The science teacher in my school is a creationist. Please, tell me again

[ulysses]

how it is that privatized schools are supposed to be our salvation.

This teacher isn't an ogre or simpleton. She's young - 24 I think - and completely has the kids interested in natural phenomena. She's done a lot of in-class experimentation. She's a natural teacher, and the kids have learned a lot.

Still, this is someone who, although she believes that some kind of evolution has been at work throughout history (legs might have replaced fins where necessary, etc), can't not start from some kind of creation event. Humans, even if we've evolved to some small degree, began as humans, largely as we are now.

I know that plenty of public school teachers come from the same stock, but are their religious beliefs given the same leash in the classroom? This is a science teacher who, for all her strengths, cannot present the full theory of evolution without editorial caveats.

I like this person and, as I say, she's a good teacher. Do we, however, want to base our entire educational system on the kind of free-range system in which a teacher is allowed to present a scientific theory adorned with her own beliefs?

[msmcghee]

1. She should be fired.

That crap has no place in a science class.

[Pontus]

155. Yeah a crackpot like Mendel, Newton, Von Braun, etc.

All scientists, doctors, inventors,etc. that believe in God should be fired. Hey, not even the Soviet Union went that far!

[supernova]

2. Well, if you're in a private school

I don't know what you can do about it. :shrug:

She seems a bit confused and may be one of those "intelligent design" theorists.

[ulysses]

6. I don't want to "do anything about it"

It is a private school, and she fits in well with the prevailing ideas. C'est la vie. I have no problem with that as far as it goes, I just think it's a good cautionary tale for the folks who would like to replace public schools with private, thinking that things like this won't be the norm.

[salin]

56. sadly... I have read several reports in the last year

here at DU, with parents of children in public schools - where the issue has been raised, and the children not subscribing to creationism (even early elementary) are subjected to ridicule (at least in one case, prompted by the teacher.) I think this is more a sign of the pervasiveness of this round of evangelical fervor (there have been numerous "waves", historically in this country), rather than something solely existing in private schools. Of course if one is in a private religious school, that is another situation altogether.

[funkyflathead]

3. Just how does she edit out her own beliefs?

I think she should be fired and jailed ASAP for being a creationist but it's the schools fault for hiring her in the 1st place.

She just doesn't believe in evolution which is virtually fact.

She is a fundamentalist idiot.

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Jailed?

Pot meet kettle. For every overreaction there is an equal and opposite overreaction.

[tkmorris]

29. Jailed?

I am a total whacko but even I wouldn't jail her. You have bigger issues than I do. I guess I'd better try harder.

:evilgrin:

[AntiCoup2K4]

75. Fired and Jailed?? Are you a Freeper or do you just think like one?

Evolution isn't "virtually fact", it's a theory. So is creationism. Neither is conclusively proven, nor likely will ever be. Nobody has witnessed God creating life out of thin air, and nobody has witnessed one species morphing into another. Reality is probably somewhere in between the two.

[Malva Zebrina]

122. errr well that is true,

well that is true, except for one very important thing--there is no evidence that a god exists at all. For evolution, while it may be called a theory, there is definate evidence that this does occur--and that is the bacteria evolution that occurs when bacteria evolve into forms that would resist the environment of anti-biotics. Giving this imaginary fantasy equal space with a scientific theory is not the most logical thing to do. Evolution is a theory that has been tested over and over, involving thousand upon thousands of papers being written over a period of 150 years. It is called--peer review and there is not one scientist who would refute that theory--all virtually accept it--the only thing to be ironed out is the hows and the whys. Creationism spends it's entire time refuting science. It offers NO peer review and it offers NO experiamentation or evidence--such as, no one archaeologist is looking for the bones of Adam and Eve, and the flood has yet to be proven--in fact, the bible is full of contradiction and confusion. That cannot and will not ever be in any sort of competition with the scientific method.

[QC]

85. I discuss things like Marx and racism in my conservative college.

Sometimes the students object.

I suppose I should be fired and jailed.

[fishguy]

4. What denomination is she?

Most mainstream Christian denominations do not proclaim the whole seven day(including day of rest) theory thing. It is only a few right wing fundies who profess the whole seven day(with the day of rest) and the world is only six thousand or so years old.

[Monte Carlo]

5. Is this what she teaches in class?

If it was, I'd say she needs a stern talking-to. Otherwise, I don't see a real problem.

[ulysses]

9. I don't know that the've discussed it.

Her views on this came up in a discussion outside of class with a third teacher. Even if it is, I'm not saying that it's a problem in this environment - it's a Christian school, and parents have to expect/desire things like this. It's their choice, stupid as I think it is.

What I want to know is how the defenders, on DU, of *universal* privatized education, replacing public education, justify foisting this kind of non-scientific crap on their kids.

[Monte Carlo]

14. Well if she keeps it to herself...

... and doesn't mix her philosophy in along with her science, then I think everything is OK.

But I agree, we cannot allow science education to be turned into cat-herding. The beauty of science is that there is always one explanation, one answer clearly superior to the others.

[Muddleoftheroad]

18. However, science is imperfect

Yes, one idea might stand out, but those ideas are often proven wrong. Science class should teach THAT as well.

[Monte Carlo]

24. Science is fallible indeed...

... a new discovery could come along tomorrow that would throw all of our theories about the universe into disarray. Science is all about the process, not so much about the results.

[funkyflathead]

17. It's a CHRISTIAN school?

Nofrigginwonder she's a creationist

[fishguy]

22. A Catholic school should not be teaching the six day creation theory only

It is not the official Catholic doctrine.
This teacher should not be in a Catholic school

[slackmaster]

73. Christian does not necessarily mean fundamentalist

I know an atheist couple who were forced to send their three children to a Christian (Lutheran) elementary school when they lived in Virginia because the public schools sucked SO badly. No damage was done to their minds, and they were physically safe there.

[RainDog]

21. Why do you send your child to that school?

Just me, but there is no way I would want my child to attend a fundamentalist school...there are many reasons for this, but one of the worst is that the literalism of the whole fundamentalist doctrine is anathema to creativity as a global learning issue.

There are actual studies about this, which you can probably google to find, but when I was studying, I remember reading a book about this very issue...

of course, in America we only care about "teaching the test" until people get to college, at which point many students find that they have to learn how to think.

this is what conservatives hate about universities, of course, because that is an environment in which thought has been mostly protected, and people are free to question the status quo.

[slackmaster]

74. ulysses said "Christian", not fundamentalist

Sometimes public schools are so bad that parents have no choice but to home school (if possible) or send kids to a private school. If the only available option happens to be a Christian school, that's where you have to send your kids.

:eyes:

[jwb48]

82. If you really believed in Science you would forget about evolution

First, this science teacher is not the only person of value in the world of science that believes in creation. Louis Pasteur and Frances Bacon (developed the Scientific Method) are important names from the past, but I am at this moment holding a book, titled, "In Six Days: Why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation" These are 50 PHDs all in specialized fields of science, all modern-day scientists, all presenting in their own voice why they support creationism. The fact is evolutionist are people who have choosen to ignore what they know about science in order to embrace a theory that is at odds with science. They are the ones that must suspend their knowledge of cause and effect, (that you can not have an effect without cause), that order can not evolve from chaos with out the intervention of some ordering force, and they have to suspend their acceptance of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Then, after they suspend what is observable in nature, which is exactly what science is, then they have to accept what they cannot observe, ie the belief in billions and billions of earth years, transitional fossils of interim species, and so forth.

Besides, I thought this was the liberal side of the table. What is wrong with debating issues of controversy. What's wrong with teaching the children that there are various points of view and they should study the issue to understand it better. Where is this "jail her, fire her, give her a stiff talking to...where is this junk coming from?? You want robotron teachers that only teach the state's point of view????

Give me a break.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

88. "theory that is at odds with science"

Are you kidding me?
I would love to see exactly who authored the book you're holding.

Why don't you go here and read this article. It even mentions the first and second law of thermodynamics.

Here's the link. And come back when you have more than a fundie book to support creationisim.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2

[DrWeird]

137. Ooo, 50 PhDs, lahdee freakin dah

That orange-haired raelian woman who said she cloned humans has two PhDs from accredited universities.

You can dig up people with PhDs who will think the world is flat. That doesn't mean it lends credibility to the flat earth debate.

Your old and tired and patently false arguments about thermodynamics are practically cut and pasted from a creationist site. You should be ashamed for using them.

[Ellen Forradalom]

151. I would joke about spiritual thermodynamics

"Heat moves from one body to another body by the will of the Lord." It seems, however, that reality has outpaced humor once again. When I read that 'scientists have suspended their belief in the first and second laws of thermodynamics,' I feel like I'm living in The Onion's world.

[ulysses]

147. my kid doesn't go there

We don't have kids yet (working on adoption). I teach math there.

[SharonAnn]

41. Yes, they're going to use our tax dollars to teach this stuff.

And, they have no accountability because they won't have to pass the tests that the public schools have to pass.

So, for them it's a win-win situation. They get more students, more money, and no need to account to those (taxpayers) who supply the money.

[Beaker]

144. Well, DUH....OF COURSE a christian school is going to teach creation

that's what they BELIEVE.
If you don't want your kid to get a creation-oriented science education, don't send them to a christian school.

[ulysses]

145. I don't have kids yet.

I teach there. And no, not all Christians believe literally in the creation story.

As I've said a couple of times, my point with the thread was not this particular teacher, but the fact that, if we privatize primary and secondary education in America, a science education featuring some form of creationism will be the only option for many kids.

[Beaker]

148. that's why we need a strong public school system-

but going after Christian schools that teach creationism is the wrong tack.

[ulysses]

149. you misunderstand me.

I'm not "going after" anyone for teaching creationism. I'm going after those who don't want *anyone* to teach, or learn, anything else. Those are the people who are going after public education, via vouchers.

I mention my current colleague as a cautionary example. If schools are privatized, the teaching of creationism as science will become the norm, bank on it.

[Beaker]

150. Doubtful.

It may become the norm in most Christian & fundamentalist-type schools, but it already is in those schools. Not all "Private" schools are religious ones, and not all religious schools teach creationism anyway.
Your fears are unfounded.

[ulysses]

152. I'd like to think that you're right, but I don't.

True that not all private schools are religious, but I can tell you that the great majority of them here in Atlanta are. They come in a variety of flavors, of course, and some of them are quite good academically. Then again, I subbed several years ago for a math teacher in one of the bigger and more highly-regarded Christian schools in town, and had a hard time finding his math texts for all the Tim and Beverly LaHaye volumes lining the walls. Ah, reason.

The primary impetus behind the vouchers movement is religious and evangelical. I've been told here, in previous vouchers discussions, that plenty of private schools will spring up to take in all manner of students now served by the public schools. Who do you think will be starting those schools?

[Beaker]

153. I don't believe that we will see the demise of public education-

whereas you seem to think that it's a foregone conclusion.
BUT- if it does come to pass, not all private schools will be religious in nature. There are plenty of corporations that realize they need employees with honest educations, and they'd be sponsoring private schools as well, if it comes to pass that public schools dissappear(they won't).

[ulysses]

154. not a foregone conclusion, perhaps,

but the threat is very real. It may not be an immediate thing, but all they have to do to set it in motion is to further defund public ed. through vouchers, then complain about how we need vouchers because public ed. doesn't work, then further defund public ed. through vouchers...

You could be right about corporate support for schools, but 1) I don't consider that any kind of huge improvement over religious schools, and in fact consider it worse in ways, and 2) given the rate at which middle-class jobs are being outsourced overseas, I'm not sure how vital the corporate types view legions of Americans with the ability to think critically to be anyway. I think it'd be worthwhile to have a discussion about what these next few generations are going to be doing for employment as an adjunct to this one.

[Bucky]

7. My biology teacher in HS was a creationist

He was a fundamentally decent man. He's go off on two different tears from time to time. Either he'd carp about how stupid racism is or he'd carp about how evolution was contradicted by the Bible. The anti-racism rant was the more common of his tirades.

He taught truthfully and honestly and helped instill in my a love of learning and a passion for critical thinking. One thing he'd never do is trot out the usual lame assed Creationist arguments. I could never reconcile the contradictions in the man. I remember the lessons from that class more than 20 years later. I think I was snide to him on more than one shameful occasion.

People in the particular are a hell of a lot more complicated than are the simple labels that we slap on them.

[Jen72]

69. In High School

I had a brilliant Biology teacher, who was a Christian.
When it came to teaching Evolution, she just switched classes with another teacher. That way she didn't teach us something she did not believe in, but we still got taught about it. And she did not ever teach Creationism as part of Biology. It is a subject for Religious Education but is never taught as a part of the scientific syllebus.

[Cleita]

8. Well, I wasn't taught the truth about history in private school

and had to learn it on my own. Science I don't think would be that easy. Maybe going to summer school in a non-religious school could provide a balance.

[fishguy]

11. The Bible contradicts itself on creation

Many parts of the Bible say that time to God and time to man are different concepts.
The Second Epistle of Peter, 3:8
In the Lord's eyes, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a day.

No way can you say that the world was created in six 24 hour days with this type of language.

[wuushew]

12. Why do you attend a school that offends your sense of rationality?

universal secular public education is the only answer

[K8-EEE]

13. I've Had This Same Thing...

About four years ago with a 4th grade teacher, it was a Catholic school but she was some kind of other denom. She sent a not home saying she would be skipping a chapter in the book....cuz of that.

So we just did that part at home and I explained to my daughter that some people, even smart/nice people, are so rigid and literal in their beliefs that they won't have them disproven by facts, and that this nice lady would always be making under $20,000 a year and teaching elementary school instead of being a real scientist because of the limitations she chooses on knowledge etc...my daughter still talks about that whenever the subject comes up!

[fishguy]

15. The Catholic Church does not profess the six day theory of creation

Officially, Catholics can believe in evolution as long as they believe God was part of the process.
Part of the problem with creation/evolution is what I call Pop Christianity. Many 'Christians' believe in a Pop sense of Christianity and not what their denomination proclaims.

[fishguy]

19. What is this teacher doing at a Catholic school?

If she is not professing the official Catholic belief system and interjecting her own, the school should fire her.
It is a Catholic school, not Jerry Falwell Elementary.

[K8-EEE]

96. She Came In Mid Year After The Other Teacher Quit

And she was a good teacher in general, so we decided to teach this part at home. Generally I think you have to look at the whole picture and be a little tolerant, I wasn't afraid my kid was going to turn creationist on me or become gay when she had the gay teacher!

[Doctor_J]

16. No, just explain to your children

that teachers can be wrong about things just ike anyone else. My younger daughter is a senior in HS, and we've had to monitor what the teachers have said all along. We live in a RW town, and thus the kids are occasionally confronted with bizarre opinions presented as facts. We just set the record straight over the dinner table, and move along. In this case, youi should tell your child, "Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact. Your teacher's personal beliefs are making her misrepresnt a little bit of science, so just ignore that part.

Face it, the school teachers are only a supplement to what YOU teach them. We've managed to raise two thoughtful, liberal daughters in the age of Limbaugh by tending to our business.

[fishguy]

20. Evolution is still a theory

Has not been proved as a law.
Seems like you are telling your children the wrong thing.
Theories and laws are two different things.
I hope you are telling your children the difference.

[wuushew]

23. As is general relativity

and the case for it has continued to strengthen over the past century. Theories should not be looked down upon in their contribution to scientific endeavor.

[fishguy]

26. But to say a theory is fact is not correct

A law is fact, a theory is not necessarily a fact.
Hence, the two names.

[sandnsea]

30. A theory is more than supposition

This is a copy/paste I saved some time or other. The idea that evolution is just a theory, like OJ has a theory about Columbians killing Nichole, is wrong. Theory is more than that. As a Catholic, I kind of like to make sure we get our views accurate every chance we get!!

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena."

"Theories may be good, bad, or indifferent. They may be well established by the factual evidence, or they may lack credibility. Before a theory is given any credence in the scientific community, it must be subjected to "peer review." This means that the proposed theory must be published in a legitimate scientific journal in order to provide the opportunity for other scientists to evaluate the relevant factual information and publish their conclusions."

[Dr Fate]

35. Changes in gene frequencies, and an "old earth" are facts. Evolution=FACT

It is a scienific fact that changes in gene frequencies occur- in fact, we can observe miosis under a microscope.
Even an ardent creationist admits that "micro evolution" occurs in selective breeding of plants and animals, and is responsible for the human diversity on this planet. It is also a fact that Adaption occurs.

The fact that the earth is millions of years old is also not under dispute.

So- that means that the "micro evolution", changes in gene frequencies, etc, all occurred over these millions of years. It's inconvieveble that all the species that ever existed was dumped on the earth all at once, several million years ago. Kittys, Cows, chimps were not on the earth 100's of millions of years ago- this is a fact.

Evolution is a fact- we dont know every single secret of life, granted-that is a religous or philosophical question...but we know that changes in gene frequencies in earth's organisms have occurred over hundreds of millions of years- that's why we had dinosaurs millions of years ago, and people and cornish hens now.

[fishguy]

62. Are we talking about human evolution here?

Because evolution has never been declared a law.

Law and theory, not the same things.

That is why "Theory of evolution" is always stated, not "Law of evolution"

[OhioStateProgressive]

68. it's never been declared a law to pacify to the religisoids(nt)

[Dr Fate]

86. I noted that you refused to adress any specific point I made...

and yes, I'm speaking of evolution of all life on earth.

If you still think Evolution is not a fact, then we can start our argument by you adressing one or all of the points i brought up.

1) the fact that the earth is milllions & millions of years old.

2) The fact that life has existed on earth for millions & millions of years

3) The fact that the diversity of life in every era of earths time line is caused by the same observable phenom. that causes it NOW, on the "micro" level: changes in gene frequencies.

Please adress each point by the corresponding numeral...

[RainDog]

32. You do not understand the term "theory"

as it applies to science.

In science, you observe a phenomena, which leads you to a question or questions.

Those questions lead to wonder what possible answers could answer these questions. The possible answers are looked at, and based upon existing knowledge, you can eliminate some because they do not fit with data which has already been verified according to existing knowledge which has been vetted by this same process.

You take what seems to be the best definition of the "problem" based upon the question(s)

...and from this you state a hypothesis. The hypothesis is the beginning of a theory.

You then check the validity of the hypotheis by reproducible experiments which can either prove or disprove the hypothesis.

If your hypothesis can be verified by both existing data and a reproducible experiment, you may then form a theory.

...in other words, in science, a theory is not just a...hey, I think I want to think this.

Gravity is a "theory."

Relativity is a "theory"

Until something better comes along to explain the phenomenae we know as "relativity" and "gravity," they remain the theories which are the basis for the science which comes after them.

You would not have been able to go to the moon on "faith-based" science, in other words.

ALL the fossil evidence supports a theory of evolution of all mammalian life, including humans.

ALL the genetic evidence supports a theory of evolution of mammalian life, including humans.

ALL the geologic evidence supports a theory of the evolution of mammalian life, including humans.

If you can devise an experiment and hypothesis which supports the idea that the earth is 6000 yrs old, and that humans sprang, fully formed, from the head of Zeus...or whatever you call your god, then I urge you to do so.

But maybe you need a better understanding of science, and I would urge you to seek out the information which you need in order to educate yourself.

[AntiCoup2K4]

77. Gravity is a Law, not a theory.

Gravity has been conclusively proven to exist. Ask any astronaut.

[DrWeird]

135. Gravity IS a theory, and evolution is a fact.

The laws of gravity are certain rules that gravity follows, given that the theory of gravity is true.

The fact that all living things, including humans, have evolved from earlier common ancestors has been proven conclusively true. Ask any biologist.

[rocktivity]

33. Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory

And should not be mixed with religous ones. If it is, it should be mixed with ALL religious ones.


rocknation

[Blue_Chill]

40. True but to be fair

One shouldn't make science out to be anti-religious. The reality is many scientists were very much connected to the church. The bible is the inspiration for the modern big bang theory and the motivation of many scientists.

[papau]

45. "Evolution is a SCIENTIFIC theory" that had to be changed in last 20 yrs

"interrupted" evolution is actually close to the "creationist" teacher above's idea of minor change over long periods.

Indeed there is no good reason for moving from one cell to multi-cell.

But shit happens. and evolution explains most of it. A creator God is also what I believe - but the idea that most was created close to the way we see it now is a bit silly. The student should ask the teacher to sit back and just think about it for a while!

:-)

:-)

:toast:

:-)

[RainDog]

53. you're talking about punctuated equilibrium

right?

this was an issue of debate for some time since the publication of the book by Gould and the other guy...Nils??

as lately as the early 1990s...

but punctuated equilibrium is about the issue of mutation relative to time, if I remember correctly.

Gould did not in any way think that punctuated equilibrium (or significant changes in the rate of mutation during specific periods) was in opposition to evolution as a scientific theory.

There was a very interesting article in today's NYTimes about genetic variation b/t humans and chimps, and some big changes in the pre-homo sapien genome around 100k yrs ago.

...which would indicate major environmental stress to favor certain mutations over others.

the entire issue is that science is about an exploration of answers to questions. as better answers become available, science is willing to adapt to evolving knowledge.

religion which explains science by a text which was written a few thousand years ago and which claims to be fact and "that's that" is not science.

[Dr Fate]

87. Creationists point tohealthy scientific debate as "flaws" in the theory...

...very dishonest and misleading of them. They try to say that since all scientists cant agree on every single detail or mechanism of Evolution, then the whole baby must be thrown out with the bath water...

They are incorrect- the nature of science is that we are constantly updating our knowledge with every new discovery-Astronomers & Cosmologists have honest intellectual disagreements about wonders & of the universe- but that does not mean space does not exist.

The fact that evolution occurs is not under dispute- but that does not mean there is not room for debate on HOW or WHEN certain organisms evolved...

[Liberal Veteran]

91. It's the same thing with global warming....

The ice caps are melting, glaciers are retreating, and we are seeing a range of odd weather patterns that do not correspond to historical patterns and are not consistent with measurements taken using sound scientific methods used to discover weather patterns prior to the recorded measurements, but there is some debate on the fringes as to whether or not this is caused by humans and to a lesser extent among the very edge of the lunatic fringe as to whether global warming is even happening, therefore, the right wing idiots who have an economic agenda rather than a scientific one use this debate to claim that global warming is a total scam.

[TomNickell]

34. Misleading....

"Theory" has two meanings:
In common speech: an unproved 'theory'; a hypothesis.
In Science and Mathematics: An organized body of observation and deduction.

The Scientific Creationists use this confusion to mislead people.

The 'Theory of Evolution' was an unproved hypothesis in 1865, when it was proposed. In 2003, it is an near a proven fact as it is possible to get.

[Doctor_J]

36. Not really

The amount of evidence CONTRADICTING evolution is neglible at this point. Under your definition, it will never be a fact, at least until a CroMagnon lives in the White House. Wait a minute....

[papau]

48. "CONTRADICTING evolution" ? term definition ? interrupted evolution?

A theory is not set in stone!

:-)

but I agree there is no better explanation at this point.

:-)

[kixot]

54. And so is Gravity so don't go believing everything you read.

Other popular THEORIES:

Gravitational
Relativity
Electromagnetism
Education
Quantumelectrodynamic
Number
Graph

[alarcojon]

81. Graph Theory in the house!!

You could also add to the above the theory that germs cause disease.

B-)

[Liberal Veteran]

89. Theory in the field of science does not mean "guess"...

...contrary to the creationist belief. A theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. Yes, many words meaning the same thing

Call it an educated guess if you like, but it's often wrong. History proves that.

[Liberal Veteran]

93. Evolution however is not a guess....

Evolution is a fact, pure and simple. There may some arguments as to whether or not evolution explains the existance of human kind, but there is certainly no scientific data that proves evolution does not in fact occur. Indeed, resistant bacteria is documented proof of natural selection (the driving force of evolution) in action. Normal bacteria are subjected to an environmental stress of antibacterial agents until they start to produce offspring that is resistant to said antibacterial agent. Voila! Evolution in a petri dish. Same thing with viruses.

Now of course we don't have millions of years to observed species mutation and evolution in a lab any more than we have billions of years to observe the life cycle of stars and that's where extrapolation from know and observable facts take place and thus giving us a working theory as to how things do work.

The nice thing about real science, as you pointed, when something is proven to be wrong it is discarded.

I don't really have to be there to know that the earth did not spontaneous come into existance on October 23, 4004 BC at 9am as purported by Bishop James Usher.

A variety of measurements using proven science pretty much blows away the theory that the Earth is only approximately 6000 years old.

[Malva Zebrina]

123. I do not think you understand the scientific method

at all. This is a big problem with those who would say that the theory is evolution is only a "theory". You buy that and it is wrong. I suggest you add some more to your knowledge and repetoire when it comes to science and the scientific method.

[roguevalley]

25. She must be a product of private schools and creationist 'theory'.

I am retired from teaching but I'm helping my niece with
home school. She's an athlete who competes at junior
olympic level as an ice skater.

I went through the Rainbow Resource Center catalog for
texts. It was ASTOUNDING. Demented, stupid, cretinous,
all can describe about 90% of the materials provided.

It should be online. www.rainbowresource.com.Try it.
You will just curdle.

These people have been taught this since birth. I feel
for them now in a way I never did before this. It must
be awesome to overcome. They truly and sincerely believe
this and there are butt loads of books to back up this
point of view.

[Blue_Chill]

27. Tell her the Big Bang theory was thought up by a Catholic

So she can relax and stop pretending the dinosaurs were put in the ground to test her faith.

[Dr Fate]

28. Evolution deals more w/ the process than the initial "creation"

That is more of a question for the cosmologists-

Evolution answers how life develops on the earth- and sticks to what we can prove or infer with reasonable certainty...I've never really thought big bang theory answered ALL the questions...- I mean, what was here BEFORE the big bang? Black space?

...As an ardent Evolutionist- I say this may not be so bad...you say that she believes in the process of evolution- this is somtimes refered to as "guided evolution"...(Dont confuse Guided Evolution w/ "Intelligent Design"- G.E. is a belief in a "creator" who uses evolution as an instrument to set things in motion...

-I.D. is Trojan Horse, just another name for Creationism...

If she accepts that evolution occurs and is responsible for diversity on Earth ,and teaches that, then why should we care how she thinks it kicked off- so long as she is not preaching Adam & Eve, it might be OK...


U- you have to check out this book- It is for educators- it is also written so 8th graders and up can understand the science- it's really cheap too- It specifically adresses Evolution/creation from an educational POV...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0804717702/103-2273152-8130243?v=glance

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0804717702.01._PE30_PIdp-schmoo2,TopRight,7,-26_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[arewethereyet]

31. two points

matters of faith are your responsibility to teach and your kids should know that up front. If they decide that your view is not one they can embrace, they are their the master of their own destiny. If you cannot make a convincing case for your beliefs, shame on you.

If the teacher is a good one, you should be thankful.

[ozone_man]

37. Who said "privatized schools are supposed to be our salvation"?

I don't think this would happen in a public school. I guess it depends where you're from and all that (Bible belt, e.g.). I believe in public schools, my kids go to public schools, and they're very good. I can understand that this may not always be the case. They're not perfect, and as parents, you have to stay very involved, but they work and are a big part of the community.

This is why we need Dean in office, (to begin) to restore them to the level that that they should be. Dean sent his kids to public schools, BTW.

[ulysses]

44. I guess I'm not making myself clear.

We've had, in the recent past, dustups concerning private vs. public schools, especially as relates to vouchers.

I teach in a private school, but believe wholeheartedly in public education and plan to be working in public schools as soon as I'm able.

[quaker bill]

38. Teachers are not scientists

Evolution does not have to conflict with religion.

Evolution does not attempt to answer the question of whether God exists. It simply concludes that the presence of a God-like being is unnecessary to explain the current biodiversity.

The existence of humans is some of the poorest of any available evidence of the existence of God. To paraphrase Dante' 'what benevolent God would have created this?'

George (Who Would Jesus Bomb) Bush is a most poignant example.

[ulysses]

47. "Evolution does not have to conflict with religion."

Agreed. Still, it does for some folks. Such is my work situation.

[AntiCoup2K4]

78. Actually, Bush is an example of "reverse evolution"

Chimp "evolved" from supposedly human parents (though admittedly the jury's still out on that one)

[letthewindblow]

39. Many great scientists (Einstein among others)

believe in God/Creator, which means they believe in creation. Nothing wrong with that.

[arewethereyet]

42. believe it or not, these need not be opposing views

it all had to start somehow, some way. I have no trouble seeing the hand of God as being that way.

[letthewindblow]

43. Agreed.

They are not opposing views at all.

[papau]

46. Amen

:-)

[ulysses]

49. "creation" interpreted in what way?

Moot point anyway. The point has more to do with the way in which we want scientific theory presented to our students than it has with the religious beliefs of scientists. Einstein's religious beliefs are a valid part of that study, by the way.

[letthewindblow]

52. I just wanted to suggest

that we often apply unnecessary meanings to words evolution/creation.
Evolution simply means that things evolve, no more and no less. And it's pretty obvious that things do evolve.
Creation simply means that the universe was or is being created. It has nothing to do with 7 days of creation nor with the Bible...
As to my opinion on the whole science-religion issue, i agree with Einstein who said:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

[RebelOne]

61. What do you mean, Einstein? He was an atheist.

[letthewindblow]

66. Einstein atheist?

Here are some of his quotes that more than suggest he was deeply religious:

"It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure."
-Albert Einstein

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-Albert Einstein

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"
-Albert Einstein

"God doesn't play dice."
-Albert Einstein

"God may be subtle, but He isn't plain mean."
-Albert Einstein

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."
-Albert Einstein

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
-Albert Einstein

"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."
-Albert Einstein

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age 18."
-Albert Einstein

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
-Albert Einstein

"We should take care not to make intellect our god; it has,
of course, powerful muscles, but no personality."
-Albert Einstein

"I tried to imagine the easiest way God could have done it."
-Albert Einstein

"I believe that every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no matter how pure a "positivist" he may fancy himsself to be."
-Albert Einstein

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."
-Albert Einstein

"What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the inquiring and constructive mind."
-Albert Einstein

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us "universe", a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
-Albert Einstein

"True religion is real living; living with all one's soul, with all one's goodness and righteousness."
-Albert Einstein

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible."
-Albert Einstein

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
-Albert Einstein

Einstein and God:
http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/reflections_volume_1/torrance.htm

[arewethereyet]

71. ouch, don't screw with the science VS religeon notion

its so disruptive !

[Darranar]

127. Einstein was NOT deeply religious...

however, he was no athiest.

[letthewindblow]

129. "Religous" can mean different things to different people

The way I understand the word, he was DEEPLY religous. It determined and guided his life and his work.

Some excerpts from that article:

"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as all serious endeavour in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that is there."

"You accept the historical Jesus?"
Einstein: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

"Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

"By way of the understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind towards the grandeur of reason incarnate in existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the highest sense of the word."

Did you read that article? It's a good summary on Einstein's views on God and religion.

[RainDog]

156. God Doesn't Play Dice

it is often important to place quotes in their context, especially when they are used to argue a point.

fwiw- the quote that "god doesn't play dice" is a reference to quantum physics theory.

Einstein, as brilliant as he was, had real hesitation about quantum theory and his reservations were expressed in that quote.

the quote has nothing to do with evolutionary theory...just to clarify for those who would like to take this out of its context and apply it to their beliefs.

..and, fwiw, quantum theory has shown to have some interesting points, whether or not Einstein wanted to believe it. Of course, he was vested in his own theory, which no doubt gave him his initial reservations.

again, the point is that science evolves as knowledge and the ability to test theories evolve. this is a beautiful thing, and something which can, rightfully, keep us all humble in the knowledge that we humans are not the be all and end all of all that has been brought into existence.

but if you want to get down to the subatomic level of existence, yes, god, or whatever you want to call the mystery of existence, is there, when you consider that matter is made up of "nothingness" more than somethingness.

In other words, the space between atoms is more of what something is composed of than atoms are..

This is awe-inspiring, to me, and much more of a idea of a god than a literalist interpretation of scripture.

I feel sorry for those who can only believe in god if that god has to be confined to a text which cannot support the advances in understandings of the way in which the world and the universe work...what a small god to confine that god between the pages of a text.

[Kinkistyle]

50. Private schools usually don't fail students

If you've got enough money, you can slightly chide the school into getting them to pass your child with flying colors. I know because my sister went to a classy private school on Long Island, NY for the last 2 years of high school. Although it had a much nicer facility (with various necessary amenities such as a horse stable and horseback riding course) compared to the public school, the education way sub-par and much much looser in its pass/fail requirements.

[LWolf]

51. No. Our beliefs are leashed more tightly.

For good reason.

It doesn't matter how good the teacher, how worthy or ethical the person. We bring ourselves, our perspectives, our "slant" to the classroom without trying. It's part of who we are. It colors the way we interpret everything, including the curricular content we help children to comprehend. Without conscious effort, all of that comprehension will have the teacher's personal "spin." It's an ethical choice to do our best to stay conscious, and to avoid spin without stifling expression. A continuous balancing act.
Most public school teachers that I've known don't have a problem with this. I do know one teacher who refused to teach 2nd grade on religious grounds...the 2nd grade curriculum included dinosaurs, which she claims never existed. Supposedly according to biblical timelines, or something.

The other regular issue in elementary school is holidays; those that wouldn't think of shutting down the entire curriculum for at least a week to celebrate every holiday, and those that refuse to "do" holidays if it excludes any of their students. And those in between.

The one exception to this occurred last June with the current war. A year previously, we had planned a school-wide unit/culminating event to promote international appreciation, cooperation, etc... It was designed to be a part of our IB program. Some teachers put their foot down and refused to take part because they were afraid that it would appear to be lack of support for the war. So the event was deep-sixed. (The war was not a part of the unit; they were just afraid that kids would make the "connection.")

Of course, in elementary school we don't get to the creation or evolution of earth; at least not at my level.

[BertrandL]

55. She's wrong, but

I think we DO want a free-range educational system. Teachers have their own ideas that inform, in one way or another, they're lectures. As liberals, we should be especially concerned about having certain points of view be forbidden from teachers in certain deparments. Remember, the right laregely controls school boards. And the Feds largely control the funding of colleges and universities. Plus, what real harm can she do? If she's a good teacher, I believe that outweighs this small issue.

[NashVegas]

58. Liberals Hide Certain Points of View?

My, that's not very liberal, is it?

[PurityOfEssence]

57. Creationism is against the very spirit and soul of science, period.

She should find another discipline, or teach an aspect of science that has no bearing on the issue of evolution.

Science is premised upon the willingness to have any theory be subject to question and proof; creationism presumes an answer. Creationism flies in the face of the nature of science and is antithetical and destructive to it. At its heart, creationism seeks to destroy inquisitiveness, and any attempts to cloak it in terms of science are morally deplorable.

[kodi]

59. the parents obviously expect & accept this from their kids' teachers.

BTW: those toads in my stomach are acting up again, hand me that bible.

[ulysses]

140. LOL

I know they do, and as I said upthread, I don't mean that I want to do anything in particular about this particular situation. As annoying as I find it, it fits with the school's direction. My point Friday night (and I was in a bad mood when I started the thread) was more about vouchers and the replacement of public education with copies of this particular situation using public money.

:hi:

[Iverson]

60. easy answer

"Please, tell me again how it is that privatized schools are supposed to be our salvation."

That is a bit of dogma, just like creationism.

"Do we, however, want to base our entire educational system on the kind of free-range system in which a teacher is allowed to present a scientific theory adorned with her own beliefs?"

You and I probably don't, but this is a case where the far right agrees with the Soviet Union's stupidest era. Lyszenkoism is what it's called, and it just about ruined agriculture in the whole country, and that's big.

Sorry about that teacher by the way. It's scant comfort, but here's an old saying: colleges of education are places where artificial pearls are cast before real swine.

[durutti]

63. Acceptance of evolution should be a requirement

They should make everyone with a natural science degree sign something stating that s/he accepts that evolution is a fact. If the teacher goes on to teach creationism, s/he should have her or his degree revoked.

[Muddleoftheroad]

64. Mandated acceptance of theory?

Sounds like what the Catholic Church did when it enforced the Earth as the center of the solar system.

Science is often wrong, get used to it.

[durutti]

79. Mandated acceptance of fact.

Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. Darwin's particular idea of how evolution happened is a theory. And creationism has no scientific basis whatsoever.

Revoking a science teacher's degree for teaching creationism is no different than revoking the credentials of quack doctors.

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. Science fact

Sorry, it's hard to keep track of science "facts." I remember when I was a kid they told us we were in the middle of an ice age and that the world was getting colder. Now, it's global warming.

Tracking science "facts" is like hitting a moving target.

[Dr Fate]

94. Old earth & changes in gene frequencies are FACTS. Evolution=FACT

If you are really saying that evolution is not a fact, then please see my above posts and adress my specific points.

[Blue_Chill]

99. Why are you posting crap you know to be false?

Evolution as the answer to how humans arrived on planet earth is a Theory not a fact. It is only accepted because it is the most likely situation based on what we currently know. What we currently know, has changed many times in scietific history and you know this.

One day perhaps we will prove it and it will become fact but now it is not. So you sir are WRONG.

[Iverson]

100. it isn't crap; you are misunderstanding science

The purpose of a theory is not to put an end to inquiry with a final answer. The purpose of a theory is to explain in the best possible way.

In some sense, science expects its theories to be refuted at some future moment and replaced with better theories. This in no way negates that evolution is based upon fact and is the best explanatory model that follows the precepts of science as opposed to faith.

[Dr Fate]

102. We are splitting hairs w/ this "theory vs. fact" business.

I'm ready to go to the evidence stage of this debate. The old earth is a FACT. Life on earth for milloins of years isa FACT. Changes in gene frequencies over millions & millions of years is a FACT.

We are playing into the creationists hands by arguing semantics.

Call them on the evidence and they lose every time.

[Blue_Chill]

105. It is crap and you didn't read my post.

The purpose of a theory is to explain in the best possible way.

That's what I posted, a theory is the best available explanation. It is not however equal to fact.

[Dr Fate]

106. I gave you 3 facts that prove evolution. Tell me why they are not Facts.

Once you can do that, then you might have an argument.

[Blue_Chill]

109. Tell me why we are alone at the top?

Tell me why in the millions of years of evolution many many species share an amazing numbers of traits yet humans sit alone at the top.

You are willing to accept this as mere coincidence. I am not. I need no proof when what I am saying is clear as day, don't believe me go to the zoo and have a look around.

[Dr Fate]

112. Answer my 3 questions 1st. Answering a question with a question...

...is a typical Creationist tactic.

Answer my 3 specific points 1st. If you want to beilieve that God "guided" the evolution of man to this point, then fine, so long as you accept that evolution occurs, and that man evolved as did every other animal & plant on this planet. I have absolutley no problem with folks who believe that god uses evolution to set things in motion.

Who said anything about "mere coincidence". Not me.

It's no "coincidence" that different species were on top of the food chain at any point in history- at one point, the T-Rex was the biggest boy on the block, now it's humans- not a "mere coincidence" at all that a particular species ends up being the most adaptable for it's era in history...

I answered your question, but before you respond to my answer, it is your turn to answer my 3 specific questions that I keep begging people to answer...

[Blue_Chill]

114. You will not be allowed to frame the discussion friend

You want to point to evolution as in change in species fine with me, on that we will agree. But modern humans are not simpley atop the food chain. We create art, we attend lectures, we sit around and argue our existence. You can believe that such things were mere coincidence like tigers evolving large teeth all you wish. But your theory has no explanation for this singularity other then to point at chance.

Sorry friend but chance doesn't do it for me, and if you actually taught that to students I have little doubt it would do it for them either. Evolution as the explanation of mans existence is chance, much like sciences explanation for the entire universe, chance. You worship mathimatical impossiblilities and laugh at those who differ.

[Dr Fate]

117. No, I have no problem with a "divine" plan what-so-ever...

and I do not "laugh" at my friends, including you, who believe that religious/philosophical concept.

I give you facts, not theories to ponder, that is not framing the discusssion, that is presenting facts- facts that you concede are true, no less.

Let me get this straight- you say that all life occured on earth through evolution- except humans, who were blessed by god or aliens with special abilities. And you say I'm the one presenting "theories?"

I presnted not one theory- I presented 3 points of scientific fact.

[wuushew]

118. You do higher primates a disservice...

chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutangs have the ability to use both language and tools. From there it is not hard to make the evolutionary changes of a proper vocal box and increased brain size to arrive at human like existence.

Nor is high intelligence limited to land creatures. We learn more and more from sea mammals every year.

[Blue_Chill]

134. Apples to oranges

Intelligence of animals is amazing when you learn of it, but you can't begin to compare their simple nature to humans. We are the only known creatures that seek out art, science, knowledge, etc. We are alone in this. The only animal in a world full of them to develope the most powerful trait.

Pure chance....

[Code_Name_D]

139. Evolutionary destiny.

The argument being presented here is a concept called "evolutionary destiny." It's an "assumption" made by scientists who have had there logic colored by religion. The argument is that life evolves on earth to produce us, humans, the "culmination of evolution." We have all see the "evolutionary ladder" that has plankton at the bottom, then invertebrates, fish, lizards, dinosaurs, mammals, birds, and then Lenordo Dvichie's "angel" pose man. (The one where he is looking up with his arms held strait out like a cross.)

And it was a concept that we held until recently. Until some collage student wrote an interim paper about the subject, pointing out some inconstancies in the assumption. By asking some pointed questions. 1) if man is the "culmination of evolution" than why are there so many other branches? Birds for example. 2) Is man really the most advanced life form? After all, birds can fly, isn't that more advanced? 3) Why are lizards still around? Why did other primates evolve separately from humans? 4) Why did mammals return to the sea? 5) Why dose man become pray to larger cats, wolf packs, alligators, or polar bears?

Every now and then, some simple thought changes our perceptions of evolution. But hardly ever in a way creationists might appreciate. And here is a case in point. Man is no longer treaded as the most advanced animal. We are just another animal with different traits. Unfortunately, high school caricula is ridiculously slow to change. I remember having this very same discussion with a high school teacher science teacher while working as a part time janitor. (He was rather incensed that I would challenge him on this.) But the next week, he came back and thanked me for pointing it out. Not only did he find out that I was correct, but it became an ideal learning opportunity for the class.

Science is not a perfict disapline, only a self corecting one.

[Mattforclark]

120. Not 'simply chance'

Whether you are eaten by the tiger depends not on chance, but on how fast you are, and upon other variables. If you are faster, you are less likely to be eaten by the tiger. Organisms undergo a rigorous selection process known as natural selection. Natural selection is not chance.

And go here about chance:

http://monet.me.ic.ac.uk/people/gavin/java/javaDemos.html

[Dr Fate]

121. Exactly- the ony "chance" comes in the form of catatrophies...

...that change the qualities of the earth or a portion of the earth so drastically that speices die off, or species who were once weak or in small #s populate the new "niches" created by the disaster and become dominant...

Example- Before the ice age, Dinosaurs, reptiles and amphibians ruled. There were very few furry critters, but there were some (and boy were they hot!)

AFTER the ice age, those furry critters were the creatures who ended up best adapted for life on earth. That's not "Coincidence" or "chance"- that is survival of the fittest.

[Blue_Chill]

133. Simple chance remains

Many animals faced the exact threats we did. They all developed similar traits. Humans developed language and the ability to think logically. Singular to our species.

Pure chance that only one animal acquired the most amazing trait of all.

[Mattforclark]

136. Actually

more than one species developed the traits that you mention. It is just that they went extinct, most probably because of our ancesters.

http://www.athenapub.com/index8.htm

[RainDog]

158. "why" is a philosophical question. "how" is science.

in that, beyond observable natural phenomena, each person can study philosophy to debate the meaning of human existence.

as far as they "why" of the "how" -- well, apparently, several types of pre-human species were once in existence at the same time.

one fascinating source of research at this time is how others, like "robustus" failed to thrive. neanderthals, once strictly believed to be precursors to homo sapiens, are viewed more and more as a separate species.

the events which led to the development of a larger human brain are also part of ongoing research, and, as I mentioned above, one genetic difference between humans and other primates is that a set of genes which allowed us to process amino acids from proteins from a diet richer in animal proteins may have had something to do with this.

again, environmental pressures have consistently proved to be the reasons that some mutations become useful and are thus carried forward in a species, including humans.

it would seem that our ancestors faced great environmental pressure in their quest for food which various chimpanzee species and gorilla species did not in their fruit/vegetative rich environment.

puntuated equilibrium finds some support in the idea that the precursors to humans faced such environmental stress that they died off in large numbers and those with mutuations which permitted survival in a more difficult environment were favored drastically, thus "escalating" the frequency of those mutations in a population.

you can observe this phenomena in present time in human populations which have been relatively isolated over time, in the genetic frequencies of certain mututations, such as hermaphroditism.

fwiw.

[Dr Fate]

101. You failed to adress any of my specific points.

Here is what we currently know:

1) The earth is millions and millions of years old.

2) Life has existed on Earth for millions & millions of years.

3) Changes in gene frequencies is an observable fact, it happens now, and it has been happening ever since life has been on this planet.

How am I wrong about any of these things?

Are you really saying that every animal that ever existed suddenly appeared on the earth 100's of millions of years ago, along with people, and that we have not changed one bit? Kittys, dogs and pigeons lived alongside dinosaurs??

Lets stay away from generalities and stick to some specific examples- you can adress them point-by point here, or from my other post in this thread where i make my case in more detail...

If you going to say i am wrong, then prove my points false, or bring in evidence. That is what I did.

[Blue_Chill]

107. I adressed your most important mistake

You misrepresented theory as fact. They two while similar are not the same.

Life has existed for millions of years and yes things change. Yet humans have singular qualities. You are able to accept mathmatical impossibilities as the absolute truth of our creation some are not.

[Dr Fate]

115. No- you were the one tied up in semantics, not me...

I gave 3 scientific points that are FACTS, not theories.

1)The FACT (NOT theory) is that changes in gene frequencies occur NOW. We can OBSERVE it happening under a microscope. It called miosis.

2)The FACT (not theory) is that the earth is millions of years old

3) The FACT (not theory) that life on earth has existed for millions of years, and that the same changes in diversity that occur NOW on a micro level occurred over MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years.

We know that if planets, stars, air, etc. exist NOW, that they existed MILLIONS of years ago. If changes in gene frequencies occur NOW on a "micro" level and is respponsible for OBSERVABLE diversity NOW, then we know that it was also occuring on a MACRO level over millions & millions of years.

What is your arguement? You admit all 3 points are correct, and in deed "FACTS", not theory.

Are you trying to say that evolution occured in every facet of life on earth, except for human beings? If so, then that really DOES sound like a theory to me, as opposed to my 3 facts that even you cannot deny.

Seems like my FACTS explain human origins much better than what ever your theory is.

[Kitsune]

130. Not to be anal, but

We ARE in an ice age. Yes, the world is getting warmer now, but if we weren't in an ice age, we'd have palm trees growing in Anchorage, which has been the case for something like 80% of Earth's history while there's been life on it.

Dammit, you're making me remember things from a class I only took for the core requirement! :evilgrin:

[Blue_Chill]

97. Wait a second what are you talking about?

Does evolution, as in species changing over time, actually occur? Yes, we can porove that.

Did all life on this planet including human life begin by accident when a tiny virus or what have you evolved over millions of years? We don't know that for sure because we can't prove it. That is why this is a theory, it is the most likely based on what we know, but it certainly is not proven.

[Dr Fate]

103. Evolution occurs on this earth- FACT.

If you want to believe that the "seed" was planted by God, or Aliens or whatever, fine. I will have to agree that the origins of life itself have not been proven. Science does not presuppose that "God" haved his hand and started evolution- we could never prove that even if we wanted to...

But the origin of speciation and diversity on this planet IS evolutionary- an undisputed fact. You admit it yourself in the 1st line of your post.

[Blue_Chill]

110. We agree

evolution does in fact occur. Hell even the vatican agrees with you there.

[Dr Fate]

113. Exactly . Evolution=FACT.

I'm not sure why we are arguing then.

[Blue_Chill]

116. Because you want it taught in schools as the origin of human life

and in order to do that I would have to have more faith in mere chance then I am prepared to give it.

[Dr Fate]

119. I want the scientific FACTS to be presented in schools....

...to kids in a way they can understand it. I want the 3 FACTS that I keep mentioning to be taught in biology class, where they belong. I want concepts such as "Divine intervention" to be taught where they belong- in the home or at church.

I dont want to destroy anyone's concept of God- if teaching children scientific FACTS like the 3 I presented makes children loose faith, then that is the fault of the parents or the church for not instillling proper faith.

Dont blame scientific FACTS like the ones you concede are ture if churches and parents cant teach kids to hold on to thier faith in the face of these scientific facts.

My father, a chemical engineer taught me evolution and biology when I was child. I used to sit in his lap and he would read to me from "Science" magazine. He also took me to church every single Sunday...

[Liberal Veteran]

128. Evolution doesn't speak to the existance or non-existance of God.

In fact, science itself doesn't really address that issue at all.

For example:

Is it truly necessary in medical school to claim that God created certain compounds that have antibacterial qualities? Or is it more important to understand how those antibacterial qualities work and how they actually can be used in the treatment of bacterial related disease?

That is the difference between science and theology.

The same applies to evolution. Evolution is a scientific explanation for what we have observed in nature. The fossil record, the likeness of one species to another, etc. It doesn't speak to the existance or non-existance of an entity to oversee the process.

Really the only time theology and science start to butt heads is when the scientific community puts forth something that flies in the face of unproven and unsubstantiated religious dogma, such as the notion that the earth was created at 9am on October 23, 4004 BCE which is definitely disproven by science.

The same of course holds true of the creation stories of Genesis. The earth did come into existance in the course of 7 rotations of the earth and everything wasn't put here on the planet in the course of a week unchanged from the modern spectrum of flora and fauna. There is wellspring of evidence abundant in the simplest of observational science that disproves that notion.

But the problem as I see it is wanting to blame science or twist science to conform to a belief system is unnecessary and unfortunate exercise in futility that serves no purpose.

Cogitate and masticate on this: I often hear those of theological bent wishing to insuinate theological doctrine into the science class, but I cannot recall a single instance of scientists demanding equal time for science in Sunday school.

[BonjourUSA]

65. I'm very happy to live in a strictly secular country

But seen from here, your story seems funny and disturbing in the same time. Over all surrealist.

[jobycom]

67. Even evolution is adorned with beliefs

If she's a good teacher, the kids are lucky to have her. It sounds like you are saying she tells the students what the theory of evolution says, then gives her own expressions of disbelief. At a public school that might bother me, but I don't see a problem at a private school.

All science is somewhat beholden to a person's beliefs. 99% of the people teaching evolution couldn't provide real evidence that it's true. They can recite what they were taught about it, but they are going on faith that THEIR teachers, and not creationists, are right. They are not active scientists in the field who understand the evidence and its limitations. They just believe that what they taught was right.

I'm looking at this from two angles. As a trained historian, I can tell you that 90% of what has been taught to students over the millenia has been wrong, and probably over 99% of science. Students are taught by former students who learned from other former students a lesson that none of them has ever questioned. Change only comes from questioning, and questioning only happens when you have a truly exceptional mind analyzing something, or when students are taught to question, even to doubt. Much of our science will one day seem childish superstition to someone. Much will not, of course.

The second angle I'm coming from is that of a scientist. You should always treat every statement, every axiom, as a question. Every great scientific breakthrough has come from questioning what everyone believed to be true. A teacher who teaches science, but still introduces questions and doubts, is a good teacher. Again, I'm reading into your comments that she is a good teacher and does teach evolution, but expresses her disbeliefs in it.

On evolution specifically-- I've read that even scientists working on it are troubled by aspects of it-- for instance, how it could have happened so quickly, or how some species seem to have made great leaps, or what happened to some of the missing links. All of those may be answered satisfactorily within the current evolution theory, but one or more of them may not be answered until someone questions the whole theory, and alters it substantially, or even disproves it. Evolution makes sense, but the world being the center of the universe did, too.

And for the record, I'm an atheist, and not a creationist. Not that anyone will read this far on a Saturday morning. :-) In fact, I'm going outside now to see if the scientific date of a real world beyond my computer screen are true.

[JanMichael]

70. I love it! Question #1: Who dun it?

Answer #1: God dun it.

Fabulous, here's an "A" and an application to Walmart.

[ulysses]

141. there seems to be

a whole pseudo-science that's grown up in order to support this kind of thing, based on some kind of a "microevolution/macroevolution" scheme. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_micro.htm I think it works for creationists who can't deny evolution entirely because it denies that species ever become entirely different species, an idea that could lead to questions over how "right" God really had it in the first place.

[slackmaster]

72. Are you sure she's not just trying to stimulate critical thought?

I had a 6th grade teacher who claimed not to believe in atoms and molecules. I'm very sure he was deliberately being "difficult" when he said things like "I think wood is wood and water is water no matter how small a sample you look at." And "Nobody has ever taken a picture of an atom, so how can people be so sure the exist?" (The year was 1968.)

Do we, however, want to base our entire educational system on the kind of free-range system in which a teacher is allowed to present a scientific theory adorned with her own beliefs?

Look at the (polar opposite to make my point) alternative - Do we want an educational system in which teachers only preach established doctrine and are not allowed to have or express their own opinions that challenge mainstream thought? As long as she consistently identifies her opinions as such, I don't see a problem here.

I don't believe in litmus tests. If she's teaching from reputable, properly reviewed sources and not trying to indoctrinate students in an eccentric belief system then she can believe in creationism and still be a good teacher.

Which flavor of creationism does she favor, BTW? I like the Romani version, where God baked three loaves of bread: The first one was underdone and that became white people. The second was overly browned and became black people. The third loaf came out just right - The Gypsies of course!

[DemBones DemBones]

92. The Romani version is similar to the Filipino version, in which God

made people from clay and fired them in a kiln. An underfired batch were white people, an overfired batch were blacks, and the batch that fired just right were the Filipinos.

I'm guessing she favors the Genesis creation story. . . but which one of the two Genesis creation stories? :shrug:

[amazona]

76. i had a creationist teacher in a public school

Of course that was over 30 years ago. I have no idea what attracts these folks to science. My teacher was a bit of a nerd and probably could not have received a degree in a humanities, so he went with the sciences and math, where he could at least graduate and be eligible for a job? That is my best guess anyway.

All I can say is just humor the teacher and shrug it off. You have lots of teachers over the years, so there are bound to be a few ignorant and un-informed in the bunch, just as with any other large sampling of people.

I told the teacher what he wanted to hear and continued to seek the truth for myself. The kids who care will do the same, those who don't, won't.

[buddhamama]

80. i have nothing to offer

i don't believe in the privatization of our schools. My view is that, it is an attempt by the wealthy and the fundies to limit availability of schools and indoctrinate children into a standardized curriculum that doesn't foster creative, analytical thinking.

[opihimoimoi]

83. Stepford Citizens via a sustained effort to stifle the mind and/or

infuse distractive/deceptive shit into our children. Who gains from this? The Mega Rich Upper Class of course.

[Mattforclark]

95. A few thoughts

1) Evolution is a scientific theory. It is an extraordinarily succesful scientific theory.

2) Intelligent design is an interpretation of a scientific theory. It predicts exactly the same things as evolution, but adds on religious or philosophical baggage. You can believe it if you want to, but it is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophical interpretation.

3) Creationism, from a scientific standpoint, is just plain wrong. You can believe that the devil put all of the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution in order to trick us if you like, but the evidence is unambiguous that the parts of creationism that make testable predictions (e.g. the earth was created in 7 days, not 'the universe was created') are clearly wrong.

4) There is no such thing as a scientific law, and scientific theories cannot become laws. Any scientific theory (even if it is called a law) can be overturned if and when new evidence arises.

I would recommend that you get your kids (kid) a book on evolution for christmas or something and explain this to them (him/her) to make sure that this is understood. The book Dr. Fate posted might be good, although I haven't read it, or if they are older you might want to try 'the blind watchmaker' by Richard Dawkins if they are up for it and if they believe in creationism or something.

[frustrated_lefty]

98. As a scientist who has been a teacher

I think you may be getting up in arms over nothing. The very best thing a science teacher may convey to students is the scientific method. We teach the kids _how_ to ask questions. It sounds like this young lady is doing that. She's welcome to her beliefs. She is doing what she should, though, from what you say. She teaches the kids empiricism. If she keeps the kids interested in learning, you should be applauding her.

She teaches the method, trust your own kid to have the intelligence to analyze any editorial comments she may throw in.

[neebob]

104. The public schools aren't much better, apparently

Last night my son, who attends a public high school, shared what sounded like some incredibly racist remarks made by his video production teacher in demonstrating how different ethnic groups - hispanics and blacks in particular - would make a video. Is the guy just a thoughtless idiot, or did he calculate and decide he could get away with it because the kids in the class are all white, or am I misinterpreting what my son told me? It sounded pretty wrong to me. At least my son noticed it.

Then we have the kid who got in trouble for saying he had two moms and gay means girls like girls or whatever he said.

Teachers can't help but inject their personal beliefs and biases into the instruction. Those who are more self-aware and take care to say this is just their opinion and present alternative views bother me a lot less than those who consciously or subconsciously attempt to impose their beliefs.

[SOteric]

108. It appears that in some cases this has become a question

about Creationism, but I read your question as one about privatisation versus public funding of schools.

I believe that the real problems in America's education system can be reduced greatly and in some cases eliminated by better funding, real support and better infrastructure in public schools. I would rather see the U.S. support her public schools with appropriate tax payer dollars than disintegrate them with privitisation and vouchers.

That said, I attended parochial schools exclusively as a child. I was educated by Jesuits in Catholic schools, and I was taught both Creationism, Evolution, religious doctrine and state-of-the-art science.

In an excellent education, no single teacher, - even a teacher with a natural gift as an educator, can commandeer the thinking of an individual. I remember an American History instructor whom I adored. Dr. H imparted a real interest in the material, he made history fun rather than a dry recitation of facts. He had beliefs about the American Civil War which I later discovered to be relatively untrue, or at least, questionable. It didn't change my mind about him as a teacher, a man or an inspiration. I am still well able to look back with affection on the love of learning he imparted without having to accept his questionable statements.

What we need is to fund the kind of education which supports a love of learning and thought. It's really the only certain way to ensure that no single charismatic individual has undue sway on the opinions of a group of young minds.

[frustrated_lefty]

111. Very well said. (eom)

[Malva Zebrina]

125. this will only come about if teachers are pressed to be professional

and less inclined to make value judgements on their charges or preach their religious beliefs.

We should NOT fund any private schools with vouchers. I am unconditionally opposed to this as I see it as using tax payer money to preach religion and all of it's tenets to the students. That is fine if the parent want to pay for it--I, as a tax payer, do NOT want to pay for it and I do not think I am obliged to pay for someone learning creationism, Christian creationism,naturally, as a science. It is bizarre. We, as the tax payer, should not have to pay for Christianity to be taught anywhere.

[SOteric]

126. On the face of it,

I cannot quite understand how your response might bear upon my statements.

I have not advocated paying private schools with vouchers. I have not advocated for or against the teaching of any specific agenda in public schools. Neither has ulysses, the originator of the thread.

Did you perhaps mean this response to be posted elsewhere on the thread?

[Malva Zebrina]

131. my response was to:

Your proposition

"What we need is to fund the kind of education which supports a love of learning and thought. It's really the only certain way to ensure that no single charismatic individual has undue sway on the opinions of a group of young minds."

and I agree, but I do not think vouchers are the way to fund it and I do think that that is the next thing Bush will push. We do not need to fund schools with vouchers to support religious teaching--and that is what I am against, unequivocably.

I am certain that vouchers will be pushed by Bush and these vouchers will go to religious private schools. I am against that. Just bringing up a pretty predictable move on the part of Bush that may be a part of this conversation.

[SOteric]

132. Well again, I reiterate

I am not in favour of vouchers or privitisation in education. I state as much unequivocally in my post. ulysses is not in favour of them, he's made that point both in this thread, and a good many times in the past.

The paragraph you've exerpted does not propose, encourage or lean toward vouchers or privitisation. I suggest instead that during the course of our lives all individuals hear and are exposed to a great deal of information and misinformation. It is a losing proposition to believe that we can police all the misinformation, myths and legends, crackpot theories, hearsay, rumours, amazingly bad information regarding sexuality, etc. to which a developing mind is heir.

What we can do, is to appropriately fund, support and involve ourselves with our schools; all of our schools and all of our students. If the education is excellent, the love of learning is present, analytical thinking is encouraged, then it won't matter if a crackpot or two make their way into the life of a young person. It will not matter if they're told 'Old Wives Tales' instead of good infomation about sexuality, - they'll know how to think for themselves, find the answers to their questions and evaluate information.

[ulysses]

142. right, and as I say,

this teacher does get them to ask questions, does get them involved. I suspect that it could have been a hell of a lot worse, given the direction of the school. (Protestant religious schools aren't necessarily heir to the Jesuit educational tradition, which I understand to be excellent.) Still, there has to be a base of knowledge present for if honest evaluation, and if the topic does come up, I wonder how evenly it will be presented.

It's a fair point about not being able to keep tabs on every piece of bad information floating around out there. Ignorance, thy name is legion.

[Malva Zebrina]

146. Soteric

The paragraph you've exerpted does not propose, encourage or lean toward vouchers or privitisation.

No one said you did suggest that. You have jumped the gun. I stated what I thought about voucers and no where did I say that you were suggesting vouchers or anything to do with vouchers. Nor was I attacking you or your post. I was simply stating or adding my comments on what I thought should NOT be used for funding. OK? It had nothing to do with you. Read the post again.

I really should use the smilies more.

[SOteric]

159. Not to worry, I'm not suggesting you were attacking me

and I wasn't under that impression.

However much anger you've conveyed it's had nothing to do with my post, and thus my initial question. Rather than smilies, I feel your remarks deserved a post of their own as opposed to situating them as a response.

Do you see what I'm suggesting?

Since your post had little if any bearing on my remaks, it's proximity to my statements gave it a higher than average probability of appearing as though you'd misunderstood my intention and were enthusiastically attempting to refute them. I mean, not that this ever happens around here. ;-)

[Jacobin]

124. We are reverting to Scope's Monkey Trial mentality in this country

I'll bet you a hundred bucks she's a protestant and a republican and a smirk supporter.

These people want to take this country back to the Dark Ages and it is sickening.

[DrWeird]

138. IMO, she has no business being a science teacher.

She is like a geography teacher who teaches the world is flat, a med school instructor who teaches that diseases are caused by satanic posession and not germs, or a history teacher that teaches the holocaust never happened.

The fact that she gets kids interested would normally be good. But all she's getting them interested in is ignorance.

[ulysses]

143. sorry I kinda bailed on the thread yesterday

I didn't expect it to still be live, much less this big - lots of interesting comments here. Thanks, y'all. :)

[LeahMira]

157. How bad is it really?

She's young - 24 I think - and completely has the kids interested in natural phenomena. She's done a lot of in-class experimentation. She's a natural teacher, and the kids have learned a lot.

Great!

This is a science teacher who, for all her strengths, cannot present the full theory of evolution without editorial caveats.

Is this a religious caveat? Is this happening in a religious school? Or in a private independent, or charter-type school?

At least she is presenting evolution along with creationism. I'm sure that the students will learn about evolution in more depth as they continue through the grades.

As I understand it, the private and parochial schools need to meet some state standards in order to get accreditation and position their students well for college admission. I would make sure that the state science standards include something to the effect that students can demonstrate an understanding of the basic concepts of evolution.

The fact is that teachers aren't going to be able to get students to affirm evolution as a valid and true scientific theory as long as we continue to have freedom of religious thought. We just can't force people to affirm creationism in church and evolution in school. People (including teachers) aren't schizophrenic that way... if they're normal.

I think it's great that this teacher is able to turn kids on to science as you say she is doing. I also think that science is a large field with room for people who want to learn and research in areas that don't even touch on evolution.

A lot of teachers tend to think that they have a great deal of power to form children's minds and futures, and maybe they do to some extent, but I also think there's room for a little humility there. I don't think that students will fondly remember this lady because she gave them the courage to stick up for creationism. I do think there's a good chance that they will remember her for making science interesting generally, for giving them confidence in the subject, and for any personal interest and kindness she showed towards them as individuals.