How is creationism still taught in American primary school biology classes?

[AlpsStranger]

Well, turning water into wine would seem to serve a better purpose than creating a young world that looks old, and there's quite a bit of evidence suggesting that it didn't happen.

Unless you need to keep the non-elect from cheating their predestination to hell by giving them a convincing alternative to your existence

 

[Mango Elephant]

I've worked with a LOT of highly effective teachers that most of you guys would write off as being too "dumb".

This is right. Good teaching is not based on solely on knowledge. Hence the reason certain professors at universities can't teach worth a lick, but know enough about his or her subject to fill books.

Some of you guys are so prideful. It's not only (incredible) unattractive, but it's also anti-intellectual. If my computer teacher believed the Earth is flat, I might have misgivings about his intelligence, but if he's a great teacher not only will I learn the material, but also I'll learn not be so judgmental about something so silly.

Why is he telling us something totally unrelated to the subject matter anyway?

I don't think you thought this through, but if you did, could you defend?

 

[Arakhor]

Why do the brown-haired chap and the blonde girl have virtually the same facial features? Presumably siblings wouldn't need to ask each other about their creationist leanings (or lack thereof).

 

[warpus]

I don't think you thought this through, but if you did, could you defend?

While I agree that you don't need to know much about World History to be a good Chemistry teacher, spouting off nonsense that lets everyone in the class know that you are an idiot doesn't really help; not only do you lose the trust and respect of your students, you are also going off on a tangent.. why mention that you believe that the Aztecs colonized Spain in the 1700s? It has nothing to do with Chemistry and the whole class is going to think that you're an idiot.

It makes you a less effective teacher when you do something like that.. Stick to your area of expertise, especially when you have wild ideas with no basis in reality.

 

[timtofly]

It seems the last 40 post point out that YeC is a threat and should be "crusaded" against. If I was easily offended, my lack of critical thinking would probably have caused me to be re-actionary. I think though that maybe some people have fear that there are critical thinkers out there who may disagree?

 

[Mango Elephant]

spouting off nonsense that lets everyone in the class know that you are an idiot doesn't really help;

I'm sure very few teachers "spout off nonsense" without any incentive. I would say unrelated things because I am a social creature and I'm a friendly guy. You say it doesn't help, but my English teacher today discussing the pep rally last Friday doesn't help either, yet I hope you wouldn't call her a bad teacher because of that. (You make lots of statements about "sticking to expertise" or things similar so my last sentence covers all those; I'm also not sure what you mean by "help", but I think my example covers it no matter which way you cook it)

why mention that you believe that the Aztecs colonized Spain in the 1700s?

Why not mention it? Because it has nothing to do with the subject and therefore doesn't teach children a false curriculum. It's belief, not fact. It's quite a different thing for a teacher to say "Shakespeare was an Ancient Roman" and for a teacher to say he or she believed it was so. If a history teacher said it, then yes, it would be much more serious, but considering if the teacher does not teach history, then any mention of history by the teacher would be informal and not taken as gospel by children.

It has nothing to do with Chemistry and the whole class is going to think that you're an idiot.

Not necessarily. There are more important things that a teacher does that distinguishes himself or herself as an idiot (or as the contrary) than saying that Aztec thing. It certainly wouldn't help the students respect you and think highly of you, but those things are rarely based on ideas.

I agree saying that thing about the Aztecs isn't a good idea, but it's no basis for condemning the teacher as bad or that the teacher must be fired or anything. Nobody's perfect.

Also, the Young Earth thing isn't the same as the Aztec thing. If you want I can explain why one is more acceptable than the other.

 

[warpus]

I'm sure very few teachers "spout off nonsense" without any incentive. I would say unrelated things because I am a social creature and I'm a friendly guy. You say it doesn't help, but my English teacher today discussing the pep rally last Friday doesn't help either, yet I hope you wouldn't call her a bad teacher because of that. (You make lots of statements about "sticking to expertise" or things similar so my last sentence covers all those; I'm also not sure what you mean by "help", but I think my example covers it no matter which way you cook it)

I said "spouting off nonsense". Talking about a pep rally doesn't really fall under that category, unless you're saying that the students should have been showing off their school spirit by flapping their arms and flying around the school.

And yes, my initial point was raised with teachers who do that in mind. Most teachers don't and my point doesn't concern them. I was only responding to someone who said "What's the big deal if an English teacher brings up that they believe in creationism?" (or some such thing)

The big deal is that you're

1. going off on a tangent that doesn't concern the curriculum you are supposed to be teaching
2. making your students think that you're an idiot
3. making yourself a far less effective teacher (mostly because of 3)

So yes, I think that an English teacher telling their class that they believe in flat earth theory (or some other such nonsense) would be detrimental to the teaching & learning experience.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Tennessee passed a law earlier this year that protects teachers who let students criticize evolution and other scientific theories. That echoes a Louisiana law passed in 2008 that allows teachers to introduce supplemental teaching materials in science classes.

I don't recall who initially posted this, but how can you criticize the bold?

I mean, what exactly are you going to do, send students who criticize evolution in school to detention? Is this going to help anything?

I don't THINK anyone's proposing that, but I don't see anything wrong with a law that "Protects teachers that allow students to criticize evolution." Don't they kind of have to let them do it?

The battle over ID in the classroom was fought the last decade for the most part. Now it is limited to a nine mostly red states:

Creation and evolution in public education in the United States

Pennsylvania is a red state? Minnesota? New Mexico?

News to me

Also, the Young Earth thing isn't the same as the Aztec thing. If you want I can explain why one is more acceptable than the other.

I agree with you but I'm curious what your logic is, so I won't comment further YET.

Fire away

 

[AlpsStranger]

<snip>

Still need to remember not to get involved again.

 

[warpus]

I don't recall who initially posted this, but how can you criticize the bold?

I mean, what exactly are you going to do, send students who criticize evolution in school to detention? Is this going to help anything?

I don't THINK anyone's proposing that, but I don't see anything wrong with a law that "Protects teachers that allow students to criticize evolution." Don't they kind of have to let them do it?

Criticizing scientific theories on scientific grounds is exactly what science is about.

But that's not what this is about. This is about students criticizing theories on religious grounds..

which has no place in a science classroom at all.

 

[Arakhor]

Hell, the link posted up-thread is basically a glorified excuse for YECs to laugh at OECs. I'm not sure it really matters, except that religion should not be taught in science classes. Criticism and debate are to be expected, but the pseudo-scientific shenanigans perpetuated by CMI and the like seem far too much like someone being told they're wrong and their dedicating the rest of their life to prove why they've actually been right all long.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Criticizing scientific theories on scientific grounds is exactly what science is about.

But that's not what this is about. This is about students criticizing theories on religious grounds..

which has no place in a science classroom at all.

Well, actually, the law SAYS scientific criticisms. Now, maybe you'd argue that its really pseudoscience that its not real science being discussed, but there's nothing that says "On religious grounds" in the law.

Besides, how the heck are you going to punish students who criticize evolution anyway? I mean, really? This law just seems like basic common sense.

 

[warpus]

Well, actually, the law SAYS scientific criticisms. Now, maybe you'd argue that its really pseudoscience that its not real science being discussed, but there's nothing that says "On religious grounds" in the law.

Besides, how the heck are you going to punish students who criticize evolution anyway? I mean, really? This law just seems like basic common sense.

Let's see the relevant portions of the law then, because last time I saw it it did seem like an obvious ploy to introduce religion into science or biology class in a "teach the controversy" sort of way.

 

[CKS]

There was an article in one of my professional-society magazines recently publishing results of a survey of high school biology teachers. Most of them (about 85%, if I remember correctly) weren't YEC, but more than half of them refused to teach only evolution in their classroom. It was very discouraging. If I can find the article again, I'll provide details.

 

[kramerfan86]

Science should be taught in the classroom, religion at home. Attempts to force religion into science classrooms are essentially fear that if exposed to actual science the youth might form their own beliefs.

 

[King Kalmah]

The Norse creation myth goes something like this:

In the beginning there was Ymer, who was a gigantic troll of some kind. Ymer had a gigantic goat. For sustenance, the goat licked a gigantic saltstone, and Ymer drank the goat's milk.

When Ymer slept, he was sweating. And what he ended up sweating were the first trolls as we know them today as the Norse knew them.

He then sweated out the first two Gods.

The gods had a few children - four I think, the first of whom was Odin.

Meanwhile, the goat continued to lick the saltstone, and out of the saltstone the first two humans were formed.

Then Odin and the other born gods came together and they killed Ymer while he slept!

They then took his body and used it to create the whole world! Ymer's blood became the oceans, his torso became the land, and so on.

Meanwhile, the trolls had run away and were hiding in the mountains.

The End - or beginning, if you want.

And this is why Finntroll and all Norse metal rules!!

Why not mention it? Because it has nothing to do with the subject and therefore doesn't teach children a false curriculum. It's belief, not fact. It's quite a different thing for a teacher to say "Shakespeare was an Ancient Roman" and for a teacher to say he or she believed it was so. If a history teacher said it, then yes, it would be much more serious, but considering if the teacher does not teach history, then any mention of history by the teacher would be informal and not taken as gospel by children.

The point is that not everyone has the knowledge that we have.Some students (my brother as an example) don't know Shakespeare from Nero.So if you have a teacher that started off on these tangents then some of the students would be dumb enough to "buy it" and then you have those students telling other students...or even if its stays only inside a few students...wait a few years and they will show their ignorance either on the internet or in the workplace...both aren't fun and isn't the point of education...

 

[Glassfan]

It's clear that Darwinian evolution cannot account for the special case of Nordic Creation, therefor it must be in error.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Pennsylvania is a red state? Minnesota? New Mexico?

News to me

Hence, the use of the word "mostly". Are you trying to insinuate there is no correlation between disbelief in basic science and the Republican Party in this matter, particularly with conservative, fundamentalist and evangelical Christians?

 

[Leoreth]

It seems the last 40 post point out that YeC is a threat and should be "crusaded" against. If I was easily offended, my lack of critical thinking would probably have caused me to be re-actionary. I think though that maybe some people have fear that there are critical thinkers out there who may disagree?

Yes, it's a common tactic by pseudo-scientists to claim the higher ground by claiming that they are the ones who are critically thinking while "mainstream science" just sticks to dogmatic beliefs. This of course won't fly with people who actually know science and recognize it as pseudo-science, but students are another matter, and this is actually the core of the whole problem.

There is no fear that there are disagreeing "critical thinkers". The fear is that teachers who consider themselves such "critical thinkers" instill their delusions of critical thinking into the children they are supposed to educate.

Also, the Young Earth thing isn't the same as the Aztec thing. If you want I can explain why one is more acceptable than the other.

Oh, yes it is. Both are claims that not only lack evidence to support them, but are completely contradicted by evidence that exists. The only difference between them is that YEC has a community behind it dedicated to obfuscating these simple facts.

I'm sure history could be equally distorted to support stuff like the Aztec claim. It's not that there are no religions that rely on rewriting history despite clear evidence to the contrary (I'm thinking of Mormonism).

I don't recall who initially posted this, but how can you criticize the bold?

I mean, what exactly are you going to do, send students who criticize evolution in school to detention? Is this going to help anything?

I don't THINK anyone's proposing that, but I don't see anything wrong with a law that "Protects teachers that allow students to criticize evolution." Don't they kind of have to let them do it?

I have not read the law or an article about it so I can only speculate: of course children cannot be punished for challenging the teacher's claims, whatever they are. That would indeed be against critical thinking! But it doesn't say that children should be punished for criticism, but that teachers should not be protected anymore. I suspect the purpose of the law is to have a measure against teachers who want to "teach" creationism by never challenging/countering the criticisms of creationist students (or students who lean in that direction) while subtly discrediting evolution. That's just a guess though.

Science should be taught in the classroom, religion at home. Attempts to force religion into science classrooms are essentially fear that if exposed to actual science the youth might form their own beliefs.

I don't have a problem with religion in classrooms, as long as it's religion class. I think it's part of the problem that religious education isn't a subject in American schools (or is it?), which motivates religion to seep into science classes instead.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

There was an article in one of my professional-society magazines recently publishing results of a survey of high school biology teachers. Most of them (about 85%, if I remember correctly) weren't YEC, but more than half of them refused to teach only evolution in their classroom. It was very discouraging. If I can find the article again, I'll provide details.

That reminds me of the physics book I got in 12th grade in Mississippi. When GOD was mentioned in the introductory text, I was already amused, though also slightly irritated, as such reference seemed totally out of place. Well - the authors found a lot more opportunities for such references through-out the book. It seemed like the whole book was designed to - more or less subtly - make sure in a manipulative way that all this science wouldn't be understood as something contrary or beyond GOD. It was so ridiculous