Re: [asa] Teaching ID and teaching that Gobal Warming is not real

A problem in Britain is that Global Warming has been taught in primary schools (7-11yrs old) for many years. As I often go into schools as a governor I am horrified at the crass simplistic way it is taught often by teachers who don't know what it is all about .

The trouble is that basic science may not be taught as we seek to make science "relevant", especially for non-specialists and at lower levels.

However we do need to distinguish between real controversies and false ones which come up from the mantra "teach the controversy"

Michael
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Randy Isaac
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 12:34 AM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Teaching ID and teaching that Gobal Warming is not real

  Independent of the topic, the controversies that should be taught in a science class are those that are ongoing in the scientific literature. In active research fields where one or more theories are still competing for acceptance by those working in that field, then the controversy should be taught. When "evidences" in any field have not been vetted through the peer-review process and published in the technical literature, then it can be mentioned as such in order to help put those controveries in perspective. But in that case, it should not be "taught" as science.

  Randy
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: j burg
    To: asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:56 PM
    Subject: [asa] Teaching ID and teaching that Gobal Warming is not real

    There seems to be some similarities betweeen these two very different science teaching issues.

    If one opposes teaching the "evidences" of ID in a science class, should he also oppose teaching the "evidences " against global warming?

    What differentiates the two?

    Burgy

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jan 3 03:20:01 2008