Mageth

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. (emphasis mine)

If you're referring to me, this is a gross misrepresentation of the opinions that I, and others, have stated in this thread.

Mageth

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.

The qeustion of this thread is not whether christians are or should be offended by the Darwin/evolve Fish, or even about the truth or falsehood of evolution and evolutionary theory, but whether a public school teacher should display a Darwin/evolve Fish in the classroom.

Mageth

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.

Already addressed, but I do believe the evolvefish and much of the things you see that make explicit religious statements such as "WWJD" are legally questionable for teachers to wear in the classroom.

pz

This is an irrelevant objection. The fact that significant numbers of people in a culture believe in an invalid idea does not make that idea any less false or any more acceptable in a science classroom.
This is also an irrelevant objection. This isn't a matter of science teachers discussing the book of Genesis in the classroom; I know I've never even mentioned the bible. This is about teaching the evidence for an old earth, common descent, etc., and having a student claim, "the earth is 6000 years old, and all species were created independently". You want to suggest that we shouldn't simply say, "no".

So, am I allowed to say the earth is not 6000 years old?

Your suggestion that we ought to teach the evidence and let the students figure out what the likely truth is is a good one. The thing is, that's what we're doing right now. The problem here is that there is another step that is just as important as teaching the evidence: it is drawing a reasonable scientific conclusion from that evidence. Seeing the huge amount of support for an earth that is billions of years old and then deciding that it is 6000 years old is a sign that the student has a serious deficiency in his or her logic which must be corrected as part of the process of teaching.

Do you see that? It is a two step exercise: evidence + rational inference --> conclusion. It is not enough to just throw evidence at students. They also have to learn how to interpret it. And when they are taught how to interpret it, the codified mythology of a group of bronze-age nomadic savages isn't part of the equation.

Mageth

This is an irrelevant objection. The fact that significant numbers of people in a culture believe in an invalid idea does not make that idea any less false or any more acceptable in a science classroom.

Absolutely correct in the fact you stated. But the fact is irrelevant in that I did not (intentionally) imply in my objection that I thought the number of people that hold a belief has any bearing on the truth or falsehood of the belief. My point is that we're discussing evolution vs. creation; introducing flat-earthism adds nothing to the discussion, in my opinion. Further, flat-earthism is, well, culturally irrelevant; no one I've heard of seriously wants to challenge round-earthism in the classroom. So why not limit the discussion to the culturally relevant topic at hand (evo/cre) rather than tangentially introducing something that doesn't add to the discussion? Whatever points we want to make can be made about the evo/cre issue without having to resort to introducing flat-earthism.

This is also an irrelevant objection. This isn't a matter of science teachers discussing the book of Genesis in the classroom; I know I've never even mentioned the bible. This is about teaching the evidence for an old earth, common descent, etc., and having a student claim, "the earth is 6000 years old, and all species were created independently". You want to suggest that we shouldn't simply say, "no".

So, am I allowed to say the earth is not 6000 years old?

Of course you're allowed to say that the earth is not 6000 years old, and I've never said otherwise. The question I'm saying that shouldn't be answered "no" in the classroom, as originally stated, was "Is the Genesis account of creation true?" because of First Amendment issues. That question keeps getting morphed into something else.

If a student states in the classroom that "the earth 6000 years old, and all species were created independently", one could respond "No, the evidence clearly indicates that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and species descended from a common ancestor", in my opinion. That's technically an issue of scientific fact, and not directly a religious issue. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but significant IMO. However, encouraging the student to consider the evidence and come to conclusions on her or her own, rather than accepting your word or her pastor's word for it, might be the better course in the long run.

Your suggestion that we ought to teach the evidence and let the students figure out what the likely truth is is a good one. The thing is, that's what we're doing right now. The problem here is that there is another step that is just as important as teaching the evidence: it is drawing a reasonable scientific conclusion from that evidence. Seeing the huge amount of support for an earth that is billions of years old and then deciding that it is 6000 years old is a sign that the student has a serious deficiency in his or her logic which must be corrected as part of the process of teaching.

Agreed. I think that the error in logic is perhaps that the student has been taught to accept some things on faith rather than using their intellect to reach their own conclusions. How is simply answering the question "No" going to overcome that?

The unfortunate truth is, if the student's been taught/encouraged to think things through on their own, been presented with the evidence, and been presented with the reasonable scientific conclusions that are reached from that evidence (that the earth is billions of years old, and that species have evolved from a common ancestor), but still holds to their erroneous beliefs in young earth and special creation, there may be nothing else that can be done by the teacher in the classroom to correct the deficiency in his or her logic. Simply answering "No" is likely to have no postitive effect on the student. Encouraging the student to do some critical thinking on the issue to reach his or her own conclusions at least has a chance of effecting change in their beliefs, or at least learning to examine and challenge their beliefs. One may be left with hoping that, as the student matures, he or she will learn to apply what's been taught to the evidence, to reach the reasonable scientific conclusions that follow from that evidence, and to rationally question their religiously-held beliefs in light of the evidence and the scientific conclusions.

But directly addressing the religious beliefs of a student, whether positively or negatively, has no place in the classroom.

Do you see that? It is a two step exercise: evidence + rational inference --> conclusion. It is not enough to just throw evidence at students. They also have to learn how to interpret it.

Of course I see that, and have never said otherwise on this thread. Indeed, learning how to interpret the evidence is exactly what I've been recommending.

And when they are taught how to interpret it, the codified mythology of a group of bronze-age nomadic savages isn't part of the equation.

Yes, when teaching, the mythology is not part of the equation. The teacher should not directly address the religious mythology either in a positive or negative light. Teach the science, the evidence, the scientific method, the reasonable scientific conclusions that are reached from the evidence using the scientific method. Leave the religious implications of those reasonable scientific conclusions for the student to figure out.

But if the student comes to the classroom believing that mythology, then for the student it is part of the equation. That's why we must encourage students to apply critical thinking to the evidence and to the religious implications of the evidence on their own. Again, the teacher should not directly address the religious mythology either in a positive or negative light. Leave the religious implications of those reasonable scientific conclusions for the student to figure out. If the student recognizes the religious implications on their own, then their new-found wisdom will be a far stronger wisdom than if they merely accepted your word for it.

Doubting Didymus

In this case, yes it absolutely is. Genesis makes an empirical and testable claim about the origin of the earth and life apon it. Science has already addressed that empirical claim and found it utterly false.

Maybe so, but not when it is applied to the actual claims made by the bible. Those are empirical claims that are fair game for science. You are claiming that any book that is held sacred is untouchable in the classroom. All we need now is for ID to be declared a religion and Behe's books are suddenly untouchable. "is Behe's claim true that evolution by natural selection can not produce bacterium or any complex chemical cycles miss?"

"I'm not allowed to tell you that, you must find out for yourself"

It is patently obvious, however, that teaching about evolution and natural selection obliterates behe's claims, as well as those of literal genesis. If the student askes 'is the earth 6000 years old', you know what that student is thinking, and I know it too. The student is asking whether the bible is literally true, and the answer 'no' will be the same for that student whether the word 'bible' was invoked or not. Imagine once more: (I apologise for these constant classroom simulations, but they are a fine way to express my point in practical real life situations)

"is the earth 6000 years old, like it says in the bible?"

"I can not give you a yes or no answer, but I CAN give you a mountain and a half of evidence that says the earth is over 4 billion years old..."

That response IS THE VERY SAME THING as simply saying 'no, it bloody isn't.' As a matter of fact, the student has no choice at all. telling them that they may make up their own mind would be untrue, as on the day of the test, that student must have decided 'for themselves' that the bible is not literally true, that evolution, not literal creation, is the answer to the origin of life, and that the earth is 4 billion and not 6000 years old. those are the CORRECT ANSWERS, and every single one of them contradicts a literal reading of genesis. Quite frankly, the student can be a christian as much as they like, but to be a biblical literalist is to get the answers dead wrong. What is the problem, when a student is scientifically wrong, with telling them that fact? To dance around this issue is to be unfair on that students education.

LogicMage

To be honest. When i become a biology/zoology proffessor. I will use that exact line to my students.

LogicMage

"Alright class...Who here is a creationist?" *several people raise their hands
"Get out of my class...Just kidding. I warn you however that there are things I will say, and do, that wil shock and offend you. And I dont care. I WILL be teaching you about evolution. I WILL force you to take a refresher exam on the concepts EVERY two weeks, and those exams will determine whether or not you with scholarships will be able to stay in school next semester. Also I have this thing about making fun of stupid, ignorant people. I will make a concerted effort to chang your viewpoint on evolution. If you do not like any of this, I will not think any less of you if you transfer to another class" *begins lesson*