[TEXAS] these are the people sitting on the Board of Education

It actually does mean something, because questions will naturally arise because they are being taught something in their science class that may be contrary to something they have been taught throughout their lives.

The more people that believe something, the better the odds it will come up in a classroom setting.

 

So.... this means the teacher needs to teach creationsim?

What's wrong with "well yes, some people believe that, but it has no scientific merit." Factual. Accurate. Simple.

 

No. As one of my posts says, "I am not saying to teach Creationism in public school science classes...".

I think that science teachers need to be prepared to answer questions regarding it and not just dismiss it out of hand.

 

what about how the scientologists believe they were put here on earth? should that be taught too?

 

I think I outlined the appropriate response in the rest of my previous post you quoted. There's no need to elaborate.

 

My opinion is that Science teachers should be prepared to, at a minimum, address these sorts of questions that students may ask. They don't have to teach it, but they should be ready to provide reasonable responses to reasonable questions. Questions about Creationism or other popular theories should not simply be dismissed.

 

That's different than what you previously said:

If I misinterpreted, I apologize. However, if such was the case, your original comment was very poorly worded.

 

I guess the word "taught" should have been "discussed", "mentioned", "talked about", "not ignored", etc.

 

Why should a science class waste time on something that decidedly unscientific? Do you disagree with rhad's proposal for an appropriate response to such questions?

 

Agreed. There is nothing to discuss. If you want to discuss it, take it to social studies class.

I like discussion - it's meritous and interesting. But it's impossible to not end up discussing things that a) are not science and b) are decidedly preachy.

That's not bias. That's just the facts.

 

Assume I am in science class and start learning about the science behind the creation of the universe. This is the first time this has been presented in such a way becuase all my life I have been taught (along with millions others) that God created the universe. I ask the teacher about this and they respond as rhad suggested. Some students may accept that answer and the class may continue. Others may want to push the issue and get a better answer. Would it be so awful to set aside some discussion time to point out scientific flaws in these theories?

 

You tread a fine line that, time and time again, is shown impossible to traverse. Best to let it be. Parents of the religious will be ticked if you discuss creationism negatively. Parents of the non-religious will be ticked if you lend credance to religious mythology.

Just avoid it. There is no scientific basis or merit. It is separate and distinct. If the student pushes it, tell him he's distracting the class from the subject at hand and can talk to you about it in private should he so choose.

 

Thank God kids will always ask "why?" I agree with Bobrek that teachers should be prepared to answer a child's childlike question when "science" seems to contradict "religion." I do agree with you that, under ordinary circumstances, religious beliefs should be kept out of public classrooms.

Students' intellectual curiousity is stymied when the teacher says, "That's wrong. This is the way it is, and there will be no further discussion." This is the lazy way to shrug off questions with "because." I would much rather see the teacher say, "This could be allegory, or the theories may actually be the same but the definitions may not be the same. Think about it tonight, write down your thoughts, and let's examine them in a free period." (My grandfather did that when I was little, and he always took the opposite view and asked hard questions. This is where I learned to love the theater of the absurd before I even knew there was a theater of the absurd. )

Just as there are religious beliefs that may or may not be true, there is a lot of science that may or may not be true. For example, we discover almost on a daily basis that a scientific theory on a particular topic often turns out to be inaccurate at best or totally wrong at worst. For example, as late as the 1970s scientists thought dinosaurs dragged their tails rather than using them as a balancing mechanism the way dogs do or how dinosaurs became extinct (although we are discovering they didn't go extinct but became modern birds).

 

If a student asks a question in science class that has to do with religion, the teacher should say, "Right now we are studying science. Science has process that involves proof and testing out ideas. We need to focus on that. Your question isn't actual science. I would ask your parents or someone at your place of worship if you have a question about that."

 

Totally agree. If the students don't understand why their religious beleifs don't belong in a science classroom, the teacher needs to do a better job explaining the scientific method.

 

This is what should be said.

Creationism is based on faith while science is based on proof and evidence, the two should clearly be separated. There is no way science and religion can co-exist. You'll have teachers at school teaching one thing while religious preachers will continually say "Don't trust the wisdom of man only the wisdom of God". It just wouldn't work and at the end kids would just be confused.

 

Texas is only 6000 years old!
_____

WOW
WOW
WOW
WOW

 

Cmon man, ignorance is easier.

 

So she should be prepared to answer religious questions in a science class?

How is she dismissing it by simply saying, that this is what current science says?

I'm just curious how you think she should word the response?

Honestly, I don't see how this could be answered in a compare/contrast style without pretty much telling a religiously brought up student that their long believed idea of how the universe was created has no scientific proof...at all.

What good does this do in a science class? This argument is going to push people's 'faith buttons', nothing more.

I thought the 'Teach the controversy' movement was abandoned awhile ago...yet it somehow keeps coming up...