Should Teachers be Allowed to Mock Creationism?

[Alceste]

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?

Telegram from planet crazy.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

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.

In other words it's o.k. to mock teachings that we don't agree with. FWIW, I'm not too familiar with Creationism as a teaching, but science has done NOTHING to disprove that God created the universe.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Telegram from planet crazy.

Yeah, because people who like to claim God had nothing to do with the universe are really the ones grounded in reality

 

[jarofthoughts]

In other words it's o.k. to mock teachings that we don't agree with.

Actually, since we're talking about science classes here, agreeing has nothing to do with it, and the sooner certain Texans realize this the better.
Science is based on evidence.
Not opinion.

FWIW, I'm not too familiar with Creationism as a teaching, but science has done NOTHING to disprove that God created the universe.

And seeing as theists persist in coming up with untestable claims it probably never will.
But that is rather irrelevant to the topic at hand.
For instance we know that the biblical account of creation didn't happen.
We know that there was no Adam and Eve as described in the Bible.
We know that humans evolved from less complex creatures.
And we know that the world is a LOT older than 12.000 years.

Does that exclude the possibility that some deity was somehow behind it all?

Not at all.

But it falls into the same category as believing that the universe was created by a purple unicorn named Steve.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Genesis has never been concerned with a literal teaching of how the universe came to be in spite of the fact that the church in the Middle Ages labeled those who said the universe was heliocentric as heretics. FWIW, I'm not one of these Christians who has a problem with evolution as I understand it. As far as the Adam and Eve thing, what about Lucy and DNA testing? I thought they found a genetic link to an original ancestor of all humans. I admit I'm no expert on these scientific issues. I've taken very basic level college classes on natural science and I found nothing that I thought was unbiblical being taught.

 

[Father Heathen]

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?

It's unprofessional for a teacher to mock anything. They should teach the curriculum objectively without interjecting their personal opinions.

 

[pwfaith]

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.

So as a teacher you don't want the student to provide facts and evidence for the theory they believe in, only the theory you believe in, even if the paper presented is well thought out, detailed, and well written? Got it.

As I said earlier, it will depend on what the exact requirements of the paper are. An assignment that says to explain the inner workings of evolution - of course the student should get a poor grade if they talk about the inner workings of creationism instead. However, a paper assignment that merely says "Biology: What is it?" or "Evolution: Explain it." Both examples ask for drastically different assignments. The latter offers more of a personal view, yet also demands support for their position. Simply b/c the teacher may believe in evolution, does not mean they can grade the paper wrong if the student fulfills the requirements of the paper, even if the theory they believe in is different from the one the teacher does.

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.

As long as no individual students are being singled out, I don't see a problem with encouraging students to think critically.

 

[pwfaith]

it's unprofessional for a teacher to mock anything. they should teach the curriculum objectively without interjecting their personal opinions.

exactly!

 

[Alceste]

Yeah, because people who like to claim God had nothing to do with the universe are really the ones grounded in reality

Evolution has nothing to do with god or religion. It is a scientific theory that accurately explains what we observe in nature. There's no need to bring religion into it at all. It isn't needed. You can believe in god and evolution. Hundreds of millions of theists do.

 

[Alceste]

So as a teacher you don't want the student to provide facts and evidence for the theory they believe in, only the theory you believe in, even if the paper presented is well thought out, detailed, and well written? Got it.

As I said earlier, it will depend on what the exact requirements of the paper are. An assignment that says to explain the inner workings of evolution - of course the student should get a poor grade if they talk about the inner workings of creationism instead. However, a paper assignment that merely says "Biology: What is it?" or "Evolution: Explain it." Both examples ask for drastically different assignments. The latter offers more of a personal view, yet also demands support for their position. Simply b/c the teacher may believe in evolution, does not mean they can grade the paper wrong if the student fulfills the requirements of the paper, even if the theory they believe in is different from the one the teacher does.



As long as no individual students are being singled out, I don't see a problem with encouraging students to think critically.

As a science teacher, jarofthoughts can not accept creationist "evidence" (like from AiG, for example) to support their opinion. Creationism is not a theory - it isn't even a hypothesis. Remember, this is a science class. He would be negligent in his duty as a science teacher if he were to accept non-scientific work as a source of scientific facts.

 

[jarofthoughts]

So as a teacher you don't want the student to provide facts and evidence for the theory they believe in, only the theory you believe in, even if the paper presented is well thought out, detailed, and well written? Got it.

As I said earlier, it will depend on what the exact requirements of the paper are. An assignment that says to explain the inner workings of evolution - of course the student should get a poor grade if they talk about the inner workings of creationism instead. However, a paper assignment that merely says "Biology: What is it?" or "Evolution: Explain it." Both examples ask for drastically different assignments. The latter offers more of a personal view, yet also demands support for their position. Simply b/c the teacher may believe in evolution, does not mean they can grade the paper wrong if the student fulfills the requirements of the paper, even if the theory they believe in is different from the one the teacher does.

I hope you're not misinterpreting this on purpose? :sarcastic

As I mentioned earlier, opinion, belief and personal views does not enter into how science works.
Science is not a democracy in which the most popular idea is voted in.
In fact, science is a strict and ruthless dictatorship in which evidence is king, emperor and supreme commander all rolled into one.
Thus, the scientific Theories we teach have been rigorously tested, retested (and are still being tested) and substantiated with tons of evidence, and they represent the most accurate picture of the universe we have.
So when determining what is correct and not, the student's personal opinion, or my personal opinion for that matter, are utterly and completely irrelevant.
Having a personal opinion about Evolution is exactly the same as having a personal opinion about Relativity.
Sure, you can decide that you don't think Einstein was right, but if you write that in a science paper, you better have some VERY compelling evidence to back that up, and if you can back that up you would be eligible for a Nobel Price because your paper would completely change the way we see the universe.

That's the level of 'opinion' we're talking about.

 

[jarofthoughts]

As a science teacher, jarofthoughts can not accept creationist "evidence" (like from AiG, for example) to support their opinion. Creationism is not a theory - it isn't even a hypothesis. Remember, this is a science class. He would be negligent in his duty as a science teacher if he were to accept non-scientific work as a source of scientific facts.

Exactly.

 

[Father Heathen]

exactly!

But science curriculum should contain actual science, that which is supported by empirical evidence and the scientific method. If for some reason creationism is to be taught, it should be done in a theology class from an objective standpoint rather than one that promotes it favorably, and it should focus on all of the creation myths of various religions and cultures rather than simply the abrahamic one. After all, the purpose of school is to teach children, not indoctrinate them.

 

[Noaidi]

So as a teacher you don't want the student to provide facts and evidence for the theory they believe in, only the theory you believe in, even if the paper presented is well thought out, detailed, and well written? Got it.

Teachers don't 'believe' in a theory - they accept it and teach it based on the standard of evidence. If more robust and rigourously tested evidence to the contrary comes to light, then that will form the basis of the science classes of the future. That's how science works. It's not a question of everyone having their own theory and the best presentation wins.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Evolution has nothing to do with god or religion. It is a scientific theory that accurately explains what we observe in nature. There's no need to bring religion into it at all. It isn't needed. You can believe in god and evolution. Hundreds of millions of theists do.

I have no problem with this. I don't see why so many Christians get worked up about evolution.

 

[pwfaith]

But science curriculum should contain actual science, that which is supported by empirical evidence and the scientific method. If for some reason creationism is to be taught, it should be done in a theology class from an objective standpoint rather than one that promotes it favorably, and it should focus on all of the creation myths of various religions and cultures rather than simply the abrahamic one. After all, the purpose of school is to teach children, not indoctrinate them.

The student is not teaching it though, they are writing a report, answering the question presented by the teacher. I fully expect most of my children's science teachers will try to tell them evolution is true and "fact". We'll deal with that at home. If they get a bad grade for a paper, we'll deal with that on a case-by-case basis. I do hope that they get teachers that can be objective though and admit a well-written paper when they see one, even if it is not inline with their theory.

ETA: My husband is currently in school working on his BS degree. He is taking Statistics this quarter. His first class he got into a discussion with his teacher about the statistics of evolution. I had a lot of respect for his teacher for admitting DH's points were valid and well-thought out, even though he personally still agreed with evolution. Homework posts have been similar. I have respect for him b/c he was able to say "you make a good point, even though I don't follow the same scientific theory that you do." Yes Creationism may be religious but it is not lacking in science, despite what people want to believe. Both are scientific theories. Both are lacking in some ways and both have valid evidence in other ways (and no I don't want to get into a creation/evolution debate). My point is simply as a teacher, I expect you (general) to be objective - yes your job is to teach, but your job is also to look at what is presented - does it fulfill the requirements of the paper, if so, it should be graded fairly, not biased b/c you (general) do not hold to the same theory.

 

[pwfaith]

Teachers don't 'believe' in a theory - they accept it and teach it based on the standard of evidence. If more robust and rigourously tested evidence to the contrary comes to light, then that will form the basis of the science classes of the future. That's how science works. It's not a question of everyone having their own theory and the best presentation wins.

Evolution IS a theory. Anyone that thinks otherwise is simply uneducated or in denial. If you think Creationism has no evidence and is not scientific, impo, you (general) are either uneducated about creationism, closed-minded or don't know science very well.

 

[Tristesse]

Evolution IS a theory. Anyone that thinks otherwise is simply uneducated or in denial. If you think Creationism has no evidence and is not scientific, impo, you (general) are either uneducated about creationism, closed-minded or don't know science very well.

Evolution is a theory, but the question is, do you understand what a scientific theory is?

Creationism has assertions not evidence. Unless you have new argument, or evidence that I haven't heard before.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I fully expect most of my children's science teachers will try to tell them evolution is true and "fact".

By the textbook definition, Evolution is irrefutably a fact.
You can disagree with that if you like, but that just makes you wrong.

I do hope that they get teachers that can be objective though and admit a well-written paper when they see one, even if it is not inline with their theory.

It's not 'their' Theory.
It's 'the' Theory that binds together all the different aspects of Biology.
And it has no competitors.
When someone comes up with one, feel free to let me know.

I had a lot of respect for his teacher for admitting DH's points were valid and well-thought out, even though he personally still agreed with evolution.

Again, agreeing or disagreeing is irrelevant.
Science is not determined by popular vote.

I have respect for him b/c he was able to say "you make a good point, even though I don't follow the same scientific theory that you do."

Creationism is not a Scientific Theory.

Yes Creationism may be religious but it is not lacking in science, despite what people want to believe.

Could have fooled me... :sarcastic

Both are scientific theories.

No.
Read this: Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Both are lacking in some ways and both have valid evidence in other ways (and no I don't want to get into a creation/evolution debate).

And yet, you give off every signal that you are eager to debate it.

My point is simply as a teacher, I expect you (general) to be objective - yes your job is to teach, but your job is also to look at what is presented - does it fulfill the requirements of the paper, if so, it should be graded fairly, not biased b/c you (general) do not hold to the same theory.

You continue to talk as if there are multiple Theories to choose from.
That is simply not the case.

 

[Alceste]

The student is not teaching it though, they are writing a report, answering the question presented by the teacher. I fully expect most of my children's science teachers will try to tell them evolution is true and "fact". We'll deal with that at home. If they get a bad grade for a paper, we'll deal with that on a case-by-case basis. I do hope that they get teachers that can be objective though and admit a well-written paper when they see one, even if it is not inline with their theory.

ETA: My husband is currently in school working on his BS degree. He is taking Statistics this quarter. His first class he got into a discussion with his teacher about the statistics of evolution. I had a lot of respect for his teacher for admitting DH's points were valid and well-thought out, even though he personally still agreed with evolution. Homework posts have been similar. I have respect for him b/c he was able to say "you make a good point, even though I don't follow the same scientific theory that you do." Yes Creationism may be religious but it is not lacking in science, despite what people want to believe. Both are scientific theories. Both are lacking in some ways and both have valid evidence in other ways (and no I don't want to get into a creation/evolution debate). My point is simply as a teacher, I expect you (general) to be objective - yes your job is to teach, but your job is also to look at what is presented - does it fulfill the requirements of the paper, if so, it should be graded fairly, not biased b/c you (general) do not hold to the same theory.

I'm sorry, PWfaith, but you're wrong. Only scientific theories are scientific theories. Creationism is a theological position. Evolution is a scientific theory. It won't do your children one iota of good in life to be misled on this point.