Some Thoughts on Creation/Evolution

[General Mung Beans]

I was walking to my high school today when across the street, a man passed out to me a pamphlet. When I skimmed through it, it was quite obvious it was a young earth creationist pamphlet-from this site: http://www.fishdontwalk.com/. I see the Rational Response Squad did its usual job on it though...

However this has gotten me thinking: what should a teacher if a creationist student attempts to argue his points to the class? Should the teacher ignore him or respond?

[Mr Bean]

However this has gotten me thinking: what should a teacher if a creationist student attempts to argue his points to the class? Should the teacher ignore him or respond?

You can believe what you want, but this class is on evolution, either learn it or fail the class. It's your choice.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I was walking to my high school today when across the street, a man passed out to me a pamphlet. When I skimmed through it, it was quite obvious it was a young earth creationist pamphlet-from this site: http://www.fishdontwalk.com/. I see the Rational Response Squad did its usual job on it though...

However this has gotten me thinking: what should a teacher if a creationist student attempts to argue his points to the class? Should the teacher ignore him or respond?

Respond. Brutally. It is what I do with my students anyway.

and then follow it up with:

You can believe what you want, you are also free to fail this class

[General Mung Beans]

Funnily enough the pamphlet encouraged kids to answer in tests and quizzes what would get them an "A" in the class so they can insincerely answer the questions correctly and pass the class.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Funnily enough the pamphlet encouraged kids to answer in tests and quizzes what would get them an "A" in the class so they can insincerely answer the questions correctly and pass the class.

Well, in that case, I also have a tendency to rip apart creationism pre-emptively.

[General Mung Beans]

Funnily enough the pamphlet encouraged kids to answer in tests and quizzes what would get them an "A" in the class so they can insincerely answer the questions correctly and pass the class.

Well, in that case, I also have a tendency to rip apart creationism pre-emptively.

What level do you teach? High School or undergraduates?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Funnily enough the pamphlet encouraged kids to answer in tests and quizzes what would get them an "A" in the class so they can insincerely answer the questions correctly and pass the class.

Well, in that case, I also have a tendency to rip apart creationism pre-emptively.

What level do you teach? High School or undergraduates?

Undergraduates. Though they are not much better than high school students these days.

[j.eller]

I had an evangelical kid who used to kick up a stink ALL of the time in physics lessons. My teacher lost it in the end and told him that he was free to leave and study fairy tales if he wanted, but that in his class, fact was the only currency.

The way I see it, discussion is never a bad thing, but the evidence is so overwhelmingly against creationism that it is a hopelessly one sided debate in any science class. And what science should be teaching is the fair appraisal of evidence. If people want to debate the pros and cons of religious belief, they should do it in religious studies, because it amounts to a distraction in any serious science talk.

[Simon_Jester]

That's the key reason why the 'discussion' of this kind of issue is a problem: distraction from the real content of the lesson.

If a student has his own reasons for wanting to rebel against the concept of "2+2=4," then fine.

But he does NOT have the right to waste ten or twenty minutes of the class's time while he incoherently defends the notion that two plus two really equals seventy-four and it's all a scheme by The Man to keep the kids who hate math class down. At that point, he's (slightly but noticeably) reducing the quality of every other student's education, dragging them all just that little bit farther towards his level.

Not good.

[Kyler]

Here was my response to a creationism discussion in my Theology class my freshman year at St. Louis University (A Catholic Jesuit University)

If God exists, than he can control time & space since he created the universe. So with a snap of God's fingers he can move forward time from the instant of the big bang to when the bible begins. Humans beings may perceive that the universe is actually 13 billion years old but to God it is only 5,000 years old because he can manipulate time and space. Thus the scientific universe as we know it can exist will an all powerful creator.

That threw the bible thumping crazy's in my class for a loop. My professor was impressed with my argument, which made me happy because he used to be monk.

My stance is Creationism should not be taught in public schools, but unfortunately it is. In Indiana, parents can let the children take church classes in public schools so they can debunk science like evolution.

Alyrium Denryle is right, if some kid starts spouting that stuff off in class, tell them they better learn it or they are going to fail the course.

[OsirisLord]

The science against creationism is so overwhelming and covers so many spectrums (not just evolutionary biology, even if that's the one creationists have decided to attack) that creationism itself should simply not be tolerated in any place that has an iota of academic integrity. Would we react differently if a kid threw a fit in chemistry because the alternative of alchemy wasn't being taught, or if parent's wanted to drop a their kid from public school because the astronomy class said the planets and stars don't move around the Earth in perfect circles? And if you're afraid that letting your kids be exposed to this information will erode their belief in God, then what does that say about your faith in the first place?

[Axiomatic]

Plus, there's the issue that you only have a set limited amount of time to deliver your lesson. Very few teaching plans include enough leeway to jam in "have a ten minute debate on the validity of biology and evolution with creationist student" in your average 45 minute school hour.

[Anguirus]

My advisor actually teaches a freshman seminar on "evolution and intelligent design," essentially a whole class about why creationism is wrong. I believe there is some empirical support for the fact that a critical examination of creationism in an academic setting exposes its utter lack of explanatory power and actually flips students who haven't thought deeply about the issue away from the creationist camp. Also, having it as a class by itself prevents it from wasting time in an actual science class.

The issue hasn't come up in my teaching yet because I teach higher-level courses: I think if someone stood up in a comparative anatomy lab and pronounced it all bunk, the other students would do a number on them as well as I could. That doesn't stop me from cheerily pointing out many of the glorious absurdities of animal bodies that are awfully tough to explain from a creationist perspective.

[MacJordan]

I don’t claim to know all there is to the teachings of evolution. I don’t claim to be a scientist. However, I do have some thoughts about this controversial subject. I have read and believe myself that Evolution is quickly becoming the new religion of our times.

[Sinewmire]

Evolution is a process, not a school of thought or philosophy. You'd be as well to say Photosynthesis is becoming the new religion of our times.

Secondly, unlike every religion, Evolution and other scientific theories can be tested to reality and adjusted accordingly.

Please explain your point further - in what way is Evolution like a religion, would you say? "1- Belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny" Well, I haven't heard of anyone worshipping Evolution, what would be the point? It's a process, and pays no attentions to the entreaties of humans any more than, say, Photosynthesis does. Obedience too? Well, I suppose we're all obedient to Evolution as we're all products of it, but again, it's not as if we have a choice. We're obedient to gravity, too. Belief in? Well, barring a few whackjobs, the entire scientific community accepts Evolution the best model we have to explain the proliferation of life - peer reviewed, studied and checked against observation. I'd say it's a justified true belief if it is a belief rather than a theory.

"2- any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion" Evolution has no such body. It is an important part of biological science, but science is not a method for the expression of Evolution, any more than the BBC exists specifically to express Broadcasting House in London.

"3- the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers" Evolution is neither a attitude or feeling, though it could arguably be described as a controlling power. Again, though, this suggests that evolution has a will or intention, when there is no evidence for that to be the case. It's merely a process - nobody sees Gravity as a transcendent controlling power, but as a force.

"4- chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns: to enter religion" Do I have to explain this one? Evolution doesn't fit in here, although I suppose the vow of chastity demonstrates evolution at work.

"5- something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion" Possibly the closest we've come to a match, but agan, who finds Evolution to be of overwhelming importance to them, other than Creationists? Unless a scientist is specifically engaged in the study of Evolution, I can't imagine anyone has devoted their life to it.

"Religion" definitions from Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition.

Do you have some point beyond the dictionary meanings of religion, or were you merely trying to be profound and insightful and coming off as a jackass who's heard that trite little line said at a party and doesn't know enough secondary school science to understand why it's full of crap?

[SilverWingedSeraph]

I don’t claim to know all there is to the teachings of evolution. I don’t claim to be a scientist. However, I do have some thoughts about this controversial subject. I have read and believe myself that Evolution is quickly becoming the new religion of our times.

You evidently know even less than you claim to know. Nobody with an ounce of intellect who knows what evolution actually is would assert that Evolution is a religion, nevermind the "new religion of our times", unless they were being blatantly dishonest.

Evolution is a scientific theory in the field of biology. It explains the diversity of life, through the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. To quote the dictionary, it's a change in the genetic composition of successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Evolution has been observed and documented extensively. It is nigh on unassailable as far as scientific theories go. It's to thank for most of our developments in every field of biology, as well as medicine. As far as scientific theories go, it is one of the most solid.

So, MacJordan, was your post just a hit and run attack by a creationist know-nothing, or will you respond to these critiques of your argument, I wonder?

[FSTargetDrone]

Nobody with an ounce of intellect who knows what evolution actually is would assert that Evolution is a religion, nevermind the "new religion of our times", unless they were being blatantly dishonest.

Nor would any such person ever describe it as, "the teachings of evolution." That phrasing alone stinks of nonsense.

[madd0ct0r]

um guys,

I think you might be arguing with a spambot.

[SilverWingedSeraph]

I believe you are correct. He lacked the spamboy sig when he initially made that post. Hm.

[kouchpotato]

Oh shit, have the creationists made one of their own spambot arguers?

[PainRack]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3130704/Cre ... e-Syllabus

Anyone else noticed that in Creationist courses, they ALWAYS include a course assignment where you're supposed to meet other people and discuss creationism?

One of them has as a course requirement the need for you to go to an online forum and actually DEBATE creationism vs evolution.

[Lagmonster]

I believe you are correct. He lacked the spamboy sig when he initially made that post. Hm.

Yes. It's been banned.