GeoTheo

Creationism is obviously a product of a literal interpretation of the first few chapters of the book of Genesis in the Bible. Within the religion of Christianity there is no consensus that a literal interpretation is even the proper one. Wheather literal or allegorical, however, most Christians would agree that the Bible is revelation from God. That is, that it is truth that in order to be understood, is somthing that needs to be communicated directly by God. It is not truth that is believed to be obvious to everyone or that it can be independantly arrived at.
This would imply that people studying natural phenomenon would not eventually arrive at the conclusion that the Earth was created in 6 days, or for example that the first women was created from one of the first man's ribs. Neither would they come to any of the truths being communicated
allegorically, whatever they may be.
So creationism therefore is a belief derived from religious tennants believed to be communicated by God through the Bible. This would put it into the realm of religious belief. Teaching a religious belief authoritatively in a public school would violate the sepearation of church and state. Science should be taught in biology class and not the temnnants of Christianity or any other religion.
Should Dawkins style EVOLUTION=ATHEISM be taught in the public schools then?
Should the conclusion of certian people that no evidence of devine creation in the Universe implies the lack of the existence of a creator?
Should the attitude toward creationists be "Tough luck, you have a right to your religious beliefs, but you have no right provided by the constitution that they be right beliefs or even rational ones or that others should hold them as well. There is no evidence in the Universe for the existence of God or that he is Our creator.That is simply a fact. Facts are what we deal with in this class and not fairy tales, superstitions or religious beliefs."
This was basically the attitude of a biology professor I had in a state funded community college. He also publicly ridiculed a former student in his class that cried out "Jesus is the only way" and excused himself during a human evolution lecture. The professor made it clear that quote: "The belief in 'a deity'or some spirit
is intangible and therefore outside the realm of Science. He took it upon himself as his personal mission to disabuse us of any irrational notions of creationism. At the start of the semester we we were asked to right our names on 3x5 cards and answer on them two questions:
1. Do you believe in evolution or creation for the origin of species?
2. Do you believe in evolution or creation for the origin of humans?
We were asked to fill out our answers to the same questions again at he close of the semester.
This was not a philosophy class, it was freshman general biology. Had he overstepped his bounds as a Teacher in a state funded school?
Does the fact that you agree with his philosophical view and hold it to be true and obvious, justify his behavior.
Would teaching creation by justified by people who hold it to be true and obvious?
Is he teaching implicit atheism?
Whats a body to do when there's no god and one is smart enough to percieve it?
It is it OK to teach atheism because it is not a religion?

Secular Elation

Well, there was no "Dawkins EVOLUTION=ATHEISM" mood in my biology class when we studied evolution.

Dawkins is simply a scientist who feels strong in his nonreligious convictions. This is not the norm for science education.

My teacher simply taught us about evolution. He gave no commentary on religion, gods, or anything like that. There was no bias.

Anyway, creationism shouldn't be taught in schools because it is a part of religion. Some may call it science, but it is decidedly religious in nature. Creationism came from the Bible, evolution didn't.

If you want to be taught creationism, then attend a church school.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

Stephen T-B

Creationism has no part in a school curriculum outside the Religious Knowledge class or study of Comparative Religions.

Alonzo Fyfe

Because this was a college course, I am not inclined to offer criticism of the way the teacher taught the course (sans abuse or some similar sort of misconduct).

Each professor has a theory, a way of looking at the world, a set of ideas that are the product of his years of study. Some are good, some are bad.

The students, by this point, should be sophisticated enough in their thinking that they are not walking into class thinking that their teachers are intellectual gods. Rather, at this point, they should be learning how to do what they will be required to do for the rest of their life, listen to educated opinions, separate the wheet from the chafe, and come to their own conclusions.

The only alternative to this view, as far as I can see, is a type of censorship whereby professors must have their beliefs reviewed and approved before they go in front of the class. Which will have the inevitable result of stiffling new ideas in favor of the old, traditional ways of thinking.

Take this to an extreme, of course, and I may agree with you. At some point, we can say that the professor has gone insane, and his history lessons proclaiming that civic leaders had been abducted by aliens and replaced with pod people goes a bit too far beyond the realm of reason for the classroom.

But I do not think the attitudes expressed by the professor you described quite falls into the same category as the Pod People Theory of History.

Albion

I certainly don't think any attempt should be made in school science class to tie evolution to atheism, whether it's done by Christian teachers or atheist ones. When dealing with children, I think that's an abuse of the teacher's authority.

However, I do think school science classes should spend more time teaching the basics of what science really is and what it isn't and the difference between the scientific method and some other approaches and the difference between terms such as "fact," "theory," "law," "accurate," and "precise" in a scientific context and other contexts. It's important that people learn the difference between science and pseudoscience and even outright superstition. Like Carl Sagan said, we need to take a hard look at the state of science teaching when so many more people are interested in astrology than astronomy.

As far as college is concerned, I think science professors do have some responsibility to get their students involved in critical-thinking skills. College is voluntary, college courses are pretty voluntary - there seems to be a very wide choice - there are Bible-based colleges for people who want Bible-based teaching, and it really isn't the college professor's job to pander to the sensibilities of students who simply won't accept the basic premise of the scientific subject being taught.

Just about ever college professor in science that I've come across has stories of students sitting in class ostentatiously not taking notes but being disruptive, asking questions straight off the creationist websites, handing out religious tracts contradicting the work being taught in class, complaining to college authorities if the word "evolution" dares to be mentioned, and otherwise clearly being there simply to get between the teacher and the other students. At some point or other, these teachers get pretty fed up with this, and I don't at all blame them for fighting back. They're seeing the foundations of their working life being challenged by all this propaganda, and I think it's quite appropriate for them to respond.

To answer the original question, since creation science is so clearly based on the Bible, it isn't science, and it should be kept out of science class. I don't see why it can't be taught along with other creation stories in comparative-religion class or in philosophy class. It just doesn't belong in science class, except as an example of what a falsified hypothesis looks like.

pz

That's perfect. That's actually about the right attitude, I think.

I believe that religious beliefs about creation ought to at least be acknowledged in a biology class, simply because they are so prevalent in society. However, they need to be treated in the same way that flat earther's would be handled in a geology class, if flat earth superstitions were more common: they should be mentioned to be dismissed, and the focus of the course should be on the legitimate, supported ideas.

GeoTheo

Well, I didn't do any of those things like hand out tracts or try to "stump" him in a lecture or anything. I came here and posted all the questions that came up in my mind and tried to argue it out here. In a way that was both good and bad. I was taking twelve credits and working full time, which is not an impressive feat, but I could have utilized my time better studying. I aced all the labs on the fetal pig anatomy and the identification of 50 bird species but didn't put in the time time with the mandelian genetics. For the final exam he told me my average was high enough thatI could get an A in the course even if I get a "C" on the final.We had to predict various genetic probabilities using a punit square and write a step by step diagram of meiosis and mitosis. I got a B in the class so I probably flunked it. I was so mad at myself I went back and did all the homework just for the satisfaction that I could learn it. He was one of those Guys that tells you all the work you need to do every day in order to pass and that if you slack off on it you will get buried and then flunks half the class just like he said he would because they didn't put in the time. He was even pointed out some of the people repeating the course and said to ask them if he was telling the truth.
So I would say he was a very effective teacher.
He did get me to really think critically and was right about the studying part even though I never cracked a book till the class was done and I had already paid the price for my lack of self discipline. Would I have learned as much had he not been so confrontational? probably not. My wife had a different prof. and she said he never really mentioned evolution.

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: GeoTheo ]</p>

pz

I've had students try to do such stunts, but I don't tolerate it. Class time is too precious to waste on unproductive garbage.

Usually, I tell the student that they can discuss the matter with me after class. In a few cases, they brought up objections which were actually relevant to the topic of the lecture, and if I can actually teach something by explaining where the
student has gone wrong, I'll go ahead...the student has to be a bit pushy to get that, though, since it's usually a bit rough on their self-esteem.

In one case, a student invited me to a presentation by a creationist at a local church, and that backfired on her even worse. It wasn't just me, but a group of her fellow students who got together and showed up to reduce the poor guy to a stammering wreck by asking lots of awkward questions.

GeoTheo

We had some interesting conversations during labs that were held in bird sanctuaries. My lab partner was a pre-dental student and got a 100% (that's why I picked him) on the final. He was reading "why God won't go away" or somthing like that. The book that studys the question of the biochemical processes of the effect of religion on the brain. So He was good with things like that that were interesting topics that related. I heard that later He took a class to an Creation seminar. I'm sure he picked it apart later. He wrote a letter to the Newspaper relating creationism to flat Earth and the Campus Bible Fellowship Guy that put on the seminar wrote a response.
edited for clarity

[ July 24, 2002: Message edited by: GeoTheo ]</p>

Badfish

Since God has been taken out of school, there is almost no chance Creationism will be taught in a regular school or popular university.

However, I think if a student is a Christian or religious, he/she should attend a College that specializes in the Creation sciences, there are many fine religious colleges, that one can obtain a comparable degree to that of any university.

I hate to admit it, but evolution should be presented to students of regular schools and colleges, with the disclaimer that these are only compelling theories and if you are religious please note this is just a study on a possibility and in no way is intended to replace Creationism.