Teaching evolutionary theory
Dave Smith
seems to me to be a valuable development:
A birthday present for Darwin
The teaching of evolution in primary schools will be an important
defence against the ignorance of intelligent design
Andrew Copson
guardian.co.uk, Monday 9 November 2009
It's a great birthday present for Darwin in his 200th anniversary
year. For the first time, evolution will be on the national curriculum
for primary schools when the new version is published later this year.
It was initially excluded from the draft curriculum when it was
published for public consultation but sometimes, if not always, it
seems government will listen to scientists and experts, many of whom
were signatories to an open letter (pdf) to Ed Balls organised by the
British Humanist Association in July which called for evolution to be
included.
Those who care about public reason are routinely shocked by opinion
polls and surveys showing high levels of credence given to the idea of
intelligent design. The most recent poll purported to demonstrate that
a majority of Britons think that it should be taught alongside
evolution in schools.
To solve this problem, we have to know what causes it and there are
two reasons why you might prefer the idea of intelligent design to
that of evolution. You may do so because your prior ideological
convictions, mostly to do with religious belief, simply don't allow
you to accept the evidence that is presented to you. Or you may do so
because you genuinely do not know of the evidence for evolution, have
never had it explained to you, or because you just don't understand
it. In a society as decreasingly religious as England, it is
impossible to believe that most of the people who do not accept
evolution are motivated by ideology rather than ignorance. This means
that the best way to solve the problem is through better education and
that is what makes the inclusion of evolution in the science
curriculum as early as possible so important.
It's true that evolution can seem a difficult concept and that most
resources on evolution are targeted towards pupils at secondary
schools. But the wealth of new works published in this celebratory
year for very young children, from What Mr Darwin Saw to Evolution
Revolution or even older works like How Whales Walked into the Sea or
Mammals Who Morph demonstrate that it is a subject easily made
enjoyable and comprehensible by young children. This is a good thing,
because as evolution is arguably the most important concept underlying
the life sciences, providing children with an understanding of it at
the earliest possible age will surely help lay the foundations for a
surer scientific understanding later on.
We must certainly hope so, because even if ignorance rather than
religious ideology is the principal cause of the low levels of
acceptance of evolution in our country, there are still other factors
working against a better public understanding of evolution –
especially amongst the young. These factors are legion but at least
two are very relevant to the case for introducing evolution to young
children especially. The first is the profundity of the natural
cognitive biases – such as our human propensity to look for design and
purpose – that hinder the acceptance of evolution; obviously these are
best countered as early as possible in a child's education. The second
is the fact, so brilliantly elucidated by science educator James
Williams that young children are bombarded with creationist messages
in much of popular culture, which are insidious and confusing.
The new primary curriculum, together with the 2007 government guidance
that prohibits the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in
science lessons, should put English schools in the forefront of
education about evolution. Coming in the month which marks the 150th
anniversary of On the Origin of Species, and at a point when good
science education is a matter of urgency, it could not be more timely.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/09/evolution-primary-schools-science
Peter Brooks
>
> To solve this problem, we have to know what causes it and there are
> two reasons why you might prefer the idea of intelligent design to
> that of evolution. You may do so because your prior ideological
> convictions, mostly to do with religious belief, simply don't allow
> you to accept the evidence that is presented to you. Or you may do so
> because you genuinely do not know of the evidence for evolution, have
> never had it explained to you, or because you just don't understand
> it. In a society as decreasingly religious as England, it is
> impossible to believe that most of the people who do not accept
> evolution are motivated by ideology rather than ignorance. This means
> that the best way to solve the problem is through better education and
> that is what makes the inclusion of evolution in the science
> curriculum as early as possible so important.
>
piss off the egg-heads they were envious of at school.
Lance
I wonder if school is very different today from what it was when I was
at school. Mostly the subjects I was taught were turned into dross by
boring teachers and dull assignments. If this is still the case I'm
not sure that putting Darwin in the schools is such a good idea...
Lance
Peter Brooks
>
>
> I wonder if school is very different today from what it was when I was
> at school. Mostly the subjects I was taught were turned into dross by
> boring teachers and dull assignments. If this is still the case I'm
> not sure that putting Darwin in the schools is such a good idea...
>
history of the Great Trek.
This was, in my case, particularly evident with geography teachers.
Geography is a hodge-podge of different subjects loosely linked
together, but each one, in itself, has many interesting things about
it. My recollection of the lessons, though, was that they mainly
concerned themselves with the world distribution of jute growing.
Amazing, since the world is such a fascinating place!
It's true, too, as we've discovered in discussion here, that evolution
is surprisingly subtle, albeit that it appears so simple on the
surface. Without the subtlety of explanation [that, for example,
Dawkins' 'Climbing mount improbable' and 'The Selfish Gene' explore so
well] it is easy for it to appear only to be a post hoc facto set of
just-so stories.
Also, just as it all seems nicely tied up, you have something, like
horizontal transfer of genes, that seems, to be able to blow it wide-
open again.
Dave Smith
>
> - Show quoted text -
An argument for not teaching anything!
Dave Smith
Lance
True enough. But quite often poor teaching does ruin interesting
subjects for children.
Lance
Dave Smith
Why "claim to" ? 'Magical thinking' is common. Don't you consciously
resist it, sometimes?
Dave Smith
Peter Brooks
>
>
> > An alternative is that those who claim to believe in magic do so to
> > piss off the egg-heads they were envious of at school.
>
> Why "claim to" ? 'Magical thinking' is common. Don't you consciously
> resist it, sometimes?
>
sometimes consciously entertain it. This is different, though, from
believing in magic.
Sod's law is, I think, a good example of magical thinking, and is an
amusing, and amusingly titled version, I don't think many people
actually believe in it - after all, it contains its own contradiction.
What I meant, though, in my original remark, was that people who were
not believers in magic particularly, might claim to be in order to
skew the survey in the hope of being annoying. It's unlikely, though,
that such people would have such a impulse to be perverse in the first
place.
Mark....@bristol.ac.uk
: On Nov 11, 12:09?pm, Dave Smith <da...@dsmith60.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
:> On 10 Nov, 22:10, Lance <lanceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:>
:> > > Allow competitiion between ideas and see which are the fittest? ? This
:> > > especially amongst the young. These factors are legion but at least
:> > > two are very relevant to the case for introducing evolution to young
:> > > children especially. The first is the profundity of the natural
:> > > purpose ? that hinder the acceptance of evolution; obviously these are
:> > > best countered as early as possible in a child's education. The second
:> > > is the fact, so brilliantly elucidated by science educator James
:> > > Williams that young children are bombarded with creationist messages
:> > > in much of popular culture, which are insidious and confusing.
:>
:> > > The new primary curriculum, together with the 2007 government guidance
:> > > that prohibits the teaching of creationism and intelligent design in
:> > > science lessons, should put English schools in the forefront of
:> > > education about evolution. Coming in the month which marks the 150th
:> > > anniversary of On the Origin of Species, and at a point when good
:> > > science education is a matter of urgency, it could not be more timely.
:>
:> > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/09/evolution-...
:>
:> > I wonder if school is very different today from what it was when I was
:> > at school. Mostly the subjects I was taught were turned into dross by
:> > boring teachers and dull assignments. If this is still the case I'm
:> > not sure that putting Darwin in the schools is such a good idea...
:>
:> > Lance- Hide quoted text -
:>
:> > - Show quoted text -
:>
:> An argument for not teaching anything!
:>
:> Dave Smith
: True enough. But quite often poor teaching does ruin interesting
: subjects for children.
: Lance
I wonder if anyone teaches about cropping posts any more!...
Mark
--
Dave Smith
Peter Brooks
> ?
That'd be a 'no', then, in your case.
In mine too, as it happens. It seems to be a photographic term, but I
haven't my new OED to check.
Ian Smith
>
> It's true, too, as we've discovered in discussion here, that evolution
> is surprisingly subtle, albeit that it appears so simple on the
> surface.
Which makes it all the more surprising that Creationists just don't
seem to get it!
regards, Ian
Lance
> ?
I think he means I should have deleted the earlier messages before
replying!
Lance
Lance
An example might help. I once, at an airport bookstand, found a copy
of Manzoni's 'Il promesi sposi' which I read on the air trip I was
taking and thoroughly enjoyed. I mentioned it to an Italian friend who
then told me that that book was prescribed every year in the
equivalent of a matriculation exam in Italy and that most Italians
therefore hated it. So there is a good book destroyed through being
taught at school!
Lance
Peter Brooks
(aka The Great Chicken Run) but I really, really don't want to know
anything more about it - for exactly the same reasons.
Dave Smith
Yes, people can be put off particular subjects by poor teaching,
cramming for exams, etc., but it doesn't necessarily follow that such
subjects should therefore be dropped from the curriculum. As I
remarked earlier, any topic could be excluded on such grounds. It
seems to me it is better to seek to improve education rather than to
abandon it! It should be possible to interest many primary school
children in some basic ideas about evolution, and it is an important
topic. Here's an extract from the letter that advocated the change:
"We find it extraordinary that evolution and natural selection find no
place in the section ‘Science
– life and living things’ (page 6). The theory of evolution is one of
the most important ideas
underlying biological science. It is a key concept that children
should be introduced to at an early
stage so as to ensure a firmer scientific understanding when they
study it in more detail later on.
The wealth of new resources on evolution available for children of
primary school age clearly
demonstrates their ability to grasp its central concepts. We consider
its inclusion vital."
Dave Smith
graham
"Lance" <lanc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:95b26ad2-e3ec-499f...@t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
__________________________
I understand that the French feel the same way about Les Miz.