

[aquatus1]

Arguably, if we allow Creationism into science, even as a "and this is how not to do science" this is a "win" for the numpties who think it's a good idea. They'll then go onto trying to force more and more of their ideology into education. Christ, I've just made a "slippery slope" argument, I feel dirty

This is precisely why it should never be allowed into the lower grades. You have to have a certain level of intellectual maturity to be able to deal with.

To go back to my martial arts example, an not uncommon phenomena is for a beginner student to immediately begin questioning every aspect of a given technique he is being shown.

"What if the bad guy does this? What if he does that? What if he does another thing?"

The amateur student does not understand that any given technique is not a complete fighting system in and of itself. It needs to be used in a proper context in order to be effective. Nor is he being taught the entirety of a given technique. Chances are the student is simply being given the rough outline, so that he may have a foundation upon which to continue refining his technique.

The same happens in...well, pretty much any other field, but in this case, science. Students who are overwhelmed with choices, in a misguided effort to come to a firm decision on something, begins questioning not with the purpose of learning, but with the purpose of finding a weakness. The student does not know enough to determine how strong something is, but they can subjectively decide if it can be made weaker. Having found what they believe to be a weakness (as opposed to simple ignorance of the field on their part), they decide to put their faith in a different explanation that has not demonstrated a weakness. Unfortunately, at the amateur level, presentation holds more credibility than validation.

A student who has made it to the black belt, or to the university, is going to be in a better position to evaluate a given idea. They are less likely to fall prey to the subjective traps that their less experienced counterparts encounter due to their lack of experience. That is why, at the university level, it is safer to use examples like creationism, than at the grade school level. Similarly, one generally does not hand a new student a sword until they have shown themselves capable of making good decisions.