Happy Atheist Forum

Dr Adam Rutherford Criticises Teachers' Views On Creationism (http://www.teachers.tv/news/30218)

QuoteDoctor Adam Rutherford has told Teachers TV News he has serious concerns over the findings of a survey on creationism in the classroom.

Nearly a third of teachers, who responded to an email poll for Teachers TV, think creationism or intelligent design should be given the same status as evolution.

Of the 248 science teachers who responded, 18% agreed that the two very different theories should have equal status.

Dr Rutherford says that science teachers with those views need retraining or should be taken out of the classroom if they refuse to change their opinion.

[Read The Comments Here (http://www.teachers.tv/news/30218)]

I have strong feelings on this one.

If the teacher intends to teach creationism in a science class then get them out, NOW! If they are a creationist but don't plan to teach it in class then in principle that's fine but I suppose it does come down to how they teach science (teachers aware of what creationism is and expressing a sympathy for it WRT to science teaching would need to be carefully monitored). I would expect a science teacher to be aware of the issues and to be able to explain what science is, what creationism/ID isn't and give good reasons at an appropriate level explaining why creationism shouldn't be taught in science.  As a parent I know that if I knew a creationist was teaching science in one of my kids schools I would want them out and out now.

There is no doubt in my mind that the teaching of creationism (and bear in mind I see no distinction between intelligent design and creationism) to children under the guise of anything but religious studies is nothing more than psychological child abuse. Any school that allows it should be investigated and there should be severe penalties for those involved.

It is possible that some of you will think I'm a fascist for advancing my views so (apparently) arrogantly but creationism (in education terms) belongs in the home, the church and the religious classroom, it has no place at all in the science class ... period!

Kyu

I don't have a problem with people believing something so much as I would have a problem with such a person being willing to use their position to spout lies in an attempt to discredit that which they don't agree with.

Hell, the best biology teacher I had in high school was a woman who regularly attended church.  She was the first person to point out the basics of the scientific method and its importance and not feeling the tiniest bit of conflict between her religious views and faith.

I don't think faith and science are mutually exclusive, so I don't necessarily have issuess with creationists teaching science class. However when it comes to teaching evolution, creationist science teachers need to follow the textbook. They need to teach SCIENCE, not their religious views. That's why ID theory is so frustrating. These a-holes think they can fashion ID into something just as 'scientific' as evolutionary theory, so they can get ID into textbooks side by side with evolution, which is utterly rediculous.

A number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creationism-related_court_cases)of court cases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Intelligent_design_controversies), in the United States, at least, have repeatedly proven that Creationism (as well as Intelligent Design) are not sufficiently scientific and thus cannot be taught in public school science classrooms as a valid alternative for evolutionary biology (though science classrooms do not and should not concern themselves with how the universe came into existence; that should be for the astronomy and philosophy classrooms, in my opinion).

I've referenced a paper on another thread before: Fooce, C. & Warnick, B.  (2007.)  Does teaching creationism facilitate student autonomy? Theory and Research in Education.  5(3), 357-378. It's a great source for a philosophical smackdown on one of those "wedge" strategies to get Creationism and Intelligent Design into the science classroom.

Philip Johnson is a tool.

The only time ID should come up in class is either explaining why ID Classic is totally incompatible with the fossil record (I'd dare say the idea of a near-simultaneous creation needs to be run into the ground), or when discussing it in the context of panspermia.  Also, the discussion should not be allowed to be steered by the class if they are trying to find validation for their conflicting beliefs.  It's totally possible that a Bible Belt class may mock evolution, but a good teacher won't stand for it or let them off the hook, just as a math teacher wouldn't if the kids started suggesting that they can't know 1 + 1 = 2, not when the additive property of zero means 0 + 0 = 0!   I'm sure I sound a little too harsh on this viewpoint, but kids and teachers are currently given a lateral freedom in regards to evolution that they shouldn't be, a lateral freedom they wouldn't get away with in any other regard.  I really don't care if the instructor has to compartmentalize their mind, live in cognitive dissonance, or feel as though they are lying to the class.  They ought to teach it to the standard.

The biggest issue I have with ID / Creationism is that they begin with the answers and force the facts to fit and if they don't fit exactly, it's because we can't know what God intends.  That is NOT science, it is theology, and thus should not be taught in science class.  Philosophy, yes.  Science, no.

As an aside, does England have a mandatory RE class in their public schools?

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"I don't have a problem with people believing something so much as I would have a problem with such a person being willing to use their position to spout lies in an attempt to discredit that which they don't agree with.

Um ... who was lying?

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"Hell, the best biology teacher I had in high school was a woman who regularly attended church.  She was the first person to point out the basics of the scientific method and its importance and not feeling the tiniest bit of conflict between her religious views and faith.

Good for her though there is a conflict because, in principle at least, there is no claim that science cannot investigate (and no, I'm not suggesting religious people can't teach the sciences) ... would you believe me if I told you I'm not a supporter of the NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) that Gould proposed?  

Kyu

Quote from: "myleviathan"I don't think faith and science are mutually exclusive, so I don't necessarily have issuess with creationists teaching science class. However when it comes to teaching evolution, creationist science teachers need to follow the textbook. They need to teach SCIENCE, not their religious views.

Nor would I if I could be confident they were actually teaching science, the problem is (knowing how creationists operate) I don't think I could have that confidence so I stick to my close monitoring point.

Quote from: "myleviathan"That's why ID theory is so frustrating. These a-holes think they can fashion ID into something just as 'scientific' as evolutionary theory, so they can get ID into textbooks side by side with evolution, which is utterly rediculous.

ID what?

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"I don't have a problem with people believing something so much as I would have a problem with such a person being willing to use their position to spout lies in an attempt to discredit that which they don't agree with.

Um ... who was lying?

No one in particular, but I'm sure there are people who would be willing to outright lie.  

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"Hell, the best biology teacher I had in high school was a woman who regularly attended church.  She was the first person to point out the basics of the scientific method and its importance and not feeling the tiniest bit of conflict between her religious views and faith.

Good for her though there is a conflict because, in principle at least, there is no claim that science cannot investigate (and no, I'm not suggesting religious people can't teach the sciences) ... would you believe me if I told you I'm not a supporter of the NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) that Gould proposed?  

Kyu[/quote]

Sure there's a conflict, but the conflict wasn't a deal breaker as far as my teacher was concerned.

I think creationists should be allowed to teach science in public schools only if they don't include creationism...which clearly is not science.

The poll needs an option that Titan mentioned. Yes, a creationist should be allowed to teach science, but only if he doesn't teach creationism, which isn't science.

I don't care if a creationist is teaching a science class as long as they only teach science in the class.  But, honestly, I don't think anything that buys into a literal creationist view is well versed enough to be teaching most of the sciences.

Quote from: "McQ"The poll needs an option that Titan mentioned. Yes, a creationist should be allowed to teach science, but only if he doesn't teach creationism, which isn't science.

Although it's not explicitly stated, I think that's how most people took it when reading it. Then again, I'm projecting, as that's how I read it. One of those, "Well, I know what you meant" kind of things.

Man, I'm eloquent tonight, ain't I?  

I could teach a class on religion without proselytizing.

If they can keep their backwards beliefs out of their lesson plan, I don't care.

Thinking about it I think my question might be wrong.

Maybe it should have been should teachers teach or discuss creationism in the science classroom?

Kyu

If a student asks? Yes.

I've never had a creationist science teacher. And even if I did, (s)he would have to teach the same story as everyone else does. Thus, my answer is "Meh".

Quote from: "Asmodean"I've never had a creationist science teacher. And even if I did, (s)he would have to teach the same story as everyone else does. Thus, my answer is "Meh".

Ah! You think that now ... but what indeed are the metaphysical and philosophical implications of "Meh!" I bet you hadn't thought of that had you?  

Kyu

Quote from: "Titan"If a student asks? Yes.

Teach or discuss?

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Asmodean"I've never had a creationist science teacher. And even if I did, (s)he would have to teach the same story as everyone else does. Thus, my answer is "Meh".

Ah! You think that now ... but what indeed are the metaphysical and philosophical implications of "Meh!" I bet you hadn't thought of that had you?  :unsure: ) a teacher has to teach what the department of education says needs to be taught. Thus, if a teacher is evolutionist, creationist or North Korean, (s)he'd still have to teach evolution and only briefly mention creationsim (and that in Religion and Life Philosophy, not Science.)

Quote from: "Asmodean"In my metaphysical and philosophical reality (metaphysical reality... right...  :D

I was only being daft in my last reply BTW

Kyu

Kyu

QuoteTeach or discuss?

Discuss...but wouldn't the act of discussing it be teaching it as well? If the child has an honest inquiry the teacher shouldn't disregard him but I don't believe that the teacher should then spend the next weeks going into "creation science."

Quote from: "Titan"

QuoteTeach or discuss?

Discuss...but wouldn't the act of discussing it be teaching it as well? If the child has an honest inquiry the teacher shouldn't disregard him but I don't believe that the teacher should then spend the next weeks going into "creation science."

Teaching yes, teaching it no.

Kyu

Okay, then we are agreed.

I once knew a creationist science tecaher who tought Darwins theory exactly how it was suppose to be taught. He knew it was a part of his job; I don't have a problem with that.

Quote from: "Titan"Okay, then we are agreed.

Cool

Kyu