RufusAtticus

Continuing discussion from <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000623" target="_blank">this thread</a>.

I know there are a few teachers, profs, and grad students on this board. I haven't had to TA yet, but I will.

What I want to know is what is your opinion about the best way to handle a student coming from a creationist background when dealing with evolution in class?

-RvFvS
P.S. I'm trying to be serious, so let's keep the jokes to a minimum.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]</p>

Nihlo

Take their opinions seriously and respectfully. Deal with their claims reasonably, explaining why they are false or, if the response would demand too much time, offer to meet the student after class. Being reasonable and respectful will keep the class confident in the professional instruction they are recieving, and it will aid in the education of the creationist.

excreationist

I think you need to ask if they believe if the earth is about 6000 years old or not. If they don't believe it is that young, then I'd say that they are *not* creationists.

See this article:
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3563.asp" target="_blank">Creation Education: The Date of Noah's Flood</a>:
Also,
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp" target="_blank">AiG - Arguments we think creationists should NOT use</a>
I think a clear distinction needs to be made between those who take the Bible totally literally, and those who believe in day-ages and theistic evolution.

As I said earlier, I think those who believe that earth is older than 6000 years are *not* creationists.

And for it to be science ("creation science"), it means that if it can be shown in one way or another, that the earth is more than 6000 years old, and there was no global flood approximately 4300 years ago, then the creation hypothesis has to be abandoned.

I think you shouldn't worry about those who believe in the dates shown by science. There is no reason for people to think something inbetween. You could point that out to the class.

If you follow the Bible literally, then the earth is about 6000 years old. And mainstream science says it is about 4.6 billion years old. There is little reason to think it is something inbetween (e.g. 7 million years old).

excreationist

from <a href="http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/testablecreationsummary.html" target="_blank">Hugh Ross's "Summary of Reasons To Believe's
Testable Creation Model"</a>

Though Hugh Ross (and others) talk about the "Creation Model", I'd say that they aren't strict creationists - they believe in progressive creation - and Hugh Ross even believes in evolution a bit.

I don't think there is much of a problem with what Hugh Ross and his followers believe. He believes that there are many transitional fossils and he is happy to accept that many creatures evolve - assuming there is enough evidence. <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4128.asp" target="_blank">AiG</a> says how his beliefs aren't Biblical. But at least they fit in with science ok.

So for those that believe that God directly created many transitional forms I would say that there are selection pressures that would cause them to change like that but not press the issue too much. After all, they accept transitional forms.

katerina

Well, hmm.

I certainly don't want to bring your nice forum down with more of my inane blather, so I apologize for the banality of the following.

First, you are going to have to deal with the possibility that you have a bias or prejudice against your students--anger, frustration, sense of betrayal or something that projects onto the student, and that this might come across to them or might affect your grading.

Second, you have to remember what your primary objective is in preparing someone for a BA or BS degree, and I think LRC hit it on the head there: teaching critical thinking skills and principles. Frankly, I think that allowing the debate between creationism and evolution into the classroom is a golden opportunity to put teach those skills because it gets quickly to the questions of what is a hypothesis, a fact, evidence, opinion, etc.

Third, you need to figure out how to get back into the head of a college sophomore--20 years old. You get so used to using the learning, wisdom, and really biting critical repartee that you get in grad school and beyond that you forget where you were then (and what your priorities were), what your mind was open to then, and what your common assumptions were (including the extent to which most of what you thought was in reaction to something mom, dad, or the dorm-crew was saying). In short, you need to try getting your feet in creationist shoes--see how they can think this way, what makes the whole thing old together, and not forget that this really is where they are at.

Fourth, consider other examples that illustrate the same philosophy of science principles yet do not require an ideological commitment straight out--for parrying tension.

Fifth, for the hell of it, read Pascal's letters on the existence of the vacuum to a (I think) Dominican scientist/theologian dude. For another angle on the dance between science and belief.

Sixth, allow yourself the intellectual integrity that you just might be the one with the wrong hypothesis or paradigm, even though this is highly unlikely (remember that old' nothing exists in a vacuum problem!).

Seventh, realize that from the creationist/believer's point of view, you may be a critical part of their spiritual, emotional and intellectual development. If they find a teacher who is reputed to be an atheist but still is willing to listen to them articulate their faith, dialogue, and not shut them out, you just might be the one person who sticks with them for the next forty years. When it's your student, it's a whole different world than the mb. You have the power, you have the authority. No trolling there. If you are willing to let your defenses down and listen, spar a little bit, and dialogue, you can do magnificent things in your student's life.

Well, that's enough, I suppose. I've brought down the tone of this place long enough.

Regards.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: katerina ]</p>

Automaton

Nonsense. Your post was excellent. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Quetzal

Yeah, Katarina, your post was excellent.

Rufus: Although I haven't taught science, I HAVE taught at university level. I think the key thing in any course is to engage the students first, then beat them over the head . Better, even, if you can get them to beat themselves over the head.

I don't know how much time you have, or how much leeway you've got on the curriculum, but this might be one reasonable approach:

1. Make sure the students understand critical thinking first. Without dragging evo/cre into the mixture yet, try James Lett's approach, from <a href="http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html" target="_blank">"A Field Guide to Critical Thinking"</a>. Try some thought experiments with other pseudoscientific beliefs and see how they hold up under Lett's criteria for evaluating evidence.

2. Challenge the students to uncover actual evidence in the literature for both creationism and evolution to present to the class. Don't let 'em choose sides in a debate - divide the class up into groups, and have each group develop evidence for both theories that they feel is the most compelling. They should be free to use creationist sources as well as scientific ones. You could even provide links to the main creationist/anti-creationist websites (like DI, AiG, TalkOrigins, etc). Tell them they need to come up with several bits of evidence for each.

3. Using Lett's 6 criteria for evidence (or an equivalent), have the class compare the validity of the evidence for both sides.

If there are still creationists in the classroom after this - well hell, you're not going to convince everybody. But you've provided the entire class with an opportunity to see for themselves. Students who've never even thought about the issue will be exposed to both sides (and the incredible weakness of the creationist evidence). College students want to be treated like adults (especially at 19-20). So treat 'em that way. You could probably pull the whole thing off in only 2 class periods, with about a week or so between. Be careful not to let your own ideas taint the discussion (really hard trick to pull off).

Then, naturally, spend the rest of the course reinforcing the science side of the house...(but don't be surprised if the students hold the rest of the course to the same standards!!!)

Just my $.02

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

RufusAtticus

^_^ Bump

Writer@Large

Awww ...

*turns away, dejected, stuffing the rubber chicken back into his pants ... *

--W@L

The Lone Ranger

I had some notable success in a course on Evolution that I taught.

Near the beginning of the semester, a few students in the course told me that they'd like to hear all the scientific evidence against evolution, for "balance." So, I said that this would be fine with me.

We had been discussing scientific methodology anyway (a big point of mine -- as I've said, I really don't think that we spend enough time teaching science students how to do science), so it seemed like a good idea.

I divided the class into two groups, and assigned the first group the task of coming up with verified and verifiable evidence that evolution occurs and that it provides an explanation for the observed diversity of life. Furthermore, they were to show that evolutionary theory is scientifically valid by showing how it is testable and (in principle) falsifiable, and how it has been used to make predictions which have been verified.

The second group was required to provide verified and verifiable evidence for the "Creation Model," or at the very least that disproves evolutionary theory. Furthermore, they were required to show how any "alternate model" to evolutionary theory that had been proposed was testable and falsifiable, and how it had been used to make predictions which had then been verified.

I gave them several weeks to work on their presentations. When the time came, the "evolutionists" had no difficulty presenting their case. The "anti-evolutionists" had to admit that they'd been unable to find any actual evidence that either falsified evolutionary theory or that vindicated any "alternate model."

I think that it was a good learning experience for them all.

Cheers,

Michael

P.S. I've always been extremely careful to point out to them that there's no need for conflict between religious belief and science. That seems to comfort a lot of them, since so many have been taught that one cannot accept evolution and yet still be a Christian.

[Edited to add the P.S.]

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: The Lone Ranger ]</p>