Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Big Bad Voodoo

Teachers must explain theory of evolution

91 posts in this topic

@Chloe, In a science class there will be kids that come from all kinds of enviornments that believe all kinds of things, but what should be taught is the discipline of science ( inductive and deductive logic, evidence etc..). I have never been involved, nor support a science curriculum that teaches creationsism as science, nor am I positioning for it.

Two antiscience bills in Oklahoma

Second, House Bill 1674 (document), styled the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, would, if enacted, similarly require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies"

HB 1551 passed the House of Representatives on March 15, 2012, by which time it managed to attract condemnation from national scientific and educational organizations. The American Association for the Advancement of Science's chief executive officer Alan I. Leshner expressed his concerns with the bill, for example, writing (PDF) in a March 21, 2012, letter, "There is virtually no scientific controversy among the overwhelming majority of researchers on the core facts of global warming and evolution," and adding, "asserting that there are significant scientific controversies about the overall nature of these concepts when there are none will only confuse students, not enlighten them." HB 1551 died in the Senate Education Committee in April 2012.

The new bill, HB 1674, is apparently identical to the final version of HB 1551 as passed by the House of Representatives and unconsidered by the Senate, and only slightly different from Oklahoma's Senate Bill 320 from 2009, which a member of the Senate Education Committee memorably described to the Tulsa World (February 17, 2009) as one of the worst bills that he had ever seen. Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education argued, "Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy is just plain dishonest." With respect to the supposed "weaknesses" of evolution, OESE added, "they are phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like evolution."

http://ncse.com/news...klahoma-0014686

Edited by ChloeB
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

double post

Edited by ChloeB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree but I'd add as a parent who has been persoanlly invovled with the virutal online academy's since 2005, the bottom line is it was my responsibility to educate myself, learn what I didn't know and I have and continue to. I think this should apply to our teachers too. I think and know teachers who stay informed and put a lot into their learning and I know teachers who do not.

I tell my kids they will get great teachers along the way and there will be times they will not,but regardless we are responsible for our own learning , Education is a great freedom and as a parent I do my part, and encourage my kids to do theirs, which is stay informed and do what it takes to learn.

The problem here is how to teach something that should if anything be no more than a passing comment in a science class. Science should be teaching the scientific method, and things that have some basis such as evolution. Throwing ideas that have no basis other than a church is opening a can of worms that in no way can have a good ending. I could learn enough about creationism to teach it, but I could not take it seriously. And I could not tell a student who didn't believe in it and thought it was hokey that they were wrong, and there is nothing to say that they are. The old idea is that you don't talk about politics or religion....it would seem that adding a religious belief into science can only end badly.

I don't think that this would be a good teacher bad teacher issue, but asking a science teacher to learn about creationism is like asking an English teacher to learn ebonics, it is just wrong

Edited by bacca
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, absolutely.

But that's not what this is about. This is about pushing unscientific, supernatural explanations into an arena where it just does not belong. Religious agendas have nothing to contribute to open-minded scientific enquiry.

Yes. Talk about creationism all you want in school, but keep it in a class other than science. Comparative Religions, World Religions, or something along those lines. I'd have no problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two antiscience bills in Oklahoma

Second, House Bill 1674 (document), styled the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, would, if enacted, similarly require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies"

HB 1551 passed the House of Representatives on March 15, 2012, by which time it managed to attract condemnation from national scientific and educational organizations. The American Association for the Advancement of Science's chief executive officer Alan I. Leshner expressed his concerns with the bill, for example, writing (PDF) in a March 21, 2012, letter, "There is virtually no scientific controversy among the overwhelming majority of researchers on the core facts of global warming and evolution," and adding, "asserting that there are significant scientific controversies about the overall nature of these concepts when there are none will only confuse students, not enlighten them." HB 1551 died in the Senate Education Committee in April 2012.

The new bill, HB 1674, is apparently identical to the final version of HB 1551 as passed by the House of Representatives and unconsidered by the Senate, and only slightly different from Oklahoma's Senate Bill 320 from 2009, which a member of the Senate Education Committee memorably described to the Tulsa World (February 17, 2009) as one of the worst bills that he had ever seen. Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education argued, "Promoting the notion that there is some scientific controversy is just plain dishonest." With respect to the supposed "weaknesses" of evolution, OESE added, "they are phony fabrications, invented and promoted by people who don't like evolution."

http://ncse.com/news...klahoma-0014686

I do not support creationism taught as science.

I posted in error originally, I read the OP wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem here is how to teach something that should if anything be no more than a passing comment in a science class. Science should be teaching the scientific method, and things that have some basis such as evolution. Throwing ideas that have no basis other than a church is opening a can of worms that in no way can have a good ending. I could learn enough about creationism to teach it, but I could not take it seriously. And I could not tell a student who didn't believe in it and thought it was hokey that they were wrong, and there is nothing to say that they are. The old idea is that you don't talk about politics or religion....it would seem that adding a religious belief into science can only end badly.

I don't think that this would be a good teacher bad teacher issue, but asking a science teacher to learn about creationism is like asking an English teacher to learn ebonics, it is just wrong

I do not support creationism in Science class at all, I read the OP as Oklahoma didn't either. I stand corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think creationism should only be touched upon if brought up by a kid in the class who has questions and then discussed at that point. If it isn't discussed you would be hard pressed to break kids of bad ideas implanted from their parents. It doesn't do any good to ignore a bad theory.

Say your driveway has a giant ass pothole and you decide to ignore it. What happens?

Say your driveway has a giant ass pothole and you decide to deal with it. What happens?

Creationists in general remind me of Wile E. Coyote.

I wish I saw this thread before the other one in the us politics.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard on Creationism is not hard, since this is plainly a religious movement and therefore separation of church and state is in the mix. Other pseudo-scientific ideas are more difficult. What if a teacher wants to "waste" (in the opinion of many parents) class time talking about flying saucers and alien visitations? What if the teacher has a theory of sociology that says one race is superior to another and wants to teach that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard on Creationism is not hard, since this is plainly a religious movement and therefore separation of church and state is in the mix. Other pseudo-scientific ideas are more difficult. What if a teacher wants to "waste" (in the opinion of many parents) class time talking about flying saucers and alien visitations? What if the teacher has a theory of sociology that says one race is superior to another and wants to teach that?

How could either of those relate to anything that is already being taught in elementary school?

Creationism only sneaks to elementary school in because of evolution. How would those two ideas sneak in. (Ok I might give you the race one if you mean country instead of skin color because I think pretty much every country teaches their kids that their country is superior)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assure you they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't take assurances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think creationism should only be touched upon if brought up by a kid in the class who has questions and then discussed at that point. If it isn't discussed you would be hard pressed to break kids of bad ideas implanted from their parents. It doesn't do any good to ignore a bad theory.

I totally disagree. Most kids won't bring it up because they already know that Creationism is correct. They'll continue to believe it's correct unless someone shows them why it isn't.

I see nothing wrong with discussing a alternate theories in a science class. The "adaptation through inheritance" was also a disproved theory but we discussed it because it sounds more plausible than adaptation through genetic mutation -- it doesn't rely on random events and useful adaptation can happen very quickly. It even explained why my cat's back paws only have four claws. It also showed us that even good-sounding theories can fall apart once they're studied properly and crazy-sounding theories like evolution through mutation can hold up to evidence. I still don't know how genetic mutations explain the missing claws on my cat!

Creationism is a great example of a theory that is not scientific yet many people think it's just as scientific as Evolution. Comparing the two will show students what is and isn't science. Far too many people don't know how to do this and believe anything that sounds "sciency" must be scientific.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally disagree. Most kids won't bring it up because they already know that Creationism is correct. They'll continue to believe it's correct unless someone shows them why it isn't.

I see nothing wrong with discussing a alternate theories in a science class. The "adaptation through inheritance" was also a disproved theory but we discussed it because it sounds more plausible than adaptation through genetic mutation -- it doesn't rely on random events and useful adaptation can happen very quickly. It even explained why my cat's back paws only have four claws. It also showed us that even good-sounding theories can fall apart once they're studied properly and crazy-sounding theories like evolution through mutation can hold up to evidence. I still don't know how genetic mutations explain the missing claws on my cat!

Creationism is a great example of a theory that is not scientific yet many people think it's just as scientific as Evolution. Comparing the two will show students what is and isn't science. Far too many people don't know how to do this and believe anything that sounds "sciency" must be scientific.

I think you bring in an excellent point;one I had not looked into to closely unitl you posted, a lot of kids come out of homes who( as we speak) are sitting in science classes that do think Creationism is a fact and that Evolution is bunk.I think Science class is a great place to address this.

For me, this is why( in otherwords my two cents.)

These are kids that have been taught this by well meaning parents, in fact, I know kids like this and their parents, I know kids who think abortion is evil, I know kids who think that their religion is the only right one. The reality is that for the most part kids are inlfuenced/taught by their parents(and their peers) what to beleive and I think our educational system may have to find a way to deal with this in a fair way. Personally there is no way I would make a child feel inferior or less then for asking questions nor would I put limits on questions, it is in the discussing that I always have an opportunity to teach. In giving this thread a lot of thought I would be fine with discussing Creationism as compared to Evolution to help a kid understand how to make informed opinions, think critically, understand what it means to use inductive and deductive logic, learn what a theory is,what a fact is etc. etc. etc. and how this is done using science and what it means to think scientifically, what the rules are concerning this and how to apply them in real life.. As much as I'd like to think everything should be all black and white and creationism shouldn't even come up in a sceince classroom, but in reality it does.

For me, I can equate it to pretending my kids won't ever hear of things if I avoid talking about them, I simply do not parent like that- I prepare myself for it all and let me tell you, as a mom for over 20 years my kids and their friends have had all kinds of interesting beliefs that come up..LOL (Classics)

One time one of my sons friends really beleived if she didn't do her homework that her mom could summon bloody mary from the bathroom mirror and get her( her Mom taught her this.) Her peers showed her she was in error, not by making fun of her or mandating laws that prevented her from questioning(unless it met a certain criteria) but by going into the bathroom, closing the door and calling bloody mary to no avail. The kid saw for herself via rudementary science application her mom was mistaken.

i have learned so many creative ways to deal with questions because of kids questions, I say let them ask.

Scowl, thanks for givng me a new way to think about this. Great post!

Edited by Sherapy
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of this post I'll get in to my personal bias a little bit.

I totally disagree. Most kids won't bring it up because they already know that Creationism is correct. They'll continue to believe it's correct unless someone shows them why it isn't.

Ask yourself why did you reply to me?

Did you reply because you thought I was right? No.

Did you reply because you thought I was wrong? Yes.

The only time a child(Kid) wouldn't try to defend their point of view is when they don't really care, or the negatives of that action outweigh the positives from committing to that action.

A teenager(technically still a kid) would most likely be the ones who are headstrong in what they believe.

I see nothing wrong with discussing a alternate theories in a science class. The "adaptation through inheritance" was also a disproved theory but we discussed it because it sounds more plausible than adaptation through genetic mutation -- it doesn't rely on random events and useful adaptation can happen very quickly. It even explained why my cat's back paws only have four claws. It also showed us that even good-sounding theories can fall apart once they're studied properly and crazy-sounding theories like evolution through mutation can hold up to evidence. I still don't know how genetic mutations explain the missing claws on my cat!

Agreed but due to how our brain develops it is all about timing.

From 6th and upwards. Your quote, because by then kids are going to be able to actually start putting things together on their own.

Below 6th grade. My quote. Simply because as a younger child, we lack certain mental tools to figure out what is real and what isn't. (I really should post that do not indoctrinate children picture that Hasina is posts)

(I really should of noted the difference between the two ages in earlier posts.)

Creationism is a great example of a theory that is not scientific yet many people think it's just as scientific as Evolution. Comparing the two will show students what is and isn't science. Far too many people don't know how to do this and believe anything that sounds "sciency" must be scientific.

Agreed.

This is why I think younger children should learn the tools instead of specific theories. Basically more focus on the actual scientific method and other critical thinking skills.

Like if you are force fed evolution but you do not understand the scientific method you literally have to take that information at face value from the source you get it from, but if you understand the scientific method you can figure out which scientific theories are correct(Well what you believe to be correct) on your own.

When it comes to public education I'm more worried about the younger children because they are influenced easier then older children. (The whole do not indoctrinate children picture, I really do hate indoctrination). Hence why I come at this subject like I do. Everybody has personal bias(No matter how immune you think you are it will be shown) when it comes to thinking about a subject this is one of mine.

Edited by Jinxdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you bring in an excellent point;one I had not looked into to closely unitl you posted, a lot of kids come out of homes who( as we speak) are sitting in science classes that do think Creationism is a fact and that Evolution is bunk.I think Science class is a great place to address this.

For me, this is why( in otherwords my two cents.)

These are kids that have been taught this by well meaning parents, in fact, I know kids like this and their parents, I know kids who think abortion is evil, I know kids who think that their religion is the only right one. The reality is that for the most part kids are inlfuenced/taught by their parents(and their peers) what to beleive and I think our educational system may have to find a way to deal with this in a fair way. Personally there is no way I would make a child feel inferior or less then for asking questions nor would I put limits on questions, it is in the discussing that I always have an opportunity to teach. In giving this thread a lot of thought I would be fine with discussing Creationism as compared to Evolution to help a kid understand how to make informed opinions, think critically, understand what it means to use inductive and deductive logic, learn what a theory is,what a fact is etc. etc. etc. and how this is done using science and what it means to think scientifically, what the rules are concerning this and how to apply them in real life.. As much as I'd like to think everything should be all black and white and creationism shouldn't even come up in a sceince classroom, but in reality it does.

For me, I can equate it to pretending my kids won't ever hear of things if I avoid talking about them, I simply do not parent like that- I prepare myself for it all and let me tell you, as a mom for over 20 years my kids and their friends have had all kinds of interesting beliefs that come up..LOL (Classics)

One time one of my sons friends really beleived if she didn't do her homework that her mom could summon bloody mary from the bathroom mirror and get her( her Mom taught her this.) Her peers showed her she was in error, not by making fun of her or mandating laws that prevented her from questioning(unless it met a certain criteria) but by going into the bathroom, closing the door and calling bloody mary to no avail. The kid saw for herself via rudementary science application her mom was mistaken.

i have learned so many creative ways to deal with questions because of kids questions, I say let them ask.

Scowl, thanks for givng me a new way to think about this. Great post!

Sheri, I know you're trying to be diplomatic, groovy, and all open-minded, but these people aren't just going to these lengths to get these bills passed to be able to have some neutral discussion on the matter. They have a direct agenda. Here's a similar situation with a bill in Louisiana awhile back, this is long, but I think worth the read and a glimpse into what a bill like this means and where they intend to head with it if given the chance, (notice the same wording, controversial topics like evolution and climate change as we are discussing here; that's a very important point to notice, they specifically name certain scientific topics to target, which should tell you a lot about the intentions and agenda of this):

How 19-year-old activist Zack Kopplin is making life hell for Louisiana’s creationists

For Zack Kopplin, it all started back in 2008 with the passing of the Louisiana Science Education Act. The bill made it considerably easier for teachers to introduce creationist textbooks into the classroom. Outraged, he wrote a research paper about it for a high school English class. Nearly five years later, the 19-year-old Kopplin has become one of the fiercest — and most feared — advocates for education reform in Louisiana. We recently spoke to him to learn more about how he's making a difference.

Kopplin, who is studying history at Rice University, had good reason to be upset after the passing of the LSEA — an insidious piece of legislation that allows teachers to bring in their own supplemental materials when discussing politically controversial topics like evolution or climate change. Soon after the act was passed, some of his teachers began to not just supplement existing texts, but to rid the classroom of established science books altogether. It was during the process to adopt a new life science textbook in 2010 that creationists barraged Louisiana's State Board of Education with complaints about the evidence-based science texts. Suddenly, it appeared that they were going to be successful in throwing out science textbooks.

Encouraged by Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University — and a staunch critic of intelligent design and the Discovery Institute — Kopplin decided to write a letter that could be signed by Nobel laureate scientists in support of the repeal. To that end, he contacted Sir Harry Kroto, a British chemist who shared the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Robert Curl and Richard Smalley. Kroto helped him to draft the letter — one that has now been signed by 78 Nobel laureates.

In addition, Kopplin has introduced two bills to repeal the LSEA, both of which have been sponsored by State Senator Karen Carter Peterson. He plans on producing a third bill later this spring. And along with the Nobel laureates, he has the support of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), New Orleans City Council, and many others.

It's simply not science

And indeed, Kopplin is a passionate defender of scientific inquiry, and vociferously rejects the notion that creationism and evolution should be taught side-by-side.

"Creationism is not science, and shouldn't be in a public school science class — it's that simple," he says. "Often though, creationists do not, or are unwilling, to recognize this." Science, he argues, is observable, naturalistic, testable, falsifiable, and expandable — everything that creationism is not.

But what also drives Kopplin is the inherent danger he sees in teaching creationism.

"Creationism confuses students about the nature of science," he says. "If students don't understand the scientific method, and are taught that creationism is science, they will not be prepared to do work in genuine fields, especially not the biological sciences. We are hurting the chances of our students having jobs in science, and making discoveries that will change the world."

http://io9.com/59761...as-creationists

More about the similar bill in Lousiana can be read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Science_Education_Act

Edited by ChloeB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An example of some of the "supplemental" materials a law like this opens the door to:

They say that evolution is a lie and they can prove it by saying humans and dinosaurs lived together, even though science shows us that this also is a lie. But according to the Scotsman a “science” textbook” at Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, Louisiana claims otherwise:

“Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.”

Obviously, the logic goes, if dinosaurs are still alive today, evolution is a fraud. The book goes on to develop a conclusion based not on observable scientific fact but on the Bible:

Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all.”

Of course, scientists think no such thing. No scientist believes “Nessie” exists. Photographs have been doctored or misinterpreted, eyewitnesses debunked and sonar has proven nothing of the sort. Perversely, this “science” textbook uses science to debunk science.

In other words, something that cannot be proven to exist is being used to disprove something that is observable in nature and very provable through repeated testing.

http://www.politicus...-evolution.html

You guys think that these teachers are all going to be honest and neutral about this? You don't think a highly religious little town won't make sure they get the type of teachers in to teach science who will have the same bias as the people behind this bill? How screwed up would a kid be by a teacher teaching this, a teacher is showing it, supporting it, it's in a textbook and they haven't had the scientific background, education, and understanding to make heads or tails of what is right, a science book handed to them by a science teacher is telling them the Loch Ness monster exists, has been recorded and therefore disproves evolution. How would a 5th grader know this is BS? The kids don't go in there armed with an understanding of the scientific method to always challenge this, and they'd be confused and manipulated by a law like this that allows this to occur.

Edited by ChloeB
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask yourself why did you reply to me?

OK, done.

Did you reply because you thought I was right? No.

Did you reply because you thought I was wrong? Yes.

Who are you asking? And who is answering?

From 6th and upwards. Your quote, because by then kids are going to be able to actually start putting things together on their own.

Younger kids aren't nearly as dumb as you think they are. I have a diary that I started in the third grade. I was very observant and opinionated. I'm impressed how I and my friends were perfectly able to put "things together" on our own at that age. We knew which teachers didn't know anything about what they were teaching. We knew which teachers had emotional problems. We knew how to play teachers and trick them. We knew when we were being lied to. We kept all these things to ourselves because we knew that kids who knew things got in trouble.

I really enjoyed an entry I made in the fourth grade after a substitute teacher read from a Bible to prove that it says the Earth is globe thus the Good Book is a bounty of scientific information. Yes, even I knew that "roundth" meant a circle, not a globe. This entry was so full of sarcasm and exclamation points that I don't know how I was able to keep my mouth shut in class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution stopped nowadays. Now one will survive if he has enough money to buy food or lucky enough not to be caught in an accident or by unwanted diseases. Gene and mutation means nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are you asking? And who is answering?

The questions to everybody, the answers I wrote afterwards are how I think you would answer them. Since your replying was exactly the reaction that I wanted to point out.

Younger kids aren't nearly as dumb as you think they are. I have a diary that I started in the third grade. I was very observant and opinionated. I'm impressed how I and my friends were perfectly able to put "things together" on our own at that age. We knew which teachers didn't know anything about what they were teaching. We knew which teachers had emotional problems. We knew how to play teachers and trick them. We knew when we were being lied to. We kept all these things to ourselves because we knew that kids who knew things got in trouble

I don't think young kids are dumb at all. You and your friends figured the teacher out because you interacted with them on a personally. Being told something is quite different then observing it for yourself. As kids get older they will have an easier time working with information that they cannot observe first hand.

Think about it this way.

Take Santa for instance, How do kids try to figure out if Santa is real? They leave milk and cookies, they listen for reindeer, they stay up and watch. They figure it out for themselves using logical measures. As they get older then can come to terms with that their parents are actually Santa in theory. A person who is in your house that leaves presents under your tree who may or may not wear a red suit, but not that whole religious Santa. Then as an adult we ask philosophical questions like is Santa real.

Edited by Jinxdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what we did in my school.

We quickly saw that the alternative theories didn't hold up. Most kids who had thought man couldn't have evolved from other creatures were stunned at how weak other theories were.

It's a fair compromise IMO. I'm sure that creationism will be used as comic relief by those instructors but it's a good thing to at least mention the possibility that mankind may not have all the answers. And the shunning will strengthen the students who do have faith in God. So it's a win win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno if I was so smart; I didn't ever hear of Santa Clause, but we had other similar things mainly about the equivalent of what you might call the bogeyman, and she (a woman in the Vietnamese version) was scary. I believed until older kids set me straight: then confronted my mom and got the truth.

Teachers are something holy here; one respects them beyond measure and they get gifts and bows and all sorts of other tokens, so I just can't imagine thinking the kinds of things I read in one of the above messages about one of my teachers. Even in college in the States, where one used "Mr." and so on to address teachers, I so often wanted to use the Vietnamese pronoun for teacher (it would probably translate something like "honorable" or "venerable,") although of course I had been instructed that this was not part of American culture.

Perhaps one of the weaknesses of Asian teaching is that children do not think for themselves. They are to repeat verbatim what they have memorized, end of story. Nowadays I still run into that, trying to get students to figure things out, when all they want is to be told, so they can write it down and take it home and memorize it. I really can't imagine a situation where the parents believe one thing and the teacher teaches another. I suppose it must happen, but the child is going to have to bury it and not argue or contradict or even question either of them.

I do not exaggerate. Children do not question, and watching US kids on TV where they talk back to adults just amazes them. (Of course this TV is also having its influence). I would also say that the Vietnamese approach does not necessarily work better -- Vietnamese kids get into their share of trouble too.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was a science teacher and was forced to teach creation mythology, I would teach every creation myth except the Abrahamic one. If they want to learn that one they can go to any church and learn it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole Creation/Evolution debate is laughable. Creationism deals with how everything was created whereas Evolution, cares not one wit for how something came into existence, but it's evolution after that point.

If you find a teacher, including creationism in an evolution class, point out to them how invalid that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An example of some of the "supplemental" materials a law like this opens the door to:

They say that evolution is a lie and they can prove it by saying humans and dinosaurs lived together, even though science shows us that this also is a lie. But according to the Scotsman a “science” textbook” at Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, Louisiana claims otherwise:

“Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the ‘Loch Ness Monster’ in Scotland? ‘Nessie’ for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.”

Obviously, the logic goes, if dinosaurs are still alive today, evolution is a fraud. The book goes on to develop a conclusion based not on observable scientific fact but on the Bible:

Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all.”

Of course, scientists think no such thing. No scientist believes “Nessie” exists. Photographs have been doctored or misinterpreted, eyewitnesses debunked and sonar has proven nothing of the sort. Perversely, this “science” textbook uses science to debunk science.

In other words, something that cannot be proven to exist is being used to disprove something that is observable in nature and very provable through repeated testing.

http://www.politicus...-evolution.html

You guys think that these teachers are all going to be honest and neutral about this? You don't think a highly religious little town won't make sure they get the type of teachers in to teach science who will have the same bias as the people behind this bill? How screwed up would a kid be by a teacher teaching this, a teacher is showing it, supporting it, it's in a textbook and they haven't had the scientific background, education, and understanding to make heads or tails of what is right, a science book handed to them by a science teacher is telling them the Loch Ness monster exists, has been recorded and therefore disproves evolution. How would a 5th grader know this is BS? The kids don't go in there armed with an understanding of the scientific method to always challenge this, and they'd be confused and manipulated by a law like this that allows this to occur.

Chloe,

I read your posts, I read your links and I share in your concerns. I do not advocate teaching Creationism as Science.

AND, I do not for one minute think that a sceince teacher could/would not teach science and have an agenda they could and do. If I was in a small town I'd make sure I knew what my kids were being taught, I'd keep open communication with my kids, I'd make sure I had cutivated a realtionship in where my kids could come to me and ask questions. It is in the asking of questions and open dialog I can teach, I can offer educatation. ( I stay informed too)

On Monday when I tutored ( I have tutored this girl for 3 years, she is 16) she asked me, she asked her grandmother if we believed in aliens or the Loch Ness monster. This did not come from biology class, this came from her peers. A lot of this nonsense comes from peers too.

I said No, I do not believe in either, her grandmother said neither did she, she also said to her grand daughter I have never seen evidence of these things, that is how I decide.(her grandmother didn't get past the 8th grade.)

This same girl asked me a year ago if I thought the world was going to end because all her friends were telling her it was, as her friends read this on line. I told her no, I didn't beleive that. I could see she was still worried, so I suggested she ask her Grandmother, she did and her grandmother said flat out it was BS. she also told her not to believe everything she hears from her friends or reads on line.

I showed her how to read the domain in the URL, we wrote a post it note-- .gov, .edu (credible) .com,.net( not credible) and stuck it on the computer.

Not every kid takes Computer Literacy.

So I ask myself is it possible that there be teachers that have agenda's, the answer is yes, should there be of course not, your concerns are well founded. For me, I address this by planning for it I stay on top of my kids teacher's,( I know them, I cultivate realtionships with them)I talk to my kids I talk to their friends. I stay informed and I long ago cultivated relationships with my kids so they can ask me anything in this I can teach them.

One more story, I recently was with a young man I have known since he was 13(he now is 21.) His family is very conservative and they do not support Evolution. When he went through biology his mom was freaked out that his teacher was teaching that we come from monkeys. The truth was his mom is in error, we do not come from monkey's as monkeys are an extant species. I was an avid reader of Copasetic at the time and I learned enough to be able to offer a perspective in a compassionate neutral way. The last thing I would do is infer or make someone feel ignorant for asking for being in error, as it would end the converstation; freindship therefore, the opportunity to exchange ideas or question would be lost.

When I saw him recently after a few years in college--(no surprise) he no longer dismisses Evolution; in fact, he said he beleives in being Christian, but he also thinks Science is how we as a culture learn new things and that one has to weigh things by the standards of science. This shows that even though our educational system can be flawed it still offers an education.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was a science teacher and was forced to teach creation mythology, I would teach every creation myth except the Abrahamic one. If they want to learn that one they can go to any church and learn it.

In my 7th grade science class, the teacher wasn't specific about any creation theory, only that the theory (or theories) state that all life was created "at about the same time". I think the quoted part was intended to include all creation theories.

Like I said, it took a fraction of the hour to falsify the theory and it was a convincing demonstration of scientific evaluation of evidence. That's what we were supposed to learn, right?

The other theory, "adaptation through inheritance" was tougher to disprove. It explains evolution in a more understandable way than genetic mutation and it sounds like a better system. Too bad life doesn't actually evolve that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.