Koiyotnik

I know that when I make pysanka (Ukrainian Easter Eggs), the fish symbol is very prominent. Pysanka incorporates a great deal of pre-Christian, pagan symbols and imagery that was later adapted by Christianity. From what I remember, and what source books I have at this time, I've found this:

Before Christianity, the fish represented a mystical creature of action. In fairy tales, fish helped the hero to win his fight with evil. And in songs, fish helped people find their way out of confusion. With the introduction of Christianity, the fish symbolised Christ. The Greek alphabet spells the word "Fish" from "Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour" (Ichthys), and was the sign of recognition among eary Christians.

Hope that helps.
-Koiy.

(Also, sorry if I've repeated anyone else's post.)

pz

OK, you believe that. You don't get to use the evolve fish.

I don't believe that, and my intent in using the symbol is to make a secular point. Therefore, I get to use it.

I also want you to stop using that tie, underwear, and pants, you religion basher.

Mageth

Teaching evolutionary science also makes that statement.

Perhaps, but not in the same way. Clearly, no First Amendment issues are raised by teaching evolutionary science; the courts seem to agree on that, for the most part. I contend that a teacher displaying the Darwin Fish does raise First Amendment issues, specifically Separation of Church & State issues, since the Darwin Fish does, I believe, make a religious statement.

Any compentent biology teacher, if asked during a class on evolution whether the genesis account is literally true, should answer "no".

I'm not sure if "No" would be the proper answer to that question in a public school classroom, as I think it raises Separation of Church & State concerns. Look at it this way: what if the teacher answered "Yes" instead of "No"?

A better answer would perhaps be "In my opinion, no" or, even better, "I'm here to teach you evolutionary science, not answer questions about religion. You'll have to figure that out for yourself." Note that the latter answer is applicable whatever the teacher believes.

It is their responsibility to teach science students what is accurate and what is not, according to science.

Almost - what is accurate about science, yes, but not to make any statements about "what is not accurate" about any religious beliefs. Their responsibility is to teach the science. It's not their responsibility to make any sort of statement promoting or debunking religion or religious beliefs (e.g. creationism) to the students. Indeed, the First Amendment prohibits them from doing so.

Is that lesson to be outlawed, because it clearly states that genesis is a myth?

The purpose of teaching evolution in the classroom is to present the science to the students, not to make any sort of religious statement. It's up to the students to decide whether they believe the Genesis account or not. The teacher's responsibility is to teach the science, not to "clearly state" the religious implications of the science.

As I've stated before, a teacher displaying the Darwin Fish potentially damages his or her chances of getting the facts across, particularly to students who hold creationist beliefs. Thus, the teacher should be wise enough not to make such a display in the classroom, regardless of the First Amendment issues.

And so she bloody well should.

Yes, it should. And the Darwin Fish has its places - but not in the public school classroom.

It is also the intent on geologists to clearly state that the biblical model of earth is false.

Yes, but when taught in the public school classroom, the facts are to be presented; the religious implications must be left for the student to decide, and not explicitly stated by the teacher.

pz

When those beliefs are ignorant and contrary to reason, when they are used to oppose rational thought, and when they are just plain false, then teachers must teach that they are wrong. Let's not be mealy-mouthed. I can't stand in front of a class room and carefully explain the evidence for a scientific explanation, and simultaneously tell the kiddies, "...but it's OK if you don't believe me and want to disregard the evidence, and if you'd rather believe this other unsupported fairy tale, that's fine. Just regurgitate my words on the test."

That isn't teaching, and the students aren't learning.

It's the teacher's job to challenge the students and give them ideas that shatter their narrow, cozened beliefs. This whole attitude that student's wrong beliefs must be protected is repugnant. Even worse, this thread is about restraining ourselves from celebrating GOOD ideas, like evolution, because our poor kids might be offended.

No way. I don't serve pablum in the classroom.

Mageth

OK, you believe that. You don't get to use the evolve fish.

I believe it, and I still like the evolve fish, and agree with its message. I could and would use it, except I'm personally not into displaying any sort of public statements about anything. No bumper stickers, no wordy t-shirts, etc. That's just me.

The issue here is about its appropriateness in a public school classroom, not its appropriateness in general, BTW.

I don't believe that, and my intent in using the symbol is to make a secular point. Therefore, I get to use it.

Yes, you can and should use it, if you want - but it doesn't belong in a public school classroom, for the reasons I stated above.

I also want you to stop using that tie, underwear, and pants, you religion basher.

Funny. Beside the point, but funny.

And who says I'm wearing pants?

pz

Bullpuckey. The only proper answer is "NO!!!". There is no room for weasel words here. Separation has been breeched when this need to avoid challenging stupid beliefs corrupts the simple teaching of legitimate science.
That's easy. Then the teacher is a damned incompetent who has been 'educated' by people who believe in mollycoddling the student and sheltering their precious superstitions from the harsh light of evidence and reason.
The facts are that the earth is several billion years old and that life emerged gradually by natural processes. You've just finished telling me that when a student raises their hand and declares that the world is 6000 years old, that life in all its diversity was created over the course of 7 days, and that it required the hand of an invisible magical white-bearded psychotic superman, I don't get to tell him "no".

No wonder the US is overrun with religious nitwits.

Mageth

No way. I don't serve pablum in the classroom.

And well you shouldn't. You should teach the cold, hard facts of evolution, if that's your subject. No credence should be given to superstitious beliefs by science teachers.

But all that can be accomplished, and in some cases more effectively, without the teacher displaying the Darwin Fish.

Let's face it; if a student is presented with the overwhelming evidence of evolution, but still chooses to hold onto their creationist beliefs, no amount of symbolism (e.g. the Darwin Fish) or "teach[ing] that they are wrong" is going to make them change their mind. I believe that wearing symbols such as the Darwin Fish or making direct statements as to creationism being wrong is more likely to be counterproductive in reaching such students, by angering them or giving them a bit of a martyr complex.

Doubting Didymus

If she answered 'yes' then she would beteaching the student a scientifically unnacceptable thing. Answering no is the simple truth. What is she supposed to do? After teaching the students that all life originated from a common ancestor, and is then asked if all life was seperately created, she is supposed to say "i'm not allowed to tell you"? She has ALREADY told them. Life was not created separately but descended from a common ancestor is already a statement that directly contradicts a strange and stupid religious belief called biblical literalism. Religion in general may be untouchable, but in the science classroom ALL empirical propositions are fair game.

The teacher is being dishonest unless she reinforces the findings of science. A student asks: "is the earth flat", and the teacher responds: "according to the parts of the american constitution dealing with the separation of church and state I am not allowed to directly contradict any claims made by religions, and so while I can say 'in my opinion no' or 'i'm only here to teach you science', i can't actually give you a direct answer".

Suddenly we're living in the twighlight zone. The only thing the teacher should say is "no the earth is not flat, but round". If this contradicts religion, so much the fucking worse for religion.

"is the earth flat, like it says in the bible?" yes, no, or avoid question?

The teachers responsibility is to teach the science. The science says: Organisms were not created separately from each other. Is the teacher allowed to teach that empirical scientific fact?

It is also the intent on geologists to clearly state that the biblical model of earth is false.

Facts, ah? Fact: the earth is round
Fact: the earth is not flat.
Fact: live originated from a common ancestor over millions of years.
Another fact: Life was not created separately and is not young.
Fact: dinosaurs never lived alongside cavemen.
Fact: the genesis account is empirically untrue when taken literally.

Which of these true and scientific facts is the teacher not allowed to teach?

Mageth

You've just finished telling me that when a student raises their hand and declares that the world is 6000 years old, that life in all its diversity was created over the course of 7 days, and that it required the hand of an invisible magical white-bearded psychotic superman, I don't get to tell him "no".

Exactly what is wrong with saying something like "All of the evidence we've examined clearly indicates that the earth is several billion years old and that life emerged gradually by natural processes, which is what I believe. Obviously, some religious beliefs hold otherwise. I'm not here to address those religious beliefs, to decide for you whether your particular religious beliefs are true or false; that's something you have to do for yourself. Learn the science, ponder the evidence, and come to your own conclusion. Don't let me or anyone else decide for you."

That seems to me a better approach to getting a student to seriously think about his or her beliefs than merely replying "No."

Mageth

If she answered 'yes' then she would beteaching the student a scientifically unnacceptable thing. Answering no is the simple truth. What is she supposed to do? After teaching the students that all life originated from a common ancestor, and is then asked if all life was seperately created, she is supposed to say "i'm not allowed to tell you"? She has ALREADY told them.

Of course she's already told them. In my opinion, she should answer with something like "I've presented the scientific facts. It's your responsibility to address the religious implications of the science." I don't see what the problem with that is.

Life was not created separately but descended from a common ancestor is already a statement that directly contradicts a strange and stupid religious belief called biblical literalism.

Yes, and the student must reach that particular conclusion on their own A "no" answer, in my opinion, would be less effective in reaching a "fundy" student than the exemplary answer I gave above.

Religion in general may be untouchable, but in the science classroom ALL empirical propositions are fair game.

Is religion an empirical proposition? I thought religion was generally considered outside the realm of science. Hence, the science teacher is not responsible for reaching religious conclusions for the students. The First Amendment, in my opinion, and I think in the courts' opinion, prohibits the public school teacher from doing so.

The teacher is being dishonest unless she reinforces the findings of science. A student asks: "is the earth flat", and the teacher responds: "according to the parts of the american constitution dealing with the separation of church and state I am not allowed to directly contradict any claims made by religions, and so while I can say 'in my opinion no' or 'i'm only here to teach you science', i can't actually give you a direct answer".

In the first place, I think the "flat earth" issue should be dropped here; why don't we concentrate on the evolution/creation issue, which is far more relevant in our society, and the topic at hand, after all.

Next, obviously, science teachers are allowed to teach evolutionary science, and to teach them as facts. It's obvious to me, and you, that these facts directly contradict biblical literalism. However, the teacher should leave it to the student to figure out what the facts imply to their particular beliefs.

Finally, again, I think an answer such as the exemplary one I posted above is more effective, and further, doesn't raise any First Amendment issues.

Suddenly we're living in the twighlight zone. The only thing the teacher should say is "no the earth is not flat, but round". If this contradicts religion, so much the fucking worse for religion.

Again, the flat earth issue is irrelevant to this discussion, IMO. But again, an answer such as "Here are the scientific facts; you must figure out the religious implications of the facts yourself" would be appropriate.

"is the earth flat, like it says in the bible?" yes, no, or avoid question?

"We have overwhelming evidence that the earth is not flat. Some may believe that the earth is not round, in spite of that evidence. If your religious belief teaches you that, then all I can say is examine the evidence yourself and make up your own mind; don't let me or anyone else make it up for you."

The teachers responsibility is to teach the science. The science says: Organisms were not created separately from each other. Is the teacher allowed to teach that empirical scientific fact?

Of course. But as I've said, not to state the religious implications of the scientific facts. That should be left up to the students to figure out for themselves.

It is also the intent on geologists to clearly state that the biblical model of earth is false.

In my opinion, it should be the intent of geologists to clearly state what the evidence indicates about the earth model.

Facts, ah? Fact: the earth is round
Fact: the earth is not flat.
Fact: live originated from a common ancestor over millions of years.
Another fact: Life was not created separately and is not young.
Fact: dinosaurs never lived alongside cavemen.
Fact: the genesis account is empirically untrue when taken literally.

Which of these true and scientific facts is the teacher not allowed to teach?

The first five, definitely. The sixth, the teacher is obviously allowed to teach the science which contradicts the genesis account, but in my opinion not to explicitly teach "the genesis account is not true when taken literally." That conclusion is not for the science classroom, but for the students to reach on their own. Religion in any shape, form or fashion should not be explicitly addressed in the public school science classroom, IMO.