Charles Gilman wrote:
As I understand it pre-Darwin beliefs are to be covered for comparison to
show why Darwin's theory was an improvement.

Exactly so. There is a great benefit, IMNSVHO, in teaching sciences in
an historical manner. I do this when I teach astronomy; i.e. I start
with experiences of primal phenomena and develop it from there. It is
very much more preferable to show *why* and *how* modern ideas have
developed than to merely teach *what* they are. The latter has no
context and does not equip the pupils to evaluate competing ideas.

I go even further and assert that the teaching of the *what* only is
what has given the openings for pseudo-sciences like ID, creationism or
the sort of astrocrud one gets from the likes of Hancock, Bauval,
Flem-Ath, Jenkins, etc. to gain some sort of currency. The orthodox
ideas are just plonked down without a context, and this is cynically
exploited by the purveyors of pseudoscience, who cleverly create a
context for their drivel -- the context makes it more appealing.

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +