I was reading a post and the comments at Pharyngula, which is despairing at the new tactic of 'academic freedom' of the creationists.

Likewise, there's a survey at Richard Dawkins that shows that a large minority of teachers in Britain support the teaching of ID alongside evolution.

I think the inevitable has come: We need school curricula and textbooks that *directly* tackle creationism/ID, laying out the cold hard facts, as the trial in Dover did, and *requiring* the teaching that creationism/ID is not valid science in a mandatory biology course.

Yes, there will be an uproar, but we can finally use the creationists' own tactics against them. We will 'teach both sides', 'teach the controversy', and give the ID side 'academic freedom' to air its case. But we will do it in such a way that we follow the principles and methods of science, teaching kids exactly what the evidence is, why this evidence counts and that evidence doesn't. We will teach what the scientific consensus is and why. We will not teach both sides as if they were magically equal. We will teach both sides from the perspective of science.

We will have to teach kids what science is all about. I think it's inevitable at this stage. No more cramming facts in their heads. Teach the methods. Teach the principles.

Teach a whole semester on evolution vs. creationism/ID. Why not? It would lay a strong foundation for kids' understanding of evolution and science in general.

What he said.

When I did physics and chemistry in the last two years of high school, 25% of the final mark was determined by internal assessment. Students had to design experiments to investigate how various input variables produced output variables. The IA's were marked very harshly. Students had to follow correct methods to the letter. In other words, they would be marked down if any steps of their method (or control of variables) would corrupt the data. Students would then have to process and analyze their data and have to use the standard methods of error processing (accounting for imprecision and inaccuracy in the data) after actually carrying out the experiment. In other words, the student wasn't just happily following the instructions of the teacher of method, apparatus and so forth, but would have to create the experiment, and articulate how their data supported their thory. I hated IA's because they were marked so harshly, but they were very useful. Likewise, in the written exam, 40% of the mark was determined by data analysis and scientific reasoning. In other words, the questions would give students data and the students would have to process the data and then articulate why it supported a particular scientific conclusion. In a physics paper, for exam, a question on quantization of light and the photoelectric effect would require the student to take some given data and explain why it supported the Einstein-Planck model. A question on magnetization and Faraday's Law would usually require the student to use some indicated apparatus to construct (on paper) an experiment to demonstrate that the curl of an electric field is equal to the time derivative of flux linkage through a coil. Students would have to explain the relationship between scientific models and scientific data, and would have to create experiments to gather valid data in the exam.

...Actually, I had a slightly different idea.

The problem (IMHO) with private schools is that there tends to be, A) a stigma attached to them, and B) high user / administrator costs associated with them (well, up here, in any case). You can also get politically blackballed rather easily by things like teachers unions (again, in my neck of the woods) and lobbying groups.

Of course, as far as the public system is concerned, I've heard both sides for and against 'reforming' it... and, frankly, I don't think it can realistically be done at this point (I'm not even sure there's much to 'reform' it to to begin with).

If we can't seem to keep science in the classroom... well, why not bring it to the proverbial pulpit instead? That is to say, I have been very seriously considering setting-up a Church.

'Science is just some religion too!' 'Hm. Really? Well, I guess it is a sort-of belief system. Okay, you've convinced me; I should get a tax-free institute as well.'

The idea I have on paper seems like a good one to me (so far): start-off formal meetings with an excercize that will get people mobile and feeling good about themselves, have a speaker come-in to explain a scientific principle or (after that's been done) a particular theory or discovery (perhaps have recent peer-reviewed literature read/displayed, close with something fun and social.

Attendees would start associating feeling good with being skeptical and evaluating evidence (just as they do currently with 'taking things on faith'), and this would (perhaps/hopefully) have the effect of propagating the scientific method in the same way ridiculous mythologies are propagated.

I'd have to establish some form of curriculum structure, likely also include some form of assignment / examination structure (shouldn't actually be that tough to pass off as 'religious', though, seeing as Scientology does more or less just that. Hm, speaking of Scientology... it would be so nice to take that term back, I think...) and have to find-outif there would be enough interest from credentialed speakers to drop by an volunteer a day to do a lecture (I don't think this would be too much trouble, as long as I was able to get a good enough rotation going.

I hope to have things much more solidly hammered-out by the time I've gone to Korea and come back, assuming the world doesn't fall apart in the interim. I'll also have a somewhat more swollen bank account then, so I'll have more flexibility for doing things like getting facilities and decent advertising.