RufusAtticus

So basically she admitted that she doesn't understand the material.

-RvFvS

tronvillain

I'm not sure she admitted that at all. The mechanisms themselves can be understood without believing them to be an accurate description of the world. She could simply treat it as a hypothetical question.

Seth K

I don't see how that follows any more than the fact that we don't believe in Christianity doesn't mean we don't understand it.

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

KeithHarwood

If I were her teacher I may very well consider giving myself a failing grade.

Kevin Dorner

I wouldn't. 97-years-old-and-going strong Ernst Mayr, one of the foremost evolutionary biologists in the world, much older than Gould and Dawkins and with more experience than probably both of them put together, did a test: he asked students before his course in a survey how many of them were Biblical literalists in several questions, and offered the same survey after. There was little or no change. So if someone doesn't want to understand or accept something, they won't, no matter how good the teacher is. Here was the most senior (not just in age) scholar of evolution in the world teaching, and it still didn't have an effect.

You'll find that Ernst Mayr story in the Wire from a day or two back.

I'd mark the paper as if the disclaimer wasn't there. At least the student learned the material. Better that then insisting to skip the course.

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

Writer@Large

I have to agree that the student should pass the question. Ignorant as she may truly be, the test was *not* a test of religious or scientific acceptance; only retention and understanding of the correct answer. A test of knowledge cannot grade on intent. If a student in my literature course hates, say, Oedipus Rex, thinks it's a gawdawful piece of writing, but can answer a test question about Oedipus's qualities as a tragic hero correctly, he gets the points regardless of his tastes in plays.

If she answered the question correctly, she should get the points. But I would comment to her about her attitude; writing such a disclaimer is nothing but an "in your face" statement towards the teacher, and inappropriate.

--W@L

RufusAtticus

All the student has shown is that she can reguritate a textbook answer. In my view of education, this is not equivalent to understanding the material. This does not depend on the subject matter or even a person's worldview. Atheists are just as mentally capable of not understanding science as theists.

I also do not feel this is similar to religious debates, since evolution is not religion but science. As such, it requires no more belief to be considered accurate than does chemistry or astronomy.

-RvFvS

katerina

Dear RA,

I am having trouble parsing the following. Particularly what you mean by understanding. Would you care to elaborate?


Part 1

Part 2
(what does 'this' refer to?)


Part 3
(same use of the word 'understanding?')

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

Nialler

Sorry if this looked like a post-and run, but I'm in a different time-sone.

A teacher-student conference took place, and the student conceded that the disclaimer could be interpreted un several ways. She's promised not to be so blatant about it.

Her elcturer has offered her the chance to debate her views, but isn't hopeful that she will respond to the challenge - since her only mention to date of her beliefs was in the relative secrecy of a test paper.

A debate could be goos. Could be exactly like the Jack Chick tract. Not.

For me, I would have marked her down. Science is not in the same realm of philosophy, and for her to deny the huge amount of science done in the name of evolution, and also - btw - to imply that the lecturer is either lying or is easily gulled, stinks.

But then, I'm not a lecturer.

Oolon Colluphid

W@L, I’m not sure the analogy is too exact. The difference is that your hypothetical student very probably could back up why he finds the writing awful, beyond just personal taste. He could probably state why it doesn’t work for him. With evolution, the creationist student would not be able to support their position with anything that could withstand scrutiny (unless they’re about to win a Nobel prize ).

Anyway, Euripides did better tragic heroes (or heroines) .

Oolon