RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Science Education, What students understand -< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
scase



Posts: 1
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2005,08:46   

Let me see if I understand this line of reasoning; “Rothschild asked Behe about the scientific community, which has largely denounced the idea of ID as science. The National Academy of Sciences, for instance, regards ID and its supernatural ideas as inaccurate and unfounded. Even the Lehigh University Biological Sciences faculty, where Behe is a professor, has stated that ID has “no basis in science.

Behe argued that scientists and scientific organizations misunderstand intelligent design. Not only is ID science, Behe claimed, it is also an appropriate scientific theory to introduce to students.”

So the leading scientific minds in the country misunderstand ID but your average 15 year old in general biology is going to figure it out?

  
Michael Balter



Posts: 1
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2005,19:43   

This news item in 25 Nov issue of Science, reporting on a paper by Steve Verhey in Nov issue of BioScience, suggests that using ID materials in the classroom can help open the minds of creationists to evolutionary arguments:

http://www.michaelbalter.com/Hominid....rsy.php

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4902
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2005,08:39   

As the discussion going on on PT concerning Verhey's article makes clear, there are two take-away messages:

1) This indicates that some further study may be useful in college students, not high-school students, as stated by the paper's author

and

2) The statistics are too weak to make any sweeping conclusions whatsoever. As Dr. Verhey noted, the paper's conclusion says, "Indeed, from a formal, statistical point of view, the results presented here are not generalizable beyond this case study." So, while Verhey's study may be "suggestive", it definitely does not establish that any radical change in pedagogy is to be preferred.

So about all that Verhey's study indicates is that it would probably be useful to conduct a larger-scale study of college students to figure out whether there really is an effect to be had. And that study could benefit from some more attention being paid to experimental design, with some prospective power analysis applied to set the needed number of students in the study in order to detect an effect. It does not establish that Verhey's approach is a pedagogical plus, and it says nothing about high school student instruction.

Beyond that, I'm personally uncomfortable with the notion of science instructors trying to cause a change in belief in students. The goal of instruction in evolutionary biology should be making students understand the concepts and grasp the evidential support for evolutionary biology, not to make a change in religious belief of students.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Dr.GH



Posts: 2137
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2005,19:55   

Well stated, Wes.  You have relieved some of my concern.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
  3 replies since Oct. 19 2005,08:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]