Schools that teach creationism in the science class.

[Loudmouth]

It is indeed a difficult challenge. It requires breaking some paradigms - but kids probably have fewer paradigms than adults.

Which paradigms?

 

[Resha Caner]

On this topic since there are so many teachers that try to inject their own religion I would have to say yes.

Then you're proposing to teach "correct" answers and not methods.

I am reasonable. Suggest a hypothesis that could be made and tested by a student and you will have convinced me.

This feels like goal post moving. It has to be testable, or the student actually has to be able to conduct the test? The latter is outside the student's control, and a matter of the financial resources of the school.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you're proposing to teach "correct" answers and not methods.

I am proposing teaching answers that have been confirmed through the scientific method. Creationism avoids the scientific method. Don't blame me, blame creationists. Of course creationists do not like the scientific method because it tends to falsify their beliefs.

This feels like goal post moving. It has to be testable, or the student actually has to be able to conduct the test? The latter is outside the student's control, and a matter of the financial resources of the school.

If the student cannot conduct the test then his work is largely pointless. In the example that you cited earlier of teachers helping students to form hypotheses they do so with hypotheses that the students can test. Having students think up hypotheses that they cannot test is a waste of time, and it actually works against instructing them properly. Science is supposed to be practical and possible. Grade schools are not places where students are too likely to think up experiments for the Large Hadron Super-Collider.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

If it happens I think this only happens in the southern states of the US but I might be wrong about that.
Even then it must obviously only happen in the bible belt states anyway. (hopefully)

Can anyone tell me what science qualifications teachers are required to have in order to teach science classes in US public schools?

I'm on my phone now so I'm not typing out a more comprehensive response but will try to briefly touch upon it now. I'd looked up requirements and the median salary for science teachers at public high schools on the US Bureau of Labor Statistics site for a previous post I wrote in another thread about science education, and it stated that a bachelor’s degree and a state-issued certification or license are required. Some areas require an academic background in the specific subject they'll be teaching and others do not. A friend who is planning on working for Teach For America for a few years in between undergrad and graduate school is pursuing a degree in Secondary Science Education with a minor in Chemistry. The amount of time dedicated to specifically studying biology is relatively small since it's being packed in amongst all other science disciplines at the high school level. She will be teaching at underprivileged schools and filling whatever position is open, so she might teach chemistry and she might be tasked with teaching biology or physics. I think schools that are in more affluent areas strive to hire teachers who have specific degrees in the subject matter they'll be teaching. I go to a private school and my teachers all have advanced degrees in the science they are teaching, but public schools don't have the same resources.

As I explained a bit in this post most public and private high schools in California design their curriculum with regards to the admission requirements for the public universities in the state. Most public schools will have a generic and very basic minimum graduation requirements but will have a recommended curriculum for students who are college bound. Applicants to UC campuses must have earned an average grade or higher in two or more lab sciences. Competition for admission has been historically steep this year with a record number of applicants and low admit rates, so many kids who are serious about wanting to get in will take three years of science. All students at UC colleges, regardless of their major or intended career plans, are mandated to take at least two science classes as part of the General Education Requirements.

Charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling groups have more liberties with their curriculums. There was a lawsuit a few years ago between an association for Christian schools and the University of California regarding creationist textbooks. Professors and the board at UC carefully reviewed textbooks by creationist textbook publishers and determined they provided inadequate preparatory instruction for the university. Applicants who learned from those textbooks and who fulfilled the eligibility requirements could still be admitted to the universities within the UC, but be required to take remedial courses before commencing with the GEs. UC won the suit.
Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Resha Caner]

I am proposing teaching answers that have been confirmed through the scientific method.

No. Did you forget the thread of the conversation? You're against students hypothesizing alternatives to evolution unless the teacher is under the proper supervision of an atheist, because "so many teachers that try to inject their own religion." But of course atheists are never in danger of injecting views that would reflect negatively on religion ... even though I seem to recall being lectured by my atheist chemistry teacher about how Christians can never be scientists. I must have misunderstood the scientific theory he was teaching me.

If the student cannot conduct the test then his work is largely pointless. In the example that you cited earlier of teachers helping students to form hypotheses they do so with hypotheses that the students can test. Having students think up hypotheses that they cannot test is a waste of time, and it actually works against instructing them properly. Science is supposed to be practical and possible. Grade schools are not places where students are too likely to think up experiments for the Large Hadron Super-Collider.

This is ridiculous. Students can be lectured on things they will never be able to see, hear, or touch ... but they can't hypothesize about those things. Are you suggesting students shouldn't be taught about colliders since no school would ever have access to one? Should we also stop kids from dressing up like George Washington because they're not actually George Washington? It sounds to me as if you want to control their thoughts - not teach science. And honestly, it sounds downright boring. Listen to the teacher and don't ask questions. Then regurgitate it back on the test.

Hypothesizing is a dangerous thing. Someone might come up with an idea you don't like. Their idea might even be wrong (gasp). But let's not talk about such things. Let's teach kids to sweep those ideas under the rug.

It doesn't seem you really want to hear it, but I can imagine students would produce a long list of ideas. Most of them would probably fall into 3 categories. The first category would be ways one species would change into another (epigenetic-like ideas) that, if they were true, would probably be considered part of evolution. The second category would be ways of combining 2 animals ... if a horse and a donkey make a mule, what would a lion and a hawk make? The third category would be generation ideas from abiogenesis (volcanic erruptions, meteor strikes, etc.) to spontaneous generation. It's theoretically possible to test all those ideas.

 

[KWCrazy]

I am proposing teaching answers that have been confirmed through the scientific method.

You are proposing to make naturalism a state sponsored religion.
Nope. Not buying it. We were "one nation under God" long before you were even thought of.
Our Constitution is based on the premise that all rights come from God.
Our currency says "In God we trust."
Atheists are an excessively vocal 15% minority. Most people realize there is a God. I'm sorry that you don't but it doesn't give you the right to mandate naturalistic indoctrination.

 

[crjmurray]

You are proposing to make naturalism a state sponsored religion.
Nope. Not buying it. We were "one nation under God" long before you were even thought of.
Our Constitution is based on the premise that all rights come from God.
Our currency says "In God we trust."
Atheists are an excessively vocal 15% minority. Most people realize there is a God. I'm sorry that you don't but it doesn't give you the right to mandate naturalistic indoctrination.

I'm a deist. I want actual science taught in our schools. There's no indoctrination except what you have made up in your mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Did you forget the thread of the conversation? You're against students hypothesizing alternatives to evolution unless the teacher is under the proper supervision of an atheist, because "so many teachers that try to inject their own religion." But of course atheists are never in danger of injecting views that would reflect negatively on religion ... even though I seem to recall being lectured by my atheist chemistry teacher about how Christians can never be scientists. I must have misunderstood the scientific theory he was teaching me.

No, I am against people that are lacking in education making failed hypotheses that you yourself admit that they cannot test. You are making false claims. No need for an atheist to oversee the teachers. All that is needed for teachers not to spread their religious views. And atheists are much less likely to inject their views than others. There are countless Christians that believe in things that we know are not true. Now you may have had a bad instructor. But that is not the norm, I can assure you. Thre are far more creationists that are ready to spread their false views than atheists that might denigrate Christian scientists.

This is ridiculous. Students can be lectured on things they will never be able to see, hear, or touch ... but they can't hypothesize about those things. Are you suggesting students shouldn't be taught about colliders since no school would ever have access to one? Should we also stop kids from dressing up like George Washington because they're not actually George Washington? It sounds to me as if you want to control their thoughts - not teach science. And honestly, it sounds downright boring. Listen to the teacher and don't ask questions. Then regurgitate it back on the test.

No, not really. You don't seem to understand the purpose of hypotheses. And please, can't you argue honestly? You are trying to make claims that are not supported by any of my statements at all. You seem intent on misunderstanding my posts. Can you try to debate civilly?

Hypothesizing is a dangerous thing. Someone might come up with an idea you don't like. Their idea might even be wrong (gasp). But let's not talk about such things. Let's teach kids to sweep those ideas under the rug.

Once again, you do not even seem to understand what a hypothesis is. A scientific hypothesis must be testable. If students can tell you how a hypothesis can be tested then by definition it is not a hypothesis.

It doesn't seem you really want to hear it, but I can imagine students would produce a long list of ideas. Most of them would probably fall into 3 categories. The first category would be ways one species would change into another (epigenetic-like ideas) that, if they were true, would probably be considered part of evolution. The second category would be ways of combining 2 animals ... if a horse and a donkey make a mule, what would a lion and a hawk make? The third category would be generation ideas from abiogenesis (volcanic erruptions, meteor strikes, etc.) to spontaneous generation. It's theoretically possible to test all those ideas.

You should also learn what the theory of evolution actually says. Species do not "evolve into another". Technically there is no "change of kind" in evolution. The problem is partly due to our artificial method of naming species. Second, you do not seem to know what "epigenetics" are. And you go quickly downhill form there. Your next question is one that is sadly born of pure ignorance.

Now I would not mind if students made hypotheses in existing science. But there is no point in them to make hypotheses involving myths.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are proposing to make naturalism a state sponsored religion.
Nope. Not buying it. We were "one nation under God" long before you were even thought of.
Our Constitution is based on the premise that all rights come from God.
Our currency says "In God we trust."
Atheists are an excessively vocal 15% minority. Most people realize there is a God. I'm sorry that you don't but it doesn't give you the right to mandate naturalistic indoctrination.

No hardly. We were never "One nation under god". The "under god" was just a cold war reaction to the red scare. If you want to claim there is a god the burden of proof is upon you. If you want to claim that a god is necessary for evolution then again the burden of proof is upon you.

I only want kids to be taught correct things. They do not need to be taught there is no god. But teaching them things that we know never happened is wrong.

 

[sandybay]

You are proposing to make naturalism a state sponsored religion.
Nope. Not buying it. We were "one nation under God" long before you were even thought of.
Our Constitution is based on the premise that all rights come from God.
Our currency says "In God we trust."
Atheists are an excessively vocal 15% minority. Most people realize there is a God. I'm sorry that you don't but it doesn't give you the right to mandate naturalistic indoctrination.

Just in case you are interested..........

The Pledge of Allegiance wasn’t written until 1892. Which means it was written a full 116 years after the Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence.

The phrase “Under God” was not in the original pledge:
“I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The author of the pledge was Francis Bellamy—a Christian socialist. He stood for workers rights and believed in an equal distribution of economic resources. He believed in the nationalization of certain industries, because he feared their manipulation and corruption in the hands of a private sector which would put profits before people.

So a Christian minister wrote the pledge but did not include the word “God” or “Christian” and he was a socialist. Most conservatives reading this will have already decided this is all made up, but there’s more.

In 1923, more text was added to the pledge:
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

So, 31 years after its origination, the pledge still didn’t contain the phrase “under God.”

In fact, it wasn’t until 1954 that the phrase “under God” was actually added to the pledge in a response to the threat of communism.

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”


How long has telling children the truth been the wrong thing to do? it's news to me.

 

[Resha Caner]

No, I am against people that are lacking in education making failed hypotheses that you yourself admit that they cannot test. You are making false claims.

You are twisting what I've said and indicating your ignorance of how school curriculums are established. So let's review:

1) The Supreme Court has ruled against requiring the teaching of creationism. If you know of someone teaching creationism in a science classroom you can prosecute them. Why isn't that good enough for you? Is it because your speculations can't be proven in a courtroom?

2) State standards specify the teaching of evolution and the qualfications of those who will teach that subject. Why isn't that good enough for you? If you know of a teacher who doesn't meet the standards, present your case to the school board. Don't just whine about it here. If you don't think the standards are acceptable, what changes would you suggest? And are you willing to raise taxes to pay for meeting these new standards?

3) What does it mean for "people that are lacking in education making failed hypotheses that you yourself admit that they cannot test"? Are you saying students are not allowed to propose an idea unless they know it will be successful? Are you saying that if a student proposes an idea others have tried and failed, then the teacher should squelch the student's idea and not allow them to investigate it for themselves? Are you saying that if a school lacks the financial resources to test a student's idea, then the teacher should squelch that idea?

It sounds to me as if that's what you're saying. I'm also saying that once you allow a student to ask questions or form hypotheses you have to allow them to work through bad ideas. You don't just cut them off until they finally propose what you think is a good idea.

And atheists are much less likely to inject their views than others.

Complete nonsense. And honestly, it's offensive you would even say that.

Now you may have had a bad instructor. But that is not the norm, I can assure you. Thre are far more creationists that are ready to spread their false views than atheists that might denigrate Christian scientists.

Your assurance means nothing to me. Prove it. Prove atheists make better science teachers than Christians.

Once again, you do not even seem to understand what a hypothesis is. A scientific hypothesis must be testable. If students can tell you how a hypothesis can be tested then by definition it is not a hypothesis.

You don't see the oxymoron in this? A hypothesis must be testable and if it can be tested it's not a hypothesis. What are you talking about?

You should also learn what the theory of evolution actually says. Species do not "evolve into another".

I never said this. You accuse me of debating unfairly and twisting your words, and then you put in quotes phrases that never appeared in my post. Priceless.

Technically there is no "change of kind" in evolution.

I never said this.

Second, you do not seem to know what "epigenetics" are.

I know what it is. It's the study of trait variations not due to DNA changes.

And you go quickly downhill form there. Your next question is one that is sadly born of pure ignorance.

It wasn't my question. You asked what hypotheses students might propose, and I gave one possibility in the form of a question. Again, you don't seem to understand how teaching works. Teaching a method is not about stuffing heads full of "correct" conclusions. It's about letting students use the method so they can determine what works and what doesn't for themselves. Of course a hawk can't mate with a lion. But the idea can be proposed and tested ... though I now understand you would insist that anyone who dares ask that question actually bring a hawk and lion into the classroom and force them to mate.

Now I would not mind if students made hypotheses in existing science. But there is no point in them to make hypotheses involving myths.

"existing science"? What does that mean? How do they know it's a "myth" unless you allow them to ask the question? Are you going to give the students a list of hypotheses they are allowed to make? If so, how is it their idea?

By "existing science" I think you mean you would only allow them to build upon peer-reviewed conclusions. So Kuhn's idea of breaking paradigms wouldn't be permitted in your classroom.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is not how "creationist" or "creationism" are typically used. They're generally used to identify a couple of different specific beliefs about that creation process. By what you have just said, I am a creationist. After all, I think that God is the creator of all things. But when people are talking about creationists, they aren't talking about me.

Certainly, you are right that creationism is not one precise thing. But, typically, when the term "creationism" is used, it refers to the acceptance of some significant subset of Henry Morris' ideas about how the world was made, 6000-10,000 years ago, or to a slightly broader category of beliefs that accept an older world, but at least oppose the theory of evolution, as it is understood by scientists.

There has been some push among TE's to relabel ourselves as "evolutionary creationists" for better precision, but I don't think it will catch on because it's not helpful in most contexts. Creationists don't understand it (or don't accept it). Non-Christians don't need the specificity because the theological statement is not especially relevant to discussions of science.

Good points all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are twisting what I've said and indicating your ignorance of how school curriculums are established. So let's review:

1) The Supreme Court has ruled against requiring the teaching of creationism. If you know of someone teaching creationism in a science classroom you can prosecute them. Why isn't that good enough for you? Is it because your speculations can't be proven in a courtroom?

2) State standards specify the teaching of evolution and the qualfications of those who will teach that subject. Why isn't that good enough for you? If you know of a teacher who doesn't meet the standards, present your case to the school board. Don't just whine about it here. If you don't think the standards are acceptable, what changes would you suggest? And are you willing to raise taxes to pay for meeting these new standards?

3) What does it mean for "people that are lacking in education making failed hypotheses that you yourself admit that they cannot test"? Are you saying students are not allowed to propose an idea unless they know it will be successful? Are you saying that if a student proposes an idea others have tried and failed, then the teacher should squelch the student's idea and not allow them to investigate it for themselves? Are you saying that if a school lacks the financial resources to test a student's idea, then the teacher should squelch that idea?

It sounds to me as if that's what you're saying. I'm also saying that once you allow a student to ask questions or form hypotheses you have to allow them to work through bad ideas. You don't just cut them off until they finally propose what you think is a good idea.



Complete nonsense. And honestly, it's offensive you would even say that.



Your assurance means nothing to me. Prove it. Prove atheists make better science teachers than Christians.



You don't see the oxymoron in this? A hypothesis must be testable and if it can be tested it's not a hypothesis. What are you talking about?



I never said this. You accuse me of debating unfairly and twisting your words, and then you put in quotes phrases that never appeared in my post. Priceless.



I never said this.



I know what it is. It's the study of trait variations not due to DNA changes.



It wasn't my question. You asked what hypotheses students might propose, and I gave one possibility in the form of a question. Again, you don't seem to understand how teaching works. Teaching a method is not about stuffing heads full of "correct" conclusions. It's about letting students use the method so they can determine what works and what doesn't for themselves. Of course a hawk can't mate with a lion. But the idea can be proposed and tested ... though I now understand you would insist that anyone who dares ask that question actually bring a hawk and lion into the classroom and force them to mate.



"existing science"? What does that mean? How do they know it's a "myth" unless you allow them to ask the question? Are you going to give the students a list of hypotheses they are allowed to make? If so, how is it their idea?

By "existing science" I think you mean you would only allow them to build upon peer-reviewed conclusions. So Kuhn's idea of breaking paradigms wouldn't be permitted in your classroom.

I agree with everything you said and even if I didn't it was an excellent post.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are twisting what I've said and indicating your ignorance of how school curriculums are established. So let's review:

1) The Supreme Court has ruled against requiring the teaching of creationism. If you know of someone teaching creationism in a science classroom you can prosecute them. Why isn't that good enough for you? Is it because your speculations can't be proven in a courtroom?

Even after those rulings there is still a strong political movement in the christian right to force creationism into science classrooms, or at least take evolution out. There have been recent proposed laws that would use creationist arguments to falsely cast doubt on evolution.

"The Louisiana Science Education Act, Act 473 (SB733) of 2008[1] is a controversial law passed by the Louisiana Legislature on June 11, 2008 and signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal on June 25. The act allows public school teachers to use supplemental materials in the science classroom which are critical of established science on such topics as the theory of evolution and global warming.[2][3] Louisiana was the first state to have passed a law of this type."
Louisiana Science Education Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea that we can't teach science because of it conflicts with people's religious beliefs is still alive and well.

A Republican candidate for President can't even come out and say that he accepts evolution, for crying out loud.

 

[AV1611VET]

The idea that we can't teach science because of it conflicts with people's religious beliefs is still alive and well.

How does it feel?

 

[Loudmouth]

How does it feel?

Like we are purposefully dumbing ourselves down. As if some people believe that intelligence should be sacrificed on an altar if one is to be a christian.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like we are purposefully dumbing ourselves down. As if some people believe that intelligence should be sacrificed on an altar if one is to be a christian.

If any of those laws pass, are you going to vote NO at the poll?

 

[bhsmte]

How does it feel?

Doesn't really feel like anything, because I expect it.

When a group is growing smaller and smaller in size and more and more people disagree with them, they will get scared, they will get loud and they will act out of fear.

 

[AV1611VET]

Doesn't really feel like anything, because I expect it.

When a group is growing smaller and smaller in size and more and more people disagree with them, they will get scared, they will get loud and they will act out of fear.

Frankly, I don't think you guys can take what you dish out.

 

[Resha Caner]

Even after those rulings there is still a strong political movement in the christian right to force creationism into science classrooms, or at least take evolution out. There have been recent proposed laws that would use creationist arguments to falsely cast doubt on evolution.

I realize that, but the answer is not to stiffle student activity in the science classroom. If one is restricted to only asking approved questions, science will calcify.

Oppose the laws you disagree with. Encourage enforcement of the laws that are on the books. That's how the system is supposed to work. If the U.S. suddenly implodes because Louisiana teaches creationism, then I guess that's what it will take to get a regime that enforces evolution by decree. I don't believe that would actually happen, but we can at least comiserate on feeling the U.S. no longer represents our views ... of course the things I oppose differ from you, but we can understand each other's frustration.