Doubting Didymus

I contest that the flat earth scenario is highly relevant, and an extremely good hypothetical example.

You have just admitted that teaching 'the earth is not flat' is perfectly acceptable. I contest that this is exactly equivalent to teaching "organisms were not created seperately". In both cases, the bible isn't even mentioned. If a student asked for an answer to either of these questions then they deserve to know what science has to say.

Is the earth flat, miss?

No, the earth is not flat, but round.

Were organisms created separately, miss?

No, organisms were not created separately but descended from a common ancestor.

To anwer these questions in any other way is to cheat the student out of a genuine education for the sake of political correctness. Furthermore, I do not believe that any church state issues are raised in any way by these questions. Science answers empirical questions, whether some wackos consider them sacred tenets or not.

Megusic

I don't have the time tonight to go through all that has been said (written) since I last viewed this thread. But for now, what I have glanced at, makes me want to :banghead: I am getting tired of my fellow atheists being too proud to look at a viewpoint from any perspective other than their own. Time and time again I see people on here bashing Christianity for being so closed minded and not allowing the possibility for other ideas, but yet here we are, saying 'my way or the highway, students should be taught to believe only what WE believe to be true'. Yes, I have confidence in evolutionary theory, I believe it with all my heart, but as of now we can only teach it as a theory. We cannot try to sell an absolute truth on something we do not completely understand. And about this underwear shtuff.... arg... in modern popular culture, that fish, no matter what its origins, in the u.s., is being used by christians to proclaim their beliefs. they started putting it on their cars to do so. it was a wide spread way of announcing their religion to those who drove past. the evolve/darwin fish came in response to that specifically. it's not like the creator of the design just decided "hmmm this fish shape looks cool, i think i'll write darwin inside of it and that will look cool, and people will buy it" there had to have been a purpose there. I think if i teacher wore a shirt that said "HAHA I'M WEARING UNERWEAR" that would be different than just wearing the underwear and that being a personal belief that it's ok to do so. poking fun at the belief in an educational setting sucks.

capsaicin67

My 1.5 cents.....

G'sD:
The purpose of the evolve fish IS to taunt the Christians. We use their symbol to thumb our nose at them. Yes, the purpose is partly anti-ignorance and pro-science, but the purpose is also partly mocking.

Clearly. If we're going to be intellectually honest, I think we have to start the discussion here. The DarwinFish is an anti-xian statement as much as a pro-science one. Xians were using the Fish on their cars etc. Someone else put the feet on it and gave it an irreverent, mocking, rebellious spin for secularists. That's the joke, that's why it's funny. It is about flipping-off the fundies as much as----probably more than---being pro-science. A matter of personal preference and taste outside the classroom, inappropriate inside the classroom.

Personally, I'd simply say that the teacher used poor judgement and lacked insight. It was inappropriate in that setting, in her role. Granted, there are very few available pro-secular symbols that don't get a boost by being anti-religion in their presentation. But a sweatshirt with a simple picture of Darwin, or the Earth, or a Humanist pendant would be significantly more difficult to assail and would not emphasize provocation in their very design. Any of those would have passed the smell test I think. It simply was not a very savvy move on her part and this is exactly the type of thinking that I doubt advances our various causes in any particular way, but rather is a lightening rod for negativity. I'm all for teaching science, and being very assertive but sophisticated in dodging the mines that are in the cultural landscape today without compromising the science-----as others here have outlined in their example responses to students' questions------but it will take some self-moderation to do it in a manner that does not in fact assist religionists in discrediting us and fanning the flames of fear, ignorance, and indignation. I'm not sure we can legislate that altogether, some of it is going to have to come from good judgement and excellent freethought leadership/opinion leaders. My hunch is that the provocative mocking probably does at least as much to turn people off as it ever does to persuade anyone.

In the classroom it's just, very simply, strategically unsound, legally questionable, and in poor taste. Elsewhere, it is of questionable taste and strategic value-----but, admittedly quite funny.

capsaicin67

Megusic:
poking fun at the belief in an educational setting sucks.

Yes.

Its the difference between teaching science and saying, "Class, gather round,while I explain how science proves some people's churches are run by con artists and dummies."

I think the science that must be taught teaches inquiry and examination and the scientific method-----as well as contemporary understanding of how things work scientifically. That is a mighty and more effective indictment of ignorance than mockery will be, and which should lead them to the same place, but in a less coercive fashion. It is also less likely to provoke defensiveness ---[and litigation] which risks shutting down their receptivity to the study and acceptance of the material presented.

GaryP

I think I can see your point on all you posted except the "legally questionable" part. If the evolvefish is legally questionable, then so are WWJD necklaces and other such things that I see teachers wearing almost every day at school.

capsaicin67

GaryP, I agree, good point. Thanks for "dialogue-ing".

I guess that I do think all that stuff is "questionable". Personally, I think that I would avoid that also [pendants, bracelets etc]. I really don't know how defensible it is in a court of law, I'll leave it to the others here that know the precedents etc far better than I to form an opinion as to that. I do think it a fair and open question. Again, while we wait for the courts to decide that stuff, I would simply say maybe we should rise above the WWJD crowd and not sink to their level----lead out of rather than follow them into the gutter. Take the high ground, especially since the low ground is already dominated by them and I doubt we can gain anything by taking them on at that level. Wearing religious pendants and bracelets seems to pass these days, but the sweatshirt thing is in everyone's face. I'm not sure I can quantify it----but even in today's imperfect cultural landscape full of uncertainty she could have been gobs smarter about the implications of her choice, that's all.

wildernesse

"As of now we can ONLY teach it as a THEORY???" Give me a break! Evolution is *not* just a theory!!!!! As in, "it is my theory that if I blow my nose often enough, my snot will turn purple".

It's not only teach it as a theory--It's to teach it as the ONLY theory that explains the diversity of biological life on this planet. We can make predictions based on it--predictions that come about exactly as if evolution were occurring and/or had occurred in the past.

Christians who can't take the evolve/darwin fish or any other irreverant ribbing at their expense need to wonder why their beliefs are so freaking fragile and learn how to get the stick out of their rear.


--tibac

pz

Speaking of inability to see a viewpoint other than their own...you haven't been paying attention. This issue is not about bashing christianity. It's about teaching the best possible ideas in a science class. Christianity does not come into it at all, except that certain people (mostly christian, but apparently some atheists as well) take offense that we would actually teach ideas that conflict with old superstitions.
Good grief.

Go away, and read this article on Evolution is a fact and a theory. Read it carefully. Throw away your preconceptions, and please, please, please try to grasp the central point. "Theory" does not mean what you think it means in science.

Maybe once you have an informed opinion, your ideas on this subject will be worth listening to. As it is, though, you have just committed the same ignorant error I have heard from a thousand creationists.

dangin

If we say that a teacher can wear a darwin fish, then I think "equal access" means that another teacher could wear a jesus fish.

I think that either item could lead a school district to face a lawsuit which (regardless of the strength of the suit) would cost the school district money.

Now, I want to hug the teacher that wore the darwin fish, and there is nothing I enjoy more than pissing off the fundies. But those who say the darwin fish has a religious connotation are correct simply because it is satirizing religion, even though evolution is not related to anything religious on its own.

But the biggest issue is that schools have enough problems without opening the door to any kind of lawsuit. Even though in the interest of learning and teaching, getting a big brou-ha-ha among the student broiling (by wearing the shirt) would make that day's lecture one that all the students would remember.

Mageth

I contest that the flat earth scenario is highly relevant, and an extremely good hypothetical example.

Except that the topic is about the evolution/creation debate, which is quite sufficient, and actually culturally relevant (which the flat-earth example is not; no one I know of is seriously threatening to get flat-earthism taught in the classroom alongside round-earthism, after all). Introducing this other scenario adds nothing to the discussion.

You have just admitted that teaching 'the earth is not flat' is perfectly acceptable. I contest that this is exactly equivalent to teaching "organisms were not created seperately".

Correct, both can and should be taught. I've never said otherwise.

In both cases, the bible isn't even mentioned.

Correct, and it shouldn't be, and doesn't need to be. If a student brings it up, the best response, IMO, is an answer along the lines of the exemplary answers I gave. "We're hear to study science. Religious implications of the science you'll have to figure out for yourself." Encourage students to think for themselves, to consider the evidence, and to reach conclusions on their own, rather than blindly accepting your opinion, their parents' opinion, or their pastor's opinion. In doing so, you'll be giving them much more than merely a correct answer about a question.

If a student asked for an answer to either of these questions then they deserve to know what science has to say.

Of course. The student deserves to know what science has to say about the science. Public school teachers, however, shouldn't directly address the religious implications of the science.

Is the earth flat, miss?

No, the earth is not flat, but round.

Were organisms created separately, miss?

No, organisms were not created separately but descended from a common ancestor.

To anwer these questions in any other way is to cheat the student out of a genuine education for the sake of political correctness.

Umm, you've changed the question here. I didn't pick up on that in an earlier reply, for some reason. The original question posed was along the lines of "Is the Genesis account of creation true?" In this form, the question obviously has religious implications, and should be answered as I've previously stated. "Were organisms created separately?" is asking a question about the science at hand. As you said above, in this case "the bible isn't even mentioned." In my opinion, this question could be answered along the lines of "No, the evidence clearly indicates that the various species we see today evolved from a common ancestor." A subtle difference, perhaps, but a significant one.

But even in this case, I might prefer to answer this question along the lines of "You've been presented with the scientific evidence, which indicates that organisms were not created separately, but instead evolved from a common ancestor. I urge you to consider that evidence and reach your own conclusion about what it says about the origin and diversification of life on earth. Don't accept my word or anyone else's word for it."

The more I think about this kind of response, the more I like it. Think about it; should a teacher try to get students to agree with her opinion, or rather to consider the evidence themselves and reach their own rational conclusions? In my opinion, if the teacher can get a student to do the latter, she has accomplished far more with the student than merely getting them to accept the teacher's opinion.

Encourage the students to think for themselves, teach them about healthy skepticism, rational thought, and the scientific method. Give them the evidence, and the scientific theories that have been generated using that evidence. Explain to them a bit about the scientific methodology, including what "scientific theory" really means. If they ask a religious question, encourage them to apply these methods to their beliefs with a response such as I've given. "Give the man a fish, feed him for a day; teach the man to fish, feed him for life."

Furthermore, I do not believe that any church state issues are raised in any way by these questions.

Not by the questions, but potentially by the answers. A science teacher would be no more correct in explicitly saying "The Genesis account of creation is false" than in saying "The Genesis account of creation is true" under the First Amendment. That seems patently obvious to me. Both are statements about religion that shouldn't be made by a public school teacher to his students.

An answer such as one of the exemplary ones I've described avoids any First Amendment issues, and can be truthfully used by the teacher no matter what their personal religious beliefs are. Further, it encourages the student to think about it for themselves, to come to their own conclusions, which, to me, should be a key aim of education, and which many of our students, unfortunately, don't learn.

Science answers empirical questions, whether some wackos consider them sacred tenets or not.

Is religion an "empirical question" that is to be addressed by science? I don't think so. Science, in this case, answers the emprical question about the "origin of species", if you will. The religious implications of that are, in my opinion, outside the realm of science. And definitely shouldn't be answered by a public school teacher.