Should Teachers be Allowed to Mock Creationism?

[fantome profane]

The thread is about whether science teachers should mock "Creationism". Creationism is the belief that deity created the universe/world. Many of these posts riducule creationism and imply that science disproves such. I'm not sure how my posts have deviated from that subject.

The problem here is one of definition. You need to understand that what the term creationism means to most people is not “the belief that deity created the universe/world”. That is not what the word means and that is not what the op is talking about mocking. What we are talking about here when we use the term creationism is the kind of pseudo-scientific garbage that you can find at sites like AIG.


This is why I said in my first post in this thread that it is important to delineate clearly. I don’t think the belief in a creator should be mock, even if you don’t agree with it. And it certainly should not be mocked in a classroom. Pseudo-science however should be mocked.


I don’t want to start a debate about definitions and semantics, those debates bore me. But I hope you understand the distinction that is being made here.

That's not what I'm doing. My belief in God/creation comes independently of scientific research. Science neither proves nor disproves Creationism.

It is true that science neither proves nor disproves “God” or anything supernatural. But science does clearly show the extreme absurdity of the kind of nonsense that often shows up under the label of “creationism”. Which again is not just “the belief that deity created the universe”.

If you believe that God instantaneously created the world/universe/man in their current form, and out of nothing, and this all happended 6000 years ago, science may cause you grief.

That is what we are talking about, not just the belief that the universe is 6000 but the lies and deceptions that are perpetrated by “creationists” to pretend that these ideas are scientifically valid.

But if you believe that God created the world and science helps us to understand the process better, then science is your friend.

Wonderful. To me the greatest crime of “creationism” is that it deceives some religious people into believing that they must reject science and robs them of understanding the wonders of the natural world.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I agree with the majority here that mockery can indeed backfire and be counter-productive, and while it may seem like a cop-out to not use it as an example of pseudo-science, I think that as teachers we need to keep in mind that alienating our pupils is to be avoided if at all possible.
Depending on the age and educational level, robust discussions are of course welcome and can be very useful when developing reasoning skills and when learning what does and does not constitute a valid argument. I use class discussions a lot myself, but I am usually careful when selecting the topic of the day.
However, it is also important to present the facts as accurately as possible, all the while considering the level of understanding of your pupils, and for this purpose I use the following rule of thumb: If they are old enough to ask the question, then they are old enough to hear the answer.
Working as I am at a multicultural school I sometimes do get questions that relate somewhat to the pupils' native culture and religion, and when this happens I do have to consider the balance between presenting the facts accurately and not offending anyone unduly, but my main focus is always on educating my pupils, and thus the facts are more important.
I've gotten questions like the Adam and Eve question mentioned above (the evidence does not support the scriptural story and in fact speak against it) and I've also gotten questions about things like angels and demons (there is no evidence, and thus no scientific reason to think there are such beings).
Mockery, like irony and sarcasm, while powerful tools, must be used sparingly, if at all, and only in situations where you know what the reaction of your pupils will be.
And that's my current take on the matter.

 

[Skwim]

The thread is about whether science teachers should mock "Creationism". Creationism is the belief that deity created the universe/world. Many of these posts riducule creationism and imply that science disproves such. I'm not sure how my posts have deviated from that subject.

No. Creationism is the religious based assertion that god created each form of life on earth as it is, or with relatively little change; and that species do not evolve into other species. Evolution, creationism's arch enemy, deals only with change in organisms, and says nothing about the creation of the universe/world or life, so it has no argument with creationism's belief that "deity created the universe/world." God has no place in the crux of the dispute between creationism and evolution, in fact, many theists are evolutionists who despise creationism.

 

[darkendless]

No. Creationism is the religious based assertion that god created each form of life on earth as it is, or with relatively little change; and that species do not evolve into other species. Evolution, creationism's arch enemy, deals only with change in organisms, and says nothing about the creation of the universe/world or life, so it has no argument with creationism's belief that "deity created the universe/world." God has no place in the crux of the dispute between creationism and evolution, in fact, many theists are evolutionists who despise creationism.

In that case creationism should be mocked daily and outlawed for its stupidity and irrelevance to learning.

 

[Scott C.]

The problem here is one of definition. You need to understand that what the term creationism means to most people is not “the belief that deity created the universe/world”.

I pretty much agree with your comments. In my first post I asked:

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 don't think there was a response so I proceeded under the definition of "there is a divine creator" rather than something more specific.

 

[Archer]

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 have seen quite a few good videos that do a good job of asking questions that are very hard to answer by evolutionists and that is great. I have read up on things like the creationist museum and was very disappointed.

I have seen people claim (not just on this forum but people I know) that the fossilized shells on top of mountains are proof of a global flood and therefore by default proof of creation. Some actually believe man and dino walked together. On and on.

Well I explain that it is great that you believe this but don't push this stuff. There is no scientific evidence for it.

One of my arguments about this stuff: Where are the human fossils mixed with the dinosaur fossils? Where are the modern animal fossils mixed with the dinosaur fossils?

They can not produce a single one.

When you go out on a limb with absolutely no foundation you ask for ridicule so I see it as completely fair to bash the hard core creationists; but not is school. I say not in school because every person that follows a holy book does not follow the nut jobs that take one plus one and come up with eleven.

So mock it? No. Avoid it at all costs because they do enough damage to themselves.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The problem here is one of definition. You need to understand that what the term creationism means to most people is not “the belief that deity created the universe/world”.

I pretty much agree with your comments. In my first post I asked:

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 don't think there was a response so I proceeded under the definition of "there is a divine creator" rather than something more specific.

I'm sorry if your question went unanswered.
That was not my intention.
Yes, as explained above, by 'creationism', at least in this tread, I mean biblical literalists who subscribe to either a six day creation, special creation or the so called Intelligent Design movement.
I'm not talking about the purely religious faith that there is a creator someplace behind it all as they rarely try to push their beliefs into the realm of science (although it has happened).
As has been pointed out ad nauseum in other treads, there is not inherent problem with accepting Evolution and believing in a god at the same time.
Ken Miller (brilliant guy by the way) is a very good example of this.

Here he is talking about another famous Evolutionary Biologist, Richard Dawkins:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mLi-UwKrLk

 

[pwfaith]

I don't know that "mocking" it is apropos, but the fact stands that in the US, creationism has been ruled by courts to be religion and therefore may NOT be taught in public-school science classes!

Peace,
Bruce

Taught - no, it cannot be officially taught. However, if one of my children writes a paper and includes their personal views on creation and their teacher were to mock them for it - publicly or privately - you can be sure I would be in the principles office immediately. If it happened again I would file a complaint with the County School Board. Mocking a student or their views, imo, is always unacceptable if you are the teacher speaking to that student.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Sure, that all sounds perfectly fine. Are you teaching teens and older? My dealings as a teacher are with preschool to elementary school (under 11). I am very careful not to make them feel like they are being criticized, even while I give them pointers on how to improve their skills and increase their knowledge (I teach music). I deflect the focus of what I say away from them by putting it in an impersonal context. ("That sounds really good! Nice job! Now, when we want people to be able to understand all the words we are singing, here is how we do it! Want to try?) My teen and adult students have thicker skins and can handle a more direct approach ("The reason you are getting lost and playing all the wrong notes is that your index finger keeps floating off - focus on keeping all your fingers in contact with the keys).

Anyway, different approaches are appropriate for different levels of psychological development. Most teenagers should be able to separate ideas from people. Most kids under 11 haven't attained that level of discernment, in my experience.

 

[Alceste]

IF it came up, I'd be inclined to just smile and ignore it. Would rolling ones eyes be offensive? Why should a teacher have to comment on something that is perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain? Silence on the matter could be the ultimate contempt.

The problem I have with that approach is that it is his JOB to teach science to those kids. The psychological impact of a backhanded sleight like eyeball rolling would very likely be for the student to "close ranks" to defend the myth against a perceived attack. A teacher needs to do whatever it takes to bring the metaphorical horse to the water, and encourage it to drink. A teacher who takes one look at the horse and go "Screw it - that horse will NEVER drink. Might as well just let it die of thirst" is in the wrong line of work. Discussion can reach people. Contemptuous body language can not.

 

[Alceste]

Wow, this is hard to communicate my point. Once again, why would a science teacher want to mock Creationism, when science in no way contradicts creationism? Is that question on topic? I guess if a science teacher were asked if God created the world, an appropriate response would be (whether the teacher believes in Creationism or not): "I have my own beliefs on that subject, but I'm here to tell you what scientific research evidences concerning the process of creation. I have no scientific evidence to support or refute the belief that there is a divine intellligence behind that process."

Science completely contradicts all but the most liberal interpretation of creationism (a divine hand somehow guiding the exact process science describes for a mysterious purpose). When students are bringing "Adam and Eve" up in science class, it calls for drastic measures.

 

[Alceste]

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.

Norway is quite a long way ahead of the US in terms of acceptance of the fact of evolution. Where the risk of offending a student by mocking creationism might be quite high in the US, it is relatively small in Norway, although still a possibility.

Question: "Evolution is a theory; it is also a scientific fact."

 

[jarofthoughts]

Sure, that all sounds perfectly fine. Are you teaching teens and older?

I have taught teens, but I've just started with a new class of fifth graders (age around 10), so I'm still testing the waters on what they are capable of understanding.

My dealings as a teacher are with preschool to elementary school (under 11). I am very careful not to make them feel like they are being criticized, even while I give them pointers on how to improve their skills and increase their knowledge (I teach music). I deflect the focus of what I say away from them by putting it in an impersonal context. ("That sounds really good! Nice job! Now, when we want people to be able to understand all the words we are singing, here is how we do it! Want to try?) My teen and adult students have thicker skins and can handle a more direct approach ("The reason you are getting lost and playing all the wrong notes is that your index finger keeps floating off - focus on keeping all your fingers in contact with the keys).

Anyway, different approaches are appropriate for different levels of psychological development. Most teenagers should be able to separate ideas from people. Most kids under 11 haven't attained that level of discernment, in my experience.

I agree with all of the above and would just like to add that as you get to know your pupils better you also learn which you can push a little and which ones you have to treat more carefully, with regards to their opinions and views. Some kids are full of self-esteem and like the more challenging questions and some more timid and needs encouragement just to speak up in class. But I try to teach them, as early as possible, to discuss the subject at hand and not the person presenting it. In either case, outright shaming and ridicule of a pupil is always counterproductive and would, IMO, also constitute abuse.
As teachers we are in a natural position of authority and thus we have to be very careful how we handle matters pertaining to the pupils' personal life, including, of course, their religion.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Taught - no, it cannot be officially taught. However, if one of my children writes a paper and includes their personal views on creation and their teacher were to mock them for it - publicly or privately - you can be sure I would be in the principles office immediately. If it happened again I would file a complaint with the County School Board. Mocking a student or their views, imo, is always unacceptable if you are the teacher speaking to that student.

What if the teacher simply points out that your child is factually wrong and gives them a lower grade because of that?
Assume for the purpose of this question that this is a science paper about biology.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The problem I have with that approach is that it is his JOB to teach science to those kids. The psychological impact of a backhanded sleight like eyeball rolling would very likely be for the student to "close ranks" to defend the myth against a perceived attack. A teacher needs to do whatever it takes to bring the metaphorical horse to the water, and encourage it to drink. A teacher who takes one look at the horse and go "Screw it - that horse will NEVER drink. Might as well just let it die of thirst" is in the wrong line of work. Discussion can reach people. Contemptuous body language can not.

Indeed. A teacher's job is to make their pupils understand and appearing to close off a topic like that would not work very well to achieve that goal.
Instead, one might ask questions like "What makes you think that is how it works?" and follow it up with a good explanation of how it -really- works, without berating the student for being at fault. Ignorance is not a crime, and it can be fixed. Wilful ignorance on the other hand...
For example, in a class where we talked about molecular bindings and atoms, one of my pupils asked "Do we have any evidence for the existence of atoms?" and I couldn't stop praising him for asking that question.
It might seem obvious, but considering that we cannot actually see atoms, for a twelve year old the question is quite reasonable.
And so I told him that, yes, we do have evidence for that, and that I would gladly spend a class explaining it to him. And so we did.

 

[Alceste]

I have taught teens, but I've just started with a new class of fifth graders (age around 10), so I'm still testing the waters on what they are capable of understanding.



I agree with all of the above and would just like to add that as you get to know your pupils better you also learn which you can push a little and which ones you have to treat more carefully, with regards to their opinions and views. Some kids are full of self-esteem and like the more challenging questions and some more timid and needs encouragement just to speak up in class. But I try to teach them, as early as possible, to discuss the subject at hand and not the person presenting it. In either case, outright shaming and ridicule of a pupil is always counterproductive and would, IMO, also constitute abuse.
As teachers we are in a natural position of authority and thus we have to be very careful how we handle matters pertaining to the pupils' personal life, including, of course, their religion.

Totally. Because I teach one on one and sometimes get kids to write songs, I hear some pretty intimate details- especially when I teach them how to play the blues. For example, one girl wanted to write about how her mom's boyfriend kicked them out in the middle of the night "again" so they had to move. It's easy for me to avoid passing judgment, but I often have to get it across that their parents might want to keep some things private. That song ended up being about the hassle of moving and having to share a room with her little sister.

 

[pwfaith]

What if the teacher simply points out that your child is factually wrong and gives them a lower grade because of that?
Assume for the purpose of this question that this is a science paper about biology.

I would say it depends on how the paper was written and what they were suppose to write about first. If the student provides facts to support their view, even though the teacher may not agree with their facts, they have still provided more than just their mere opinion and I expect a teacher to grade based on that. However, I understand the world and school system our children will grow up in and it's something we'll just have to address if/when it happens. That said, grading a paper from a academic standpoint is not the same as mocking.

Mock...

1.to attack or treat with ridicule, contempt, or derision.
2. to ridicule by mimicry of action or speech; mimic derisively.
3. to mimic, imitate, or counterfeit.
4. to use ridicule or derision; scoff; jeer
5. a contemptuous or derisive imitative action or speech; mockery or derision.


I do not consider any of the above appropriate in a classroom setting from a teacher to a student, when it comes to discussing the academics or child's personal view on an issue. An intellectual conversation on the topic is fine, mockery is not.​

 

[jarofthoughts]

I would say it depends on how the paper was written and what they were suppose to write about first. If the student provides facts to support their view, even though the teacher may not agree with their facts, they have still provided more than just their mere opinion and I expect a teacher to grade based on that.

Well, agreeing or disagreeing doesn't really enter into it.
As long as we're talking about a science paper the facts are the facts, which is whatever the evidence tells us.
And there is no evidence supporting a biblical account of creation.

However, I understand the world and school system our children will grow up in and it's something we'll just have to address if/when it happens. That said, grading a paper from a academic standpoint is not the same as mocking.

Mock...

1.to attack or treat with ridicule, contempt, or derision.
2. to ridicule by mimicry of action or speech; mimic derisively.
3. to mimic, imitate, or counterfeit.
4. to use ridicule or derision; scoff; jeer
5. a contemptuous or derisive imitative action or speech; mockery or derision.


I do not consider any of the above appropriate in a classroom setting from a teacher to a student, when it comes to discussing the academics or child's personal view on an issue. An intellectual conversation on the topic is fine, mockery is not.​

Depending on the student and on the situation I think a broad definition of 'mock' can be employed, not towards the student mind you, but perhaps towards the subject brought up.
For instance, in order to teach critical thinking I have previously used James Randi's method for showing why Astrology is nonsense, a method that could potentially be seen as mocking.
However, in those instances I am the one bringing up the subject and thus I am not putting any of my students 'on the spot', as it were.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

What about schools where the idea of gay sex is taught as perfectly normal and acceptable? Is it o.k. for teachers to mock this notion?

 

[jarofthoughts]

What about schools where the idea of gay sex is taught as perfectly normal and acceptable? Is it o.k. for teachers to mock this notion?

I don't know how that is in the US, but in Norway part of the curriculum on sex education maintains that homosexuality is to be accepted on equal terms with heterosexual relationships.
And if you want to keep your job as a teacher you better teach the curriculum.

It's not an issue for me personally at least.
I have no problem with homosexuality and I agree fully with the curriculum on that subject.