In April, reader Hempenstein called my attention to an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporting the paper’s survey of 106 Pennsylvania high-school science teachers. The disturbing result was that more than 32% of the teachers adhered to some form of creationism. Naturally, because I’m a radical evolutionary atheist (and a member of the Darwin Lobby), I wrote an outraged post on this site.
One of the surveyed teachers made the mistake of admitting publicly, using his name, that he actually teaches creationism in his classroom. To wit (my emphasis):
“Sometimes students honestly look me in the eye and ask what do I think? I tell them that I personally hold the Bible as the source of truth,” said Joe Sohmer, who teaches chemistry at the Altoona Area High School. The topic arises, he said, when he teaches radiocarbon dating, with that method often concluding archeological finds to be older than 10,000 years, which he says is the Bible-based age of Earth. “I tell them that I don’t think [radiocarbon dating] is as valid as the textbook says it is, noting other scientific problems with the dating method.
“Kids ask all kinds of personal questions and that’s one I don’t shy away from,” he said. “It doesn’t in any way disrupt the educational process. I’m entitled to my beliefs as much as the evolutionist is.” [JAC: yeah, but he’s not entitled to foist them as science on credulous high-school students!]
Mr. Sohmer responded to a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette questionnaire distributed this spring to school teachers statewide, and he agreed to discuss his teaching philosophy. He said school officials are comfortable with his methods.
Can you believe it? “Comfortable with his methods?” BIG mistake. You can quibble about whether it’s okay to teach intelligent design in public colleges, but it’s settled law—especially in Pennsylvania, where the Dover case was adjudicated—that you can’t teach religiously based, discredited science in high schools. Teachers can’t do it, and school officials can’t sanction it.
It was a matter of a few seconds for me to email that article (thanks, Hempenstein!) to the Freedom from Religion Foundation. One of their crack attorneys, Rebecca Market, got on the case and sent this letter to the superintendent of the Altoona School District several weeks ago.
Something tells me that Joe Sohmer won’t be teaching his students muich longer that the Earth is 10,000 years old and that radiocarbon dating is wrong. (And, as a reader below notes, the Earth isn’t dated by radicarbon dating, as carbon decays much too quickly for that. Potassium/argon and other methods are used.)
Altoona hasn’t yet responded, but watch this space.
The Post-Gazette reports that other teachers—who wisely chose to remain anonymous—also purvey creationism in Pennsylvania high schools. Ignorance is busy and ever feeding. For the article also reports this result of another survey of over 900 American science teachers by Pennsylvania State University researchers:
The Penn State survey said the teachers identifying themselves as creationists spend at least an hour of classroom time on creationism in a way suggesting it to be a valid scientific alternative. “Between 17 and 21 percent [of teachers in the survey] introduce creationism into the classroom,” he said. “Some are young-Earth creationist but not all of them are. Some aren’t even creationists.”
The only excuse for teaching creationism if you’re not a creationist is either fear of backlash from religious students or parents, or a misguided sense of “let’s-teach-all-sides”.
What we hear in the press is only the tip of the creationist iceberg. For to bring Constitutional violations like this to public attention, somebody like Sohmer has to slip up, or some offended student or parent has to complain. And complaining about religion in the classroom will, in many parts of the U.S., turn you into an outcast. Remember Jessica Ahlquist? read the Wikipedia section about the threats she received.
Finally, it was reader Hempenstein, an old college friend, who got this ball rolling. If you hear of any violations like this in U.S. public schools, send them to either me or, preferably, the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
That’s good, because I personally can’t stand those tangential evolutionary atheists!
(…and §, and thanks so much for staying on top of these things. And, damn, but it’s depressing to think of how many kids are getting sold down the river for Jesus.)
b&
I thought most evolutionary atheists were bilateral.
I thought JAC worked mostly with Arthropoda, but maybe he slips a few echinoderms in, once in a while.
Mr. Sohmer’s antiquated teaching approach calls for a K-Ar dating analysis.
If a chemistry teacher doesn’t think radio carbon dating is a valid scientific process, then we have to fear other things about his teaching, besides his creationist bias, as well.
Exactly. Aaaaarggggghhhh.
Parents really need to ask their kids whether this ever happens in their classrooms. I can imagine many kids brushing it off as insignificant foolishness–and never mentioning it at home–because they may not understand the broader context.
Sadly I bet many don’t brush it off. Think of back when you were a kid and you figured if your teacher told you something, it must be right. It isn’t until you grow up a bit that you start to question.
Teaching this stuff early gets it really stuck in your head (think about the grammar rules we learned only later to understand they weren’t so simple….but we just can’t get those simple rules out of our heads).
Agreed. I was thinking just of the kids who already know it’s not right, but still might not mention it. But you’re of course correct.
“Think of back when you were a kid and you figured if your teacher told you something, it must be right. ”
That was only until about 2nd grade for me.
Yeah I never would have gone for it. I would’ve just got that nauseous feeling because I didn’t start being annoying with questions until about 7th grade.
Yep me too. When I asked my second grade teacher what happened if you take four away from two, she just told me it couldn’t be done. I knew this wasn’t true and that negative numbers existed. She was just too lazy to be bothered explaining it.
I had the most insane math teachers. One would just tell me I got something wrong and do it again and not tell me why then continue reading her romance novel. Another, I swear had complete contempt if you didn’t understand and I always suspected she wanted to have me taken out back & executed by a firing squad. 🙂
I knew how to write cursive when I went into 1st grade because my dad had taught me and it was (he thought, and I agree) a life skill. This was back in the mid-60s.
But my teacher didn’t “let” me write as I’d learned, because I wasn’t using the “Palmer method” even though my cursive was perfectly legible (considering I was only 6 at the time).
The “good old days” really weren’t that good.
Keep in mind that in many cases, these teachers have maybe 2 years of undergrad science; their degree is in education. They may have not had more than 1-2 weeks of radiochemistry, at a freshman or sophomore level. To be perfectly honest, one can probably get a legitimate B.S. in Chemistry at most schools having hardly touched on nuclear and radiochemistry; its not exactly a core subject.
So, its not surprising to me that they are unsure about it; they probably haven’t learned much more about it than their students. Certainly not enough to overcome some pre-existing bias against it.
Not having yourself specialized in a particular branch of science is not a good excuse for doubting the validity of the findings of that branch of science. If you have a good understanding of the process of science, and it is not unreasonable to expect that of a science teacher, then your default position should be provisional acceptance of the findings since they are a result of the very same processes that yielded the findings of every other legitimate field of science. Including those fields that you presumably have been educated in and accept.
At least until such time as you might gain the education and experience necessary to understand and evaluate those findings yourself.
Yes! And come on really? It isn’t that hard to understand.
Perhaps would be more reasonable would be to admit that you don’t understand the findings, but that you’ll provisionally trust the findings until such a time as you can get up to speed on the subject for yourself.
In the case of Cretinism / Idiot Design…well, you need to start with at least the level of understanding that you’ll have by the time you finish Jerry’s book. At that point, you can at least do undergraduate-level research to disprove the facts Jerry presents, as well as similar research to demonstrate the utility of your “controversial alternative.”
The fact that nobody has done either is all the proof one needs that there exists neither controversy nor alternative. Those who insist otherwise are either ignorant or stupid and have no place in any classroom, science or otherwise.
Cheers,
b&
The teacher’s understanding of the science is pretty much immaterial as long as she understands the currently accepted view of an issue. Even if you are a gym teacher who is simply subbing in a science classroom, you are obligated to teach the currently prevailing view, no matter whether you personally accept it.
I would argue that it would be just as wrong for a science teacher in 1935 to teach plate tectonics (because it wan’t the accepted view then) as it is to teach a young earth today.
I agree in principle. But in practical terms depending on people to teach something that fundamentally conflicts with the beliefs that they base their own world view on seems risky. It seems too much to ask from a significant percentage of teachers, based on the history of religion in science classes in the US.
I don’t think we should just settle for hoping teachers meet their obligations when we know that many of them won’t. I think we should strive for producing/acquiring better teachers as well, difficult as that may be.
I was lucky in the high school I attended. All of the high level chemistry, physics and math courses (not biology though!) were taught by retired professionals that had applied what they were teaching throughout their careers. And who also happened to be good at teaching others. Unfortunately there are not enough such teachers to go around.
There are, actually.
Or, rather, there would be, if we paid teachers salaries commensurate with those of other highly-skilled professionals.
Many people who might be inclined to teach don’t do so because they can earn far more money doing much easier work in the private sector. And who can blame them?
If you want quality teachers, give them quality pay. It’s that simple.
Cheers,
b&
Yes, indeed.
Could not agree more. It is shameful and myopic.
Never gonna happen.
I disagree with the comparison to plate tectonics in 1935. It was at that time not well accepted among geologists but it was still an entirely plausible physical explanation. It differed in that it was not religious in inspiration and would not have run afoul of church/state separation.
No. Plausible physical explanations for movement of continents were lacking.
While there was evidence for a larger earlier continent (e.g., fit of continents; similar fossil assemblages and similar geologic materials and features and mountain ranges on separate continents—all of which would line up if the continents were fit together), the big problem was finding plausible physical mechanisms for separating the continent into smaller continents, and moving them apart into modern positions.
Plate tectonics as a theory did not exist until much later. Pre-plate tectonics (1960s), the discussion was whether continents could “drift”.
I think you miss the point. It is NOT that prevailing geology of 1935 should have been replaced by non-prevailing scientific theories. Nor is it that a robust theory of plate tectonics existed.
The point is that regardless, marginal scientific hypotheses/theories/accounts are still part of science. Creationism is religion, not science to all but religious people who want to teach their scripture in public schools. This is a very important difference.
As long as it is teaching, describing possible but criticized theories (as such, of course) shouldn’t be a problem. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics#Development_of_the_theory ] String theory comes to mind, it is much lectured.
The problem comes when you want to teach discredited theories as possible alternatives.
This is in reply to gbjames below: my comments above were intended solely to counter the statement you made:
“It was at that time not well accepted among geologists but it was still an entirely plausible physical explanation.
I was in no way commenting on your other points, which you clearly express in your comment below.
The original comment to which you reacted by moarscienceplz (“I would argue that it would be just as wrong for a science teacher in 1935 to teach plate tectonics (because it wasn’t the accepted view then) as it is to teach a young earth today.”) is problematic historically, given that there was no such thing as “plate tectonics” at that time to even teach or speculate about, though there was an hypothesis of “continental drift”, which was discounted in part (by geologists of the time) due to the lack of a physically plausible mechanism for movement of the continents.
Not to mention biogeography.
It would have been worng for a science teacher to have taught plate tectonics as established fact in the mid-thirties, but it would have been perfectly appropriate to have given it a shout-out as part of a segment on areas of current research.
The same would be fantastically true for a class with the same title as Hedin’s — “The Boundaries of Science.” Today, you’d expect an astronomer teaching such a class to spend a good amount of time on the leading candidates for dark matter, possibilities for biochemistry of extra-solar life, cosmologies that extend beyond the Big Bang, and that sort of thing.
What would have been absolutely worng in the mid-thirties — and also today — would be to teach the flat Earth model as a reasonable alternative to plate tectonics.
Cheers,
b&
Plate tectonics in 1935: good call, but with this difference: Wegener’s theory was a scientific one, but it was incomplete at that time as it lacked a mechanism to explain the movement of the continents. Creationism in any guise, under any label, is not a scientific theory as it is incapable of disproof.
It would have been appropriate to teach about plate tectonics as a theory that tantalizingly explains certain aspects of geology unexplained by other theories, even lacking a mechanism.
“Cascadia: the Geologic Evolution of the Pacific Northwest” by Bates McKee is an interesting book published in 1972, shortly after the light of tectonic plate theory dawned on the geological community. One finds in McKee’s work repeated comments along the lines of “this is explained by the newly accepted plate tectonics theory”.
I agree with most of the replies to my comment. My main point was a response to dutch doc’s original post – no, we probably don’t have to worry that ignorance of radiochemistry indicates the teacher is also ignorant of stoichiometry or basic organic chemistry or other core chemistry subjects, because those subjects are covered in far more depth in the first two years than radiochemistry is. The creationist bias IS the primary concern here, dutchdoc.
““Kids ask all kinds of personal questions and that’s one I don’t shy away from,” he said. “It doesn’t in any way disrupt the educational process. I’m entitled to my beliefs as much as the evolutionist is.””
Facepalm.
With teachers like this it’s no wonder you guys are having trouble weeding out the creationist woo from your science classrooms.
“Teach the controversy” has got to be one of the laziests dispositions you can have if you know the least about what evolution is and does.
In point of fact, his last sentence is false.
He’s teaching science and science is a field of study that does not admit arbitrary systems of belief, notably anything flavored of woo. His belief in der holey bibble is simply not on a par with a geologist’s acceptance of plate tectonic theory, or a biologist’s of evolution.
Whatever his extra-curricular beliefs may be, in the classroom he has to at least pretend he believes scientific theories. Otherwise he is a failure as a teacher.
RE: “The only excuse for teaching creationism if you’re not a creationism is … ”
Maybe this is optimistic, but some teachers could be introducing it in order to show how silly it is as a scientific framework compared to evolution. I.E.: “So that was evolution and we just talked about all the things in life science it helps explain, and here’s this other idea, called creationism, and here are all the things it doesn’t explain at all.”
Also, some may be lying when they say they are not creationists in an effort to avoid censure, and to appear to be unbiased.
“No, I am not a creationist, but I think it is important to present all sides of an issue.”
Of course, as far as the science is concerned, there is no issue. Claiming that there is an issue is a distraction, and it is simply a false claim. And comparative epistemology is best left to a philosophy curriculum, particularly at this level of education.
Oh, they say “that isn’t creationism” when it really is (the change of the DI). Just rename it something else that way you can slip it in there unnoticed.
I would personally like that but, religion (creationism) can’t be taught, neither for nor against.
Well, the “nor against” part is pretty much impossible to comply with. If you teach evolution you are very much teaching against religious propositions, at least of some religions.
No, you’re not, because there’s a very important distinction to be made.
It is perfectly appropriate for a science teacher in a public school to teach the current scientific consensus. If there’s no such consensus or if there’re competing alternatives, either the matter isn’t settled enough to be taught in public schools or the teacher should, indeed, be “teaching the controversy.” See, for example, the composition of dark matter.
Except for “history of science” and “current political affairs” (etc.), everything else has no place in the classroom.
That a particular religion teaches that the first human was a golem made from mud is irrelevant. The fact that you’ll be contradicting that religious teaching when you teach human evolution is irrelevant.
If a student protests, “But my family’s witch doctor says that we’re the children of a mud golem,” the response most emphatically should not be, “Your family’s witch doctor is incorrect.” Instead, it should be, “I’m sorry, but that’s not a scientific matter, and this is a science class. You’re welcome to whatever beliefs you wish, but I’ll be testing you on the current scientific consensus, which is that humans are taxonomically apes and that we share a geologically-recent common ancestor with all other primates. If you wish for the scientific consensus to adopt to your family’s witch doctor’s mud golem model, see me after class and I’ll help you understand what you’d have to do. But, until then, it’s back to the science.”
See? No prejudicial statements against the religion, no teaching against religious beliefs.
Cheers,
b&
Well, Ben, you know that we are only quibbling over a detail here. My point is that when a religion teaches that pigs live in trees and you, in your animal husbandry class, teach that our porcine friends live firmly on the ground, you are directly contradicting this religious belief. And quite properly so, facts being as they are. You don’t need to say “The First Church of Treepiggery is wrong about this” in order to be teaching against this faith. It simply can’t be otherwise. You can’t state facts without “teaching against” a faith that is organized on a non-fact alternative.
Maybe what is needed is a survey of high school students on what their teachers taught. Many more schools could be found to be teaching creationism.
In theory, we already have such surveys in the form of standardized testing and college admission screening.
But I would also agree that this article indicates a possible need for some serious court oversight of Pennsylvania schools, in light of their flagrant violation of Constitutional law and recent case history.
b&
Pennsylvania and probably, oh, 49 other states, give or take…
Hope Genie Scott is fueling up her invisible jet. Sounds like she is about to be heading back to Pennsylvania. Unfortunately her magic lasso can’t make a creationist tell the truth in class… 😉
Love it! +1 internet for you!
(thanks, Hempenstein!)
Cool, my distinct pleasure, of course!
That gives me some consolation when I recall that one of the undergrads from my old department at Pitt went off to teach HS biology somewhere in NW PA. I saw him at a summer course the dept held for HS teachers to enhance their molecular biology abilities, at a time when some creationist kerfluffle was current, and when I brought that up he said, “Oh, it’s OK as long as you teach the controversy.”
FACEPALM!!
John Hempel
Too bad you couldn’t have a ceremony where he is stripped of his biology teaching credentials. I envision something like when Klingons cast one of their own out. 🙂
Well, we could always toss him over the Zoo wall so the lions could have a new squeaky toy. Zoo lions never have enough squeaky toys.
b&
Ha ha jeez – I just wanted to humiliate and ostracize him. You went right to Defcon 1! I like your thinking!
Oh, let me assure you — my intentions are nowhere near so nefarious! I’m just thinking of those poor, bored lions. Won’t somebody please think of the lions?
b&
I do love me some FFRF.
comments not allowed?
You and the FFRF are turning into quite the dynamic duo.
Creationist students in all high school students taking biology have a clear constitutional right to speak in class and advance a creationist view. The teacher may not advance such a view in class. The teacher may use this discussion for class response, and may offer his or her view if asked. Remember: any student has the right to speak in their classes, no matter what their view is. The teacher has no “constitutional” right to speak to this question in their teaching; this question has been settled by the court system.
Somehow, we think that the issue is prevented by the constitution by being raised in the class. This is absolute nonsense. Any high school student can raise creationism issues in the class. We as teachers of evolution want to stop these students from contributing to the class. We have no constitutional right to do that. Instead, the teacher should be ready to discuss any issue raised by a student, and let the others contribute.
It raises interesting problems…
Does a student in math class have a right to raise “issues” of the ethical treatment of aquarium fish?
Is it wrong for a chemistry teacher to tell students who want to discuss palm-reading to sit down and stop disrupting class?
I have taught evolution at Cornell from 1969 to 2010 and many high schools. They or I raised the problem of creation and evolution. This is THE issue in most high schools and non-majors class at Cornell. “Aquarium fish” is unlikely a topic of great interest in a math class. Creation is a topic raised constantly by teaching evolution.
Of course. But my question was about the principle behind this.
Creationism is not biology. It is not science. Just because a student asks a question does not make it relevant to a class. And the relative probability that a particular question might be asked is not really useful in answering a question about principles.
You said that students have “the right to speak in their classes” and I’m wondering what the limits to that right are because surely there are limits. Does it include both genuine curiosity as well as disingenuous creationist evangelism?
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or American.)
It seems to me that the teacher confronted with any of those scenarios is to say something like: “Thank you for the question, but we have a lot to cover and the topic is too much for us to get into here. You can see me after class if you want to discuss it more.”
Why not simply say it is discredited science (in the form of spontaneous generation)? And either leave it at that or make it a lesson into the history of biology?
I think it is fair to the subject and the students both, and settles the immediate question.
This is the ideal response, IMO.
+ 2
Or, as Ben says, say that creationism specifically is religion? That is the correct answer.
A student may reasonably raise the question of creationism, but the only suitable response is that this is a science class and creationism isn’t science. If it’s an introductory-level science class, that might be a good opportunity to review what is and isn’t science, but that’s about all of the “teachable moment” you’re reasonably going to get out of it.
Anything more on the part of the student is disruptive, and anything more on the part of the teacher is an un-Constitutional infringement upon the freedom of religion and anti-establishment clause. You have no more right to tell a student that such-and-such a religious belief is bullshit than you do to tell a student that it’s the Gospel Truth. A simple, “This isn’t the forum for that discussion, but feel free to take it up in a more suitable venue,” is all that’s appropriate and warranted.
At least, as far as the public classroom goes. Off-campus or in a private school, sure, go ahead, knock yourself out.
But the science classroom is for science education. Creationism has no more place there than geocentricism or alchemy or homeopathy.
Cheers,
b&
I agree. I grew up with an annoying Jehovah’s Witness girl who fought anything scientific and brought literature in for the teachers to read. Most of the teachers stopped her from interrupting class and I think one basically refused to take her literature (the only one that ever did the whole time I was in elementary school) which was AWESOME! If she had her way, we wouldn’t have learned anything.
AFAIK, students don’t have a constitutional right to speak in class at all, regardless of the class or the subject of the lecture. If they did, it would be illegal for teachers to tell kids to remain silent.
Even if you think that’s extreme and think they have a constitutional right to nondisruptive speech, they certainly don’t have the right to talk over the teacher while they are lecturing, or to demand dedicated class time to respond to something the teacher said. No student has that right.
I think not.
Creationism is a purely religious belief system, and discussion of it is inappropriate in a science class. I would hope that any teacher confronted by a bibble thumping student would simply say “that’s religion, and this is science class, so you are out of order.”
If the student insisted, perhaps say “then you can write an extra-credit term paper on religious creation accounts and which ones pass the test as scientific statements. Choose six distinctly different accounts, and the Abrahamic religions can only be represented once.”
Actually if you read the ed-code in most states students do not have the right to disrupt the class or the curriculum that must be covered. Yes students do have freedom of speech, however, they do not have freedom of venue. I do not let students interrupt my class with talk show level material.
I did an informal survey of Indiana science teachers at their state-wide meeting in Indianapolis several years ago and was shocked to find about one in ten had doubts about evolution. It turns out that, in spite of its “red state” reputation, Indiana science teachers rank high when it comes to teaching evolution in the classroom. Congratulations to Hoosier science teachers!
The general attitude of a typical religious world view, that some things just must be a certain way regardless of what any other method of inquiry may have to offer on the matter, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. And that is particularly distressing to see in so many of the science teachers in our public schools.
Science requires that you follow the evidence. If you are supposed to be teaching science you really should understand that. The other thing you really need to understand is that science is progressive. If you are still using anti radio carbon dating arguments from 20 or 30 years ago to support a young earth, and actually think they have merit, you have no business teaching science. Not only have you failed to follow the evidence in the 1st place, you have failed to understand, or worse ignored, that our understanding of dating techniques has grown. Meaning you’ve got a lot more evidence you need to justify ignoring.
When several, separate, lines of investigation all arrive at the same answer it is highly probable that that answer is an accurate representation of reality. This is not just a guess, or a calculation, or a logical rationalization, or a philosophical claim. This comes directly from myriad observations of trial and error tests.
But, no, the findings of science are not 100% certain. The level of certainty is high enough to enable us to create airliners, semi autonomous rovers to explore mars, to devise mobile computing devices that fit in your pocket, can give you directions in real time to just about anywhere on the planet, take good pictures, communicate with other people from anywhere to anywhere, and much more. Not to mention energy production, food production and medical technologies.
If you really just must have 100% certainty, perhaps you should stick to a religious world view. But you are fooling yourself in several very obvious ways if you accept that any of your religion’s claims are 100% certain.
Gosh, I’m going to high school in OK and that’s even close to what I’ve heard in my school!! I remember in the sixth grade one girl asked how ‘we’ came to be and the teacher asked the who all wanted to hear the creation story (seriously, how is it a story it’s a fracking sentence) and who wanted to hear the evolution ‘story’ by the well-respected democratic way of raising hands, it’s Oklahoma so you all can infer what happened next. The only thing that disapoints me about that anecdote is that I really wanted to know what the theroy of evolution was. Thankfully there’s the internet so I can learn all I want without religious brain-washed teachers telling me what they believe.
Please consider contacting the FFRF and telling them your story. If your sixth-grade teacher is still teaching science, you may well save some other student from religious indoctrination and ignorance.
You don’t even have to get your name in public. If you’re afraid of blowback from your community, they’ll protect your identity to whatever level you need to be comfortable.
They are:
Freedom From Religion Foundation
PO Box 750
Madison WI 53701
608/256-8900
FAX 608/204-0422
http://ffrf.org/
They even have an online form to report violations:
http://ffrf.org/legal/report/
Cheers,
b&
The Internet is a wonderful thing!
And Ben’s advice is wonderful advice. You may also be interested in checking out the Secular Student Alliance.
http://www.secularstudents.org
Thank you both for the wonderful suggestions, and sorry for the late reply, but I definitely look into both!
I am not certain it a totally bad idea to teach creationism, especially in high schools. It shouldn’t take even an hour of classroom time (I mean without any scientific research or valid argument, how long could it take?) High school is the place where we prepare children for the big bad world, and these days there is a good chance that these students are going to work for or with Creationist, or have to deal with them in a more social situations. Having an understanding of this world view should help avoid problems in the work place (like not getting fired) or cause some traumatic debacle at the in-laws Thanksgiving dinner.
…and that’s why there should be a world religions course in highschool where students can learn all about this fun stuff in the context of a religious belief held by one type group and how that fits in the greater world context of other belief systems (which exposes kids to all types of world views). If someone taught me creation crap in my science class in highschool that would’ve made me angrier than the Lord-of-the-Flies-like dash to grab lab equipment did! 😀
The problem with your suggestion is twofold.
First, it’ll be taken as an opportunity by “true believing” teachers to give a full-throttle sermon that will completely undermine everything else they might have to say about science.
And, second, the First Amendment prohibits teachers from speaking against religion as much as it prohibits them speaking for it. Telling your class, “Jesus is a joke,” is every bit as unconstitutional as telling them, “Jesus is lord.”
(You could mention it in a “history of science” lecture, and, as Diana notes, it’s fair game in a world religions course. Sociology and political science and psychology, too. But never as a legitimate alternative to Darwinian Evolution, and only exceedingly gingerly as a discredited predecessor to Evolution.)
Cheers,
b&
I have to say my highschool science teacher was great! He told the class up front that he wasn’t going to entertain religious discussions. He was a pastor too to boot! So that was really great of him!
If I’m not mistaken, carbon dating doesn’t work for times further than 50-0sh thousand years. Other radioisotopes are used to date back further. So to focus on carbon dating seems to be ignoring, intentionally or otherwise, a massive chunk of science.
Which is, in my experience, rather typical of creationists and their ilk.
Yeah but you can make the funny joke like I made on my physical anthropology exam and say to date the artifact you should burn it 🙂
In 1959, in a required MS level geology course, we spent about half the course debunking continental drift. As others have posted, there were problems with what force was involved, and that there was no evidence that the continents moved as suggested. By the time I received my PhD in 1965, plate tectonics was very well accepted.
We required all our secondary education option biology majors to have a slightly higer grade point in all science and math subjects than we required of our other options. I taught the required evolution course a number of times and included a lecture or two on creationism. I was sure our students would encounter creationism in their professional lives and I wanted them not to be taken by surprise. Our students were usually hired by the school where they did their student teaching.
Creationists often enhibit selective ignorance of any area of science which does not support their beliefs.
You make a good point. It is important for biology students to learn about creationism. It is, after all, part of the history of science. The important distinction is that it should not be taught as science. Teaching about creationism is fine in social science classes, in comparative religion classes, and in history classes. (Assuming it is being taught about as apposed to taught as fact.
I am a biology professor at a community college in California and I have had many students over the years tell me that other instructors in various fields such as geology, biology, chemistry and astronomy will let the class know before they lecture that they are Christian and do not really believe in what they are teaching. I usually teach an upper division microbiology course, lately I have been teaching some introductory courses so that I am more involved with introductory level students. Even the chair of my department is a hard core Christian and some of her statements are entirely inappropriate. Some of the part time instructors keep their opinions about evolution to themselves due to the chair. The number of instructors out there that are either in denial or do not understand as much as they think they do is staggering.
Sounds like a shitty work enviroment. I’m not sure I’d be able to hold my tounge, although that’s easy for me to say since it isn’t my livelihood on the line.
How one can teach biology and still not accept evolution as truth is beyond me. The mental mindgames involved would drive me nuts.
After I got tenure I stopped holding my tongue when I hear the crazies go off on their beliefs. Most of them just need to retire. I have have added so many lab activities to the curriculum in my class that there is no possibility that anyone will mistake where I stand on the subject. Some of the the part time faculty love it.
David, may I please make the same request of you that I made of A. R. Shelley above?
Unless people like you bring these sorts of things to the attention of people like those at the FFRF, we’ll never find a way out of this mess.
Thanks,
b&
FFRF could never afford to go after each and every instance.
For decades*, now, rationalists have assumed that the latest debate, court case, public outing, etc., will spell the death knell of creationist classroom inroads, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
The fundies do not give up; they don’t care about individual cases, they just keep attacking, one school (and school board) at a time. Dover means nothing to them as far as SOP. Neither do legal verdicts. This battle will continue to consume vast amounts of time, that could otherwise be used for productive pursuits, for all the foreseeable future.
*I’d say, centuries. Surely the original Enlightenment thinkers, once Darwin came along, considered this a done deal.
No, of course not.
But the more people report legitimate cases to them, the more they can do to at least have their lawyers send nasty-grams. If nothing else, it helps them establish a “pattern and practice” (or whatever the legal term of art is) in a particular state, and there are ways to leverage the power of the government to enforce Constitutional law.
Those Pennsylvania schools the student mentioned, for example…in the state where the Dover trial just took place a few years ago, it probably won’t take very much legal effort to get the courts to come down on really hard on other schools doing the same thing.
Judges tend to get a wee bit upset when people ignore them, and that’s exactly what the Pennsylvania schools are doing.
Cheers,
b&
Trust me I am keeping watch for something with teeth. I have reported one incident to the FFRF and the replied right away. However, they did state that what one of the professors is doing is hard to go after because it is college level. Considering that the entire board of my college is extremely religious, one runs a church, I am sure I am going to have future problems.