Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gravitybow · 02-28-2002, 07:47 AM

"Hey, you know all that stuff that I taught you about evolution? It's all false! I only taught it to you because the state requires it!"

With those words, your science teacher has created a hostile environment to everything else that science offers on the subject of evolution.

Kevin Dorner is on target here: Chaos Amoeba, go to the principal and let him know how you feel about this. The whole situation stinks!

The teacher has plainly said that evolution is "all false." It would be one thing to have this debate in an atmosphere that lent itself to a science vs. psuedoscience comparison. But that's not the circumstance, is it? Maybe the atmosphere is one of equally competing theories, the same kind of equal-time environment struck down by the courts? No, wait. Actually, it's even worse than that: the teacher has already given the scientifically-supported theory a TKO before the opponents even enter the ring. Evolution is not even equal to creationism, right? In chemistry class, does the teacher offer a debate between chemistry and alchemy? When astronomy is the topic, is there a debate on astronomy versus astrology? Did you discuss the merits of numerology in math class?

She is stepping way over the line.

So, CA, how are your less literate classmates suppose to defend themselves? With the ideas she gave them and then unceremoniously discarded? The one advocate all of you should have has replaced reason in favor of mythical interpretations. But, since she is not allowed to present psuedoscience in the student-teacher context, she will pit you students against each other in order to get creation thinking, which she holds as the only explanation, into the classroom. "Evolution is a fraud and we're going to have a debate about it next Tuesday." Does that pretty much sum it up, Amoeba?

"The scientist who yields anything to theology, however slight, is yielding to ignorance and false pretenses, and as certainly as if he granted that a horse-hair put into a bottle of water will turn into a snake." [H.L. Mencken]

Quote:

Chaos Amoeba posts:
This probably wouldn't qualify as violating church and state, since she didn't specifically mention "6 Days Creationism," but still it does seem like a pretty cheap trick to indoctrinate her students like this.

Creationism is religion masquerading as science. There's no simpler way to put it. It's about as church-state as you can get when your talking about introducing it as an equal to science. Unlike real science, creationism demands special treatment, preferring to win by public opinion and judicial action rather than by merit. But even in the judicial arena, creationism has lost because it is Genesis-based religion and thus creates church-state entanglement. "Mrs. Jones," who apparently hasn't grasped any of the science she was hired to teach, has set aside her responsibility as a science instructor and subverted the science classroom in order to slyly introduce an agenda: creationism matches (or trumps) evolution. I mean, that's the way she's stacked the cards, isn't it? Why not read an excerpt from the creationist playbook?:

Quote:

from the Institute for Creation Research,
Impact No. 20
Introducing Creationism into the Public Schools:

Students:
...Also, there is no doubt that a teacher will pay more attention to the suggestions and criticisms of a good conscientious student than to those of a lazy and indifferent student. In any kind of effective Christian witnessing, the witness must know what he is talking about, be winsome and tactful, kind and patient, and especially where someone of higher authority is involved, respectful and courteous. Cleanliness and neatness don't hurt, either.

Assuming the above conditions as prerequisites, then the opportunities available to such students might include: raising questions, or offering alternative suggestions, in class discussions; using a creationist approach in speeches and special papers and projects; talking to the teacher privately about available creationist literature and speakers; inviting the teacher and classmates to attend creation seminars or similar meetings; suggesting a classroom debate on the creation-evolution question; giving sound creationist periodical literature or tracts to the teacher; and other similar actions...

...Reports of student experiences around the country indicate, on the other hand, that one or two creationist students have often been able to make a tremendous impact on the class, and even on the teacher, through their careful, courteous, consistent Christian testimony.

A tremendous impact on the class? Your class, perhaps? That's all you need: a shill for the teacher trotting out defeated arguments in front of a fresh, naive crowd. You guys don't need this in a science class. Evolutionists don't desire this debate in science classrooms, but creationists (like your teacher) sure do. BTW, I hope the Christianity references in the above quote didn't escape your attention. Creationism is not a science!

So, what is the expected learning outcome for this debate? To improve your critical thinking skills? Here's what the <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8963_facing_challenges_to_evolution_12_7_2000.asp" target="_blank">National Center for Science Education</a> (NCSE), a watchdog group defending evolution, has to say about that:

Quote:

4) Claims that critical thinking skills are enhanced by teaching both evolution and "creation science" (or one of its synonyms):

Response: Teaching critical thinking doesn’t mean presenting irrelevant and ill-founded "alternatives" to basic knowledge that we want all students to understand. Students learning basic concepts about chemistry and physics aren’t taught "alternative theories of matter" such as the medieval four elements. Also, while students discuss alternative interpretations of evidence in many contexts (for example, how to interpret the motivations of characters in a novel), we still don’t "balance" valid knowledge with unsupported claims or poor evidence (for example, teaching students in a European history class "evidence that the Holocaust never happened"). In the context of science education, it would be appropriate to discuss genuine disagreements within the scientific community -- for example, scientific discussions about the pace at which evolution occurred.

Another problem is that teachers discussing "evidence against evolution" would logically be expected to discuss evidence against "scientific creationism." Yet it is impossible to do so without criticizing religious beliefs, which they should not do.

OK, you're a designated Darwinist. Are you only suppose to present evidence for your position, or are you allowed to attack the opposition? You would be on solid footing to say that creationism is based on an ancient myth and that its proponents are almost exclusively members of Protestant sects. But now you have attacked someone's cherished religious beliefs. Are students and the teacher going to stand for that, even in a debate? Reread the last part of the above quote. Your hands are practically tied when it comes to getting at the heart of what creationism is all about. And what do its ardent proponents say it is about? Again, from <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4414_facts_faith_and_fairness_12_7_2000.asp" target="_blank">the NCSE website</a>:

Quote:

"Creationists" are fundamentalist Christians who believe that the account of creation in the Book of Genesis is literally true. According to creationists, the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, Adam and Eve were the actual ancestors of all living people, and Noah�s flood occurred exactly as described in the Bible.

Creationists ignore the basic premises of science. For example, the public school edition of Henry Morris� textbook, Scientific Creationism, published by Creation-Life Publishers, states: "It is precisely because Biblical revelation is absolutely authoritative and perspicuous that the scientific facts, rightly interpreted, will give the same testimony as that of Scripture. There is not the slightest possibility that the facts of science can contradict the Bible." This principle directly contradicts the requirement that scientific explanations must be modified when new facts are discovered.

Similarly, the textbook Earth Science for Christian Schools, published by Bob Jones University Press, states: "For the Christian, earth science is a study of God�s creation. As such, it is subject to God�s infallible Word, the Bible. The final authority of the Christian is not man�s observation but God�s revelation." Yet scientific explanations depend on human observation of natural processes, not on supernatural revelation.

So, what "primary secular purpose" is going to propel this debate? Since the teacher has dismissed evolution, and thus science, reason, and critical thinking, that leaves "none" as the answer.

You may be quite apprehensive about doing this, but you should approach you principal, lay out your concerns, tell him what the teacher said coupled with the scheduled debate, then get him to see that the debate should not go forward. No good will come of it.

If you need an advocate for this, or more information, you and/or your principal can contact the National Center for Science Education directly at (510) 601-7203. Their website is <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org" target="_blank">here.</a>

(edited for format and spelling)

[ March 01, 2002: Message edited by: gravitybow ]

ex-robot · 02-28-2002, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by liquid:
She says she is a practising catholic?

NO SHE IS NOT

The catholic church has accepted, by decree of the pope, that evolution is correct (although they believe that it is a god-created process and that he might be free to tinker, but they do not dispute common descent).

If she is a creationist, then she is going against the pope, the representative of god on earth, and hence the doctrines of her church, and therefore is standing on excommunication grounds.

I can even dig up the particular encyclical if you like.

Hit her with that...

What makes someone a practicing catholic? I have known catholics who still go to church, mass, etc. but don't take the pope at his word, treat mary like a baptist would, and don't pray to anybody except jesus.

xr
P.S. Why were they still catholic? Good question! I have also know a ton of people who you couldn't even tell were religious, but say they are "catholic" when asked. If you ask them why they are catholic, they say "I was baptized catholic!" <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: ex-robot ]

liquid · 02-28-2002, 09:19 AM

ex robot, I am not an expert on catholicism, but I am aware that there are certain key tenets/rituals you have to perform to be a catholic. There is a specialist word for it. They include confession and communion.

However, as well as fulfilling the basic requirements, you have to toe the line on some other things too. One of those includes accepting the pope as christ's ambassador on Earth. By definition within faith, the pope is never wrong when acting in his official capacity, as he is divinely inspired (which has caused some interesting twists in policy!).

As the pope has issued an encyclical accepting evolution/common descent (though with a theistic slant), it is dogma.

Disagreeing with that means you disagree with the pope, and directly with god. Now of course, someone who doesn't agree with (their version of) god shouldn't be a christian, I am sure you will agree.

Now of course you do get a lot of people who do pick and choose. However, that is fundamentally contradictory with the tenets of the church. It is like a 'baptist' who isn't baptised saying they are a christian.

Peez · 02-28-2002, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Tim Thompson:
That's certainly true for biological evolution, but I think it's a bad idea to invoke this in any real debate. Creationists of the young-earth variety use the word evolution in the broadest sense, and as far as they are concerned, evolution is all of those things. If you try to follow this line of argument, they just laugh at how you are hiding from them. Let evolution be as much of that as they want it to be. It will only make life harder for them.

I can see that this might be a good tactic, but I recommend keeping more focused. Yes, evolution may be broadly used: my thesis evolved over time, is that going to be taken as evidence for evolution? The debate itself will evolve, will the creationists then accept that evolution occurred? I doubt it. It is in a biology class, and must be focused enough that meaningful discussion can take place. Don't let creationists distract people with other issues.

Quote:

On a more general note, I think that teachers need to have the protected right to voice their opinions, and the reasons for them, in class. But they also have to justify what they assert as fact, and what they teach as fact or "science" has to be overseen by the school or district board. I don't know the teachers exact words, verbatim, but if they came out as chaos says they did ("it's all false!"), that's bad. Teachers don't have a right to express their opinions as fact instead of opinion, and to allow such strikes me as a dubious idea. I agree that going after the teacher is in principle a good idea, but whether or not it is practical is something only those on the local scene can answer.

Teachers have a right to their opinion, but they hold a special place of trust and responsibility and should refrain from using their position to advance personal opinions (and thereby lend them special weight). If a biology teacher is so ignorant as to be a creationist, they should keep that fact to themselves in class.

Peez

daemon · 02-28-2002, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by liquid:
ex robot, I am not an expert on catholicism, but I am aware that there are certain key tenets/rituals you have to perform to be a catholic. There is a specialist word for it. They include confession and communion.

Sacraments. There are seven of them, which I don't remember all of offhand.

Quote:

However, as well as fulfilling the basic requirements, you have to toe the line on some other things too. One of those includes accepting the pope as christ's ambassador on Earth. By definition within faith, the pope is never wrong when acting in his official capacity, as he is divinely inspired (which has caused some interesting twists in policy!).

You're talking about the infallibility of ex cathedra pronunciations. While they used to be more common, the last ex cathedra statement to come out of Rome was in the mid-fifties. There was some discussion of Cardinal Ratzinger (head of the Curia, the departmental descendant of the Inquisition) trying to push a recent Papal statement about women not being able to be priests as ex cathedra, but that failed, thankfully for them.

Quote:

As the pope has issued an encyclical accepting evolution/common descent (though with a theistic slant), it is dogma.

He has not. The pope released an encyclical accepting the possibility of evolution as not conflicting with the Bible or the Church. The Catholic Church has not "endorsed" evolutionary theory in particular, just said that it is acceptable to believe it to be true.

Quote:

Disagreeing with that means you disagree with the pope, and directly with god. Now of course, someone who doesn't agree with (their version of) god shouldn't be a christian, I am sure you will agree.

This is not Catholic teaching. One may be a practicing Catholic in good standing and still question Catholic dogmas. Furthermore, everything the pope says is not automatically considered dogma.

Quote:

Now of course you do get a lot of people who do pick and choose. However, that is fundamentally contradictory with the tenets of the church. It is like a 'baptist' who isn't baptised saying they are a christian.

You are decidedly incorrect in your assessment of Roman Catholicism.

As to whether the teacher in question is really espousing heretical beliefs, there are a few easy tests: does she believe in biblical literalism? How many creation stories does Genesis 1 contain? Do they literally conflict? (The correct answers are no, two, and yes, by the way).

In any case, one may be both a Catholic and a Creationist.

02-28-2002, 01:12 PM

Chaos Amoeba: I'm a non-American, but even I can see that what your teacher is doing is almost certainly unconstitutional. You should take the advice and get the principal to stop it.

I know that taking this step will not be easy for you. It will take a lot of guts. But your teacher is behaving in a monstrous way and it should be stopped.

ex-robot · 02-28-2002, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by liquid:
ex robot, I am not an expert on catholicism, Now of course you do get a lot of people who do pick and choose. However, that is fundamentally contradictory with the tenets of the church. It is like a 'baptist' who isn't baptised saying they are a christian.

Thanks for that info. However, I think you have your analogy wrong. That should be Church of Christ and not Baptist. Baptism is required for salvation in the Church of Christ. Baptists encourage baptism because Christ commanded believers to do so, but they do not insist that it has anything to do whatsoever in regards to being a "christian".

xr

liquid · 03-01-2002, 01:49 AM

correction accepted then robot, though I think there are a couple of sub-varieties of baptists that are more into it. You get the point anyway.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-01-2002, 02:10 AM

Chaos Amoeba:

If this goes ahead, one problem you're likely to face is that the creationists can throw out too many BS claims to be adequately refuted in the time available.

Will there be a computer with Internet access in the room? If so, see if you can use it to search sites like TalkOrigins on the fly.

And if there are any claims that you can't refute, note them down. We'll gladly help you to investigate them afterwards, enabling you to write up a summary to be circulated in the next lesson, to put the record straight.

scombrid · 03-01-2002, 04:40 AM

For a teacher to declare as false anything that they have presented as part of a mandated curriculum is highly irresponsible. That can only serve to foster the typical mistrust that many students have for the education system; the us/them mentality of students that is rampant today. It gives validity to the fallacious attitude of "this is just bullshit that means nothing and will be useless later in life". Hell, I was a top student in high school but I had the us/them mentality then. What will a teacher calling "bullshit" on the state mandated curriculum do to the marginal students. If she has a problem with the curriculum then she is to take it up with the school board. Subverting authority in order to push her agenda sends a poor message to students. She should be disciplined if not fired.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-28-2002, 09:19 AM	#23
liquid Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,440	ex robot, I am not an expert on catholicism, but I am aware that there are certain key tenets/rituals you have to perform to be a catholic. There is a specialist word for it. They include confession and communion. However, as well as fulfilling the basic requirements, you have to toe the line on some other things too. One of those includes accepting the pope as christ's ambassador on Earth. By definition within faith, the pope is never wrong when acting in his official capacity, as he is divinely inspired (which has caused some interesting twists in policy!). As the pope has issued an encyclical accepting evolution/common descent (though with a theistic slant), it is dogma. Disagreeing with that means you disagree with the pope, and directly with god. Now of course, someone who doesn't agree with (their version of) god shouldn't be a christian, I am sure you will agree. Now of course you do get a lot of people who do pick and choose. However, that is fundamentally contradictory with the tenets of the church. It is like a 'baptist' who isn't baptised saying they are a christian.

02-28-2002, 01:12 PM	#26
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Chaos Amoeba: I'm a non-American, but even I can see that what your teacher is doing is almost certainly unconstitutional. You should take the advice and get the principal to stop it. I know that taking this step will not be easy for you. It will take a lot of guts. But your teacher is behaving in a monstrous way and it should be stopped.

03-01-2002, 01:49 AM	#28
liquid Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: UK Posts: 1,440	correction accepted then robot, though I think there are a couple of sub-varieties of baptists that are more into it. You get the point anyway.

03-01-2002, 02:10 AM	#29
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Chaos Amoeba: If this goes ahead, one problem you're likely to face is that the creationists can throw out too many BS claims to be adequately refuted in the time available. Will there be a computer with Internet access in the room? If so, see if you can use it to search sites like TalkOrigins on the fly. And if there are any claims that you can't refute, note them down. We'll gladly help you to investigate them afterwards, enabling you to write up a summary to be circulated in the next lesson, to put the record straight.

03-01-2002, 04:40 AM	#30
scombrid Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Central Florida Posts: 2,759	For a teacher to declare as false anything that they have presented as part of a mandated curriculum is highly irresponsible. That can only serve to foster the typical mistrust that many students have for the education system; the us/them mentality of students that is rampant today. It gives validity to the fallacious attitude of "this is just bullshit that means nothing and will be useless later in life". Hell, I was a top student in high school but I had the us/them mentality then. What will a teacher calling "bullshit" on the state mandated curriculum do to the marginal students. If she has a problem with the curriculum then she is to take it up with the school board. Subverting authority in order to push her agenda sends a poor message to students. She should be disciplined if not fired.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.