Three Why's
Religion and Science in School 1
Datos Bibliográficos
| ID | 8924601 |
|---|---|
| Autores | John F Covaleskie (University of Oklahoma, autor de correspondencia) |
| Año | 2008 |
| Volumen | 43 |
| Número | 1 |
| Páginas | 7-16 |
| Fecha de publicación | 2008-01-21 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sí |
| Open Access | No |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Revista | Educational Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores de la revista | ISSN: 0013-1946 • E-ISSN: 1532-6993 |
| Editorial | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/00131940701795170 |
| OpenAlex | W2071113782 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citas recibidas | 1 |
| Referencias citadas | 1 |
In this article, I argue the proposition that educators ought to be including a serious consideration of intelligent design as a counterexample to the scientific explanations of human origins. The article first distinguishes between three different ways people ask “why”: the Scientific Why, the Ultimate Why, and the Teleological Why. Although science answers the first Why with a high degree of confidence, it does not answer the second or third Why at all. An exclusive focus on questions with empirical answers reduces the education experience, eliminating much of value from it, especially a sense of wonder at unanswerable questions
Counterexample · Epistemology · Focus (optics · Physics · Proposition · Sociology · Teleology · Value (mathematics · Wonder · Education and Critical Thinking Development · Evolution and Science Education · Mathematics · Philosophy · Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
| Obras citantes distintas | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citas por año | 0,11 |
| Intervalo de citas | 2017 - 2017 (1) |
| Velocidad de citación | historical |
| Altamente citado | No |
| Tipos de cita | Neutras: 1 |