Should Teachers be Allowed to Mock Creationism?

[jarofthoughts]

I'm a science teacher and living in Norway the question of Creationism is indeed a rare one, so I'm not so much asking for practical reasons as I am for reasons of principle.
And while I would not condone the ridicule of religion as such, seeing as Creationism/ID seems intent on imposing their 'theory' into science classes and comparing it to one of the best established sciences we have, is it reasonable to make fun of Creationism?

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Do you mean make fun as in heap scorn and ridicule in an immature way or do you mean treating it like a failed scientific theory with data and facts to show how improbable it is?

I think there's a right way and a wrong way to do everything. I would encourage any student that believes in ID to please present their evidence but be prepared to defend your hypothesis against established data.

 

[Skwim]

Creationists and their wretched offspring virtually beg to be ridiculed. That they don't recognize why is part and parcel of the mindset that propagates something like creationism: a mindless bigotry that renders them clueless.


EDITED TO ADD. I just now saw that the OP was about school teachers, and that my reply is off base. :slap:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think it's important to teach that things that are joke should be laughed at.

 

[Erebus]

I'm a science teacher and living in Norway the question of Creationism is indeed a rare one, so I'm not so much asking for practical reasons as I am for reasons of principle.
And while I would not condone the ridicule of religion as such, seeing as Creationism/ID seems intent on imposing their 'theory' into science classes and comparing it to one of the best established sciences we have, is it reasonable to make fun of Creationism?

As a science teacher you shouldn't be put in a situation where you feel you have to mock creationism IMO. If such a situation does come up, something simple like "Creationism is for religious discussion, not scientific discussion" should be enough to let people know where you stand, but without having to mock it (or indeed even discuss it).

 

[waitasec]

we all know if one ridicules something it only feeds the fire of ignorance.
i don't think a teacher should ridicule it...just present the evidence...and let it speak for itself.

 

[freethinker44]

we all know if one ridicules something it only feeds the fire of ignorance.
i don't think a teacher should ridicule it...just present the evidence...and let it speak for itself.

Agreed. These things tend to be self-ridiculing. Simply stating what we know as fact and comparing that to what creationists believe to be true should be more than enough to evoke laughter.

That said, it is hard to put forth ideas like creationism in any kind of intellectual forum without reducing it to ridicule or having it seem like it is being mocked. I'm reminded of Michael Behe being contradicted in court by his own testimony and work in biology.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Do you mean make fun as in heap scorn and ridicule in an immature way or do you mean treating it like a failed scientific theory with data and facts to show how improbable it is?

Well, my first inclination would probably be to show why it doesn't even met the criteria for being a hypothesis, let alone a proper Scientific Theory, and follow up with the fact that it is backed by absolutely no evidence.
However, considering that it is clearly intended as a (somewhat thoughtless) replacement of sorts of the extremely well founded Theory of Evolution, it is a rather silly proposition.
My question would then be if stating that it is silly and dumb would be over the line or not.

I think there's a right way and a wrong way to do everything. I would encourage any student that believes in ID to please present their evidence but be prepared to defend your hypothesis against established data.

A colleague of mine, when having a class about ToE, was asked about the existence of the Biblical Adam and Eve, to which he responded that the question would be better asked in a Religion class in which people's beliefs were dealt with, and that this was a Science in which we deal with things we know.

 

[Alceste]

I think it's important to ridicule creationism in general, but not in the classroom. A teacher is responsible for creating an environment that is conducive to the learning of ALL her students, individually and collectively. Alienating students who may hold ridiculous beliefs due to early religious indoctrination does not serve that goal. Their parents are to blame - not the kids. There's nothing to be gained by embarrassing them.

Granted, once they get to college, all bets are off. Ridicule away.

 

[jarofthoughts]

As a science teacher you shouldn't be put in a situation where you feel you have to mock creationism IMO.

Well, I already bring up things like Astrology and Witchcraft as examples of the silly things that unscientific people lend their time to, and this seems to bring little in the way of controversy.
The question is if it is reasonable to put Creationism in the same category.

If such a situation does come up, something simple like "Creationism is for religious discussion, not scientific discussion" should be enough to let people know where you stand, but without having to mock it (or indeed even discuss it).

The problem with that is that the Creationists themselves insist that it is a scientific proposition under the banner of Intelligent Design.

 

[Oneatatime]

I'm a science teacher and living in Norway the question of Creationism is indeed a rare one, so I'm not so much asking for practical reasons as I am for reasons of principle.
And while I would not condone the ridicule of religion as such, seeing as Creationism/ID seems intent on imposing their 'theory' into science classes and comparing it to one of the best established sciences we have, is it reasonable to make fun of Creationism?

In the classroom I don't think it would be appropriate to mock creationism/ID. Not because these are ideas deserving of respect becase they are not but rather because students need to learn to accept/reject ideas on the basis of their validity rather than because they are venerated or mocked.

Resorting to mockery can also give the impression that you're not entirely confident of your arguement against something. It's easy enough to dismantle the arguements for creationism/ID without resorting to ridicule and mockery.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think it's important to ridicule creationism in general, but not in the classroom. A teacher is responsible for creating an environment that is conducive to the learning of ALL her students, individually and collectively. Alienating students who may hold ridiculous beliefs due to early religious indoctrination does not serve that goal. Their parents are to blame - not the kids. There's nothing to be gained by embarrassing them.

I agree that alienating one's students should be avoided if possible, but it is sometimes hard, even when treading lightly, to correct them without stepping on someone's toes.
I have myself (in addition to my colleague mentioned above) gotten the question about Adam and Eve, and I have, as politely as I could, explained that the evidence does not support that idea and that we, in fact, have tons of evidence speaking against there ever being such a pair as they are described in scripture.

 

[Revoltingest]

Public school teachers mocking creationism would violate the 1st Amendment IMO.
(There's no need anyway....creationism is self-mocking.)
But were they able to teach it as science, then it would become fair game for ridicule.

 

[jarofthoughts]

In the classroom I don't think it would be appropriate to mock creationism/ID. Not because these are ideas deserving of respect becase they are not but rather because students need to learn to accept/reject ideas on the basis of their validity rather than because they are venerated or mocked.

Resorting to mockery can also give the impression that you're not entirely confident of your arguement against something. It's easy enough to dismantle the arguements for creationism/ID without resorting to ridicule and mockery.

That is a very good point.
While I am not sure my principal would agree, as she feels religious issues are best avoided even though that is not always possible, if brought up by a student Creationism might actually make a good case study for the higher classes.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Public school teachers mocking creationism would violate the 1st Amendment IMO.
(There's no need anyway....creationism is self-mocking.)
But were they able to teach it as science, then it would become fair game for ridicule.

I think at some point the Creationists/ID-proponents need to make up their mind about whether they consider this to be science or religion.
They can't have it both ways.
It seems though that the courts have made up their mind on the matter at least.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think at some point the Creationists/ID-proponents need to make up their mind about whether they consider this to be science or religion.
They can't have it both ways.

But watch them try.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Teachers should mock creationism as much as they mock Lamarckian evolution or geocentrism or spontaneous generation, which is to say they should not mock at all.

 

[Oneatatime]

That is a very good point.
While I am not sure my principal would agree, as she feels religious issues are best avoided even though that is not always possible, if brought up by a student Creationism might actually make a good case study for the higher classes.

If it wasn't for the persistance of the creationist/ID movement there there would little reason why creationism/ID couldn't be used as tools for the teaching of how new ideas supported by evidence are overturn previously held ideas. Unfortunatley the current political situation regarding this makes it a less than ideal tool because it's also an example of where an overturned idea persisted far past the point where it should have been dismissed as a valid alternative. Nobody still clings ot the plum pudding model of the atom and I remember being taught how the results of experiments overturned this model in favour of the current one.

Then again it might be educational to instruct children in the influence which politics and religion can have on science and the public understanding of science.

 

[blackout]

Public school teachers mocking creationism would violate the 1st Amendment IMO.
(There's no need anyway....creationism is self-mocking.)
But were they able to teach it as science, then it would become fair game for ridicule.

Mocking witchcraft should also violate the 1st Amendment.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mocking witchcraft should also violate the 1st Amendment.

Sounds fair to me!