Should Teachers be Allowed to Mock Creationism?

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am sure that teachers should avoid mockery.
I think if brought up by a student, It should be pointed out quite firmly "that this is not a religious lesson and that they could come to see you, or an appropriate teacher, after class If they would like to discuss such things privately."

 

[Alceste]

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.

Well, it being a science class, that's a reasonable answer. "There's no empirical evidence such a pair ever existed and no end to the empirical evidence that they did not," and cite a few examples. Mockery would go beyond that - "People who believe that are morons, let's all have a laugh at their expense".

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and you may be your religiously indoctrinated students' last chance to learn to think critically.

 

[Erebus]

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.



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

Not at all. Witchcraft and Astrology can at least be discussed in terms of psychology, placebo and pattern recognition. Creationism falls more under indoctrination.

Like I say, it doesn't need to be mocked instead the fact that it is not scientific needs to be reinforced. IMO a refusal to discuss it in a science class reinforces this.

 

[sojourner]

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 scientific explanation? Yes.

 

[Scott C.]

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?

Your question and comments fascinate me. By "Creationism", do you mean simply "the belief that God created the world" or do you mean something more specific, as in "God created the world in six literal 24 hour periods."

I've heard that many folks in Europe don't believe in God. In Norway, is it really unusual to have a student that believes that God created the earth? That is incredibly hard for me to believe and so far from my way of thinking. Do a majority of people in Norway believe that it's laughable to believe that God created the world?

About 80% of Americans believe in a "Higher Power". How that correlates with a belief that that Higher Power created the universe is not clear. These 80% come from all cross sections of society, rich, poor, well educated, under educated, etc. Anyone who mocks that someone else believes that God created the world may not be as intelligent as they suppose.

There is no contradiction between true religion and true science. I can't conceive that science has or ever will prove that there is no God. A science teacher can and should present all scientific findings, facts, and theories regarding the origin of man and the universe. If such information contradicts ones religious views, the science teacher presses forward anyway. We can't hinder scientific research if we discover something that appears to contradict our spirtual views of reality. In due time all things will be understood and reconciled.

I hold to the firm belief that God created the world. Let science teachers teach science and never pretend in class that science disproves the creations of God. Quite to the contrary, it demonstartes the intelligence and majesty of God. And let no religious person sweep science under the rug in class because they think it contradicsts their religious views. Either approach strikes me as narrow minded and arrogant.

 

[lunamoth]

I would hope that a teacher would have more consideration for his students, and better diplomacy than to mock a student's beliefs. I agree with the many posters above who suggested that it could be put into the context of the scientific method to show that it is not a testable hypothesis. The colleague who said Adam and Eve is a topic for a different class, non-science, handled it just fine.

In the recent case in CA, while I think that the teacher should have the protected right to address the non- credibility of creationism from a scientific perspective, his word choice was poor, even offensive. He must have been caught off- guard. Today science teachers should be thinking ahead about how they will handle this topic when a student brings it up. We even see it in college level courses. Sigh.

 

[linwood]

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?

Reasonable?

It`s mandatory for me.

I have no problem with anyone mocking creationism anytime anywhere any more than I have a problem with people mocking a belief in Bigfoot.

Some things invite derision buy their very existence.

 

[outhouse]

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?

YES!!!!

trash it. it is primitive and barbaric thinking to place a clear myth before valid science.

 

[darkendless]

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?

If you do it constructively yes. Pointing out the flaws would show kids a lot if you compare it to evolution.

I would make fun of creationism in that its a story and not a very creative one at that and demonstrate why it is of little use to a logical mind.

 

[Father Heathen]

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?

I think it's very important for science teachers to explain to students why such claims are unscientific, but in a professional, objective and academic manner.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well, it being a science class, that's a reasonable answer. "There's no empirical evidence such a pair ever existed and no end to the empirical evidence that they did not," and cite a few examples. Mockery would go beyond that - "People who believe that are morons, let's all have a laugh at their expense".

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, and you may be your religiously indoctrinated students' last chance to learn to think critically.

I don't believe in calling my students morons, but I don't mind pointing out that their views on certain matters are wrong (in fact, it's part of my job), and the 'special creation' concepts of Creationism and the 'irreducible complexity' theme of ID are, evidentially, wrong.
Thus far, in the rare cases where a question like this has come up, I have taken the academic path and explained the evidence and what it means. I encourage discussion and questions in my classes and direct mockery of a student would be highly counter-productive to that goal.
However, and this is important, I also teach the students to separate between ideas and the people holding those ideas. While people should receive at least some measure of respect, we should have no such qualms about ideas as they must stand or fall on their own merit, and in this context I have often used, say, Astrology as an example.

 

[Scott C.]

Can somebody explain to me what scientific evidence suggests that God did not create the world? Such seems to be a recurring theme of some of the posts here. I would agree that we can't use science to prove that there IS a God. So, if you are unwilling to believe in something that can't be proven in the laboratory, that's fine with me. But, in what way can science possibly demonstrate that God did not create the universe? That's impossible to prove.

 

[ChristineES]

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?

No, I don't think they should ridicule anything. I mean, they don't have to teach it, but making fun of it will only alienate some of his/her students. A teacher's job is to teach, and that is what they should do, and keep their own opinions to themselves and when they are among their peers (and teachers who are creationists should do the same- keep their opinions to themselves).

 

[pwfaith]

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 a student/teacher setting, absolutely not. It would be very unprofessional, imo. An intellectual discussion, esp if we are talking about older kids, is not mocking or making fun. But to mock and humiliate a student for their personal beliefs - whether you personally believe they belong in the realms of science or not - would be quite unprofessional. On your own time, mock away.

 

[outhouse]

Can somebody explain to me what scientific evidence suggests that God did not create the world? Such seems to be a recurring theme of some of the posts here. I would agree that we can't use science to prove that there IS a God. So, if you are unwilling to believe in something that can't be proven in the laboratory, that's fine with me. But, in what way can science possibly demonstrate that God did not create the universe? That's impossible to prove.

100 short years ago it was thought god created man, now that myth has pushed back god as only a possibility of a creator of the universe. this is only because we dont know and have a gap in our knowledge.

You dont need science to prove god did not create the world, you need history to understand how man creates deities and then attributes how much they did, based on what they didnt know.

 

[Firstborner]

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).

Creationism is science with a differing philosophical basis. It should not be neglected in favor of a differing philosophy. Religion and Creationism are not the same thing.

 

[Riverwolf]

Teachers should really avoid making fun of anything in potentially degrading ways, on the off-chance that it could seriously offend a student.

 

[Skwim]

Creationism is science with a differing philosophical basis.

What is the "differing philosophical basis" of this science?

It should not be neglected in favor of a differing philosophy.

I agree. If one is talking about the philosophy of science I think it would be instructive, or at least interesting, to look at creationist philosophy as well.

Religion and Creationism are not the same thing.

Just as astronomy and the zodiac aren't the same thing.

 

[outhouse]

. It should not be neglected in favor of a differing philosophy. .

why not? I find it primitive and barbaric thinking.

one has to discount known valid science and replace that with a known myth.

Creationism is science with a differing philosophical basis

it is not science in any way shape or form.

Religion and Creationism are not the same thing

nope they are not.

but religion created creationism

 

[darkendless]

Teachers should really avoid making fun of anything in potentially degrading ways, on the off-chance that it could seriously offend a student.

But how easy is it to offend people these days. I mean seriously speaking, some people just cannot take any kind of criticism. If we are that worried, no debates can happen in the classroom and kids learn empiricism and are not taught to be critically minded.

The use of potentially degrading in this sense is a problem. Wouldn't it mean teaching creationism and then evolution to ensure a "fair go" for superstitious and unsubstantiated beliefs in the sense of "not being offensive?