...and as from now, we'll be teaching islam, kabbala, scientology in religious classes, as they are equally valid.

Matty the Damned wrote:

z8000783 wrote:

Dougalpip wrote:Well everything you guys have said so far is what I thought myself.

What about this one though;

Do you think it's important for me to acknowledge that evolution is "just a theory" or do you think I should just teach evolution as agreed scientific fact and let someone else tell the fairy tales?

As a science teacher I am surprised you asked this and even more so that you don't appear to know the difference.

John

Well before we go jumping on the OP perhaps we should consider the position he may well be in.

Motivated religious type parents can be pushy and intimidating. Gone are the days when parents simply parented and left the teaching to the teachers.

It can be difficult for a teacher to assert him/herself in such circumstances. It sounds to me like Doug might consider consulting his superiors (the head of science? the headmaster/mistress?) for some professional support here.

MtD

In which case he might want to arrange an open evening where he can teach the parents the difference between a scientific theory, fact and the meaning of empirical evidence, or even better get their children to go home and tell them after they find out.

John

I would be firmly against any of it. Tell them if they want changes to the curriculum, it is not up to you, it is up to the curriculum council, in Australia you could possibly get in big trouble for going off track. I'm guessing NZ has a similar system for high school at least?

Good luck though, i can't stand the argument that "we should teach both sides". ID is not supported by our current evidence, therefore is not an equal view to evolution.

And what are you supposed to do if they do enforce ID to be included in the course. Do you teach Islamic design, Christianity design or Hindu design?

If the school clearly says that it is a secular school then there is no need for religion in the classroom. There are plenty of religious schools they can go to (well other than most Christian faiths like Catholic and Anglican at least in the UK have no problems with the Theory of Evolution).

I blame the organophosphate sheep dip. Makes people mad.

The problem with ID is that there is nothing to teach.

There is no theory of ID. There is no experiments you can reference or papers you can peruse. They don't have anything. ID is contrarian and anti-science. Their whole goal is to undermine Darwins theory of Natural Selection. Not posit any ideas of their own.

If you feel you want to teach it, take one class out of the year and teach it as an example of how not to do science. But don't single it out as something special. Lump it in with all the other pseudoscience, homoeopathy, acupuncture, herbal medicine etc... That way it won't look like you're targeting them and you won't have parents call around to you.

I think you should teach it.

Use it to show the necessity of not making assumptions. Use it to show why it is a bad 'theory' (overly generous, I know) Use it to contrast a viable theory.

Probably won't make the folks all that happy but you are 'taking their advice' of what their children should be taught. If you do a good job, it may even teach the folks.

Of course, that is a lot more work for you.

Oh look, Animavore made the same suggestion first with better conditions. (damn the Irish!)

If its not done already just teach the kids what is meant by a scientific theory when you cover the topic of evolution (Or not because its important that they understand this anyway). Hopefully the kid with the creationist parents will understand why evolution is not just another theory or at the very least it will sow the seeds of doubt in his mind if he doesn't already have his doubts about creationism.

As for the parents they aren't educators and I peronally don't see why they should have a say in what the children are taught, and especially so in science. If a child was ill you wouldn't expect a doctor to defer to the desires of a medically illiterate and ignorant parent just because their beliefs don't conform to a scientifically derived understand of disease and its treatment. If they persist then I suggest telling them to write into the school with their request and then have a word with the head teacher about it so that the appropriate response is given. That protects you from any direct accusations from the parents.

Elevating creationism to the level of evolution gives is dangerous not only because it diminishes peoples view evolution and science in general through an overall lowering of standards in education but it also gives the impression that religious mythology has some credibility.

When I worked with kids I had to deal with a collegue who was a creationists who didn't 'believe' in evolution (Like its a matter of belief ) and managed it by leading them into deciding that they didn't want to teach the educational modules that included concepts of evolution. Strangely enough although I worked with kids from all sorts of religious backgrounds not one teacher or student ever brought up creationist/ID which I was expecting to happen at some point. Given that we weren't a school I was somewhat unsure on how much I leeway I had to deal with issue personally and again if it had arisen I would have probably involved more senior members of staff to avoid being drawn into some moronoic religious intolerance arguement.

Doug, in addition to the recommendations you've received so far, you might also remind the parents that teaching intelilgent design in public schools is unconstitutional, and suggest that they should instead be lobbying their congressman to have freedom of religion removed from the Constitution rather than bothering you if they really want creationism in schools.

Dougalpip wrote:some context first of all; i teach science to 11-14 year olds and physics to 14-19 year olds

today i had a frustrating conversation with a set of parents who thought i should be teaching intelligent design or at least acknowledging that evolution is "just a theory."

my answer was that it isn't my job to give "both sides of the argument" i'm just responsible for teaching the science curriculum and that others would no doubt expose her to differing beliefs during her life and that was all healthy.

thoughts?

Take a look at this cartoon (too large to post): http://www.flascience.org/art/13x.jpg

Shrunk wrote:Doug, in addition to the recommendations you've received so far, you might also remind the parents that teaching intelilgent design in public schools is unconstitutional, and suggest that they should instead be lobbying their congressman to have freedom of religion removed from the Constitution rather than bothering you if they really want creationism in schools.

I think he is in NZ so that argument won't fly.

These people should be easily dismissed as no politician will support them in this. The Christian Coalition party imploded some years back after, you guessed it, the leader was convicted of child sex crimes.

Sure, you can have fun saying something like...

"Some people believe that a magical invisible being made the universe 6000 years ago. They conclude the universe must need a creator. Who made the creator? God only knows! Christians believe the creator loves you unconditionally, so when you die he gives you the honour of being judged. And god forbid if you've been a naughty boy or girl, he'll sent you to burn in raging fires for all of eternity. Remember that next time you misbehave <Insert name here> *glance to disliked student* "

Sylvie wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Doug, in addition to the recommendations you've received so far, you might also remind the parents that teaching intelilgent design in public schools is unconstitutional, and suggest that they should instead be lobbying their congressman to have freedom of religion removed from the Constitution rather than bothering you if they really want creationism in schools.

I think he is in NZ so that argument won't fly.

Uh, yeah. I knew that....

You could say "This is New Zeayland, so fack off and take yeh puckeroo with ya"

Of course you should teach "Intelligent Design" - it will take you about 30 seconds to cover the basics (things look complicated & designed, we can't imagine any other process to create them other than an invisible magic man in the sky, we ignore real world evidence to the contrary) and then you can spend the rest of the lesson discussing why it is NOT science and then talk about the scientific method, falsifiability, evidence, hypothesis/theory/law, "proof" and other useful issues that ID can be used to highlight the inadequacies of some specious hypotheses and how Evolution can and does fulfil the criteria for a sound scientific theory.

If you taught my daughter about ID in science I'd kick your arse

Invite these parents to read the first chapter of The Greatest Show On Earth, it gives a very easy to understand meaning to the use of the word "theory" in relation to evolution. How the fuck can we rid ourselves of the superstitious shite when there are morons like these parents?

Paula1 wrote:If you taught my daughter about ID in science I'd kick your arse

Invite these parents to read the first chapter of The Greatest Show On Earth, it gives a very easy to understand meaning to the use of the word "theory" in relation to evolution. How the fuck can we rid ourselves of the superstitious shite when there are morons like these parents?

By going through the wankery that is ID with students, they get an appreciation of the differences between pseudoscience and science. It is actually a good way to teach/reinforce the fundamentals of science. Of course, it cannot flood the whole program, because kids need to know a lot of other stuff. Without knowledge, how can you have informed opinion? Opinion without data to argue with is what teachers call an "opinion piece" in student essays, and is marked accordingly. So kick my ass if you like, but I bet I can turn your daughter into one kick-ass scientist that way. [And rational skeptic, of course].

I think that it is easy to present both sides of the argument. You tell them that intelligent design is essentially a pointless unprovable assertion with no evidence and is disregarded by every scientific and most rational minds on the planet because it suggests that all life was created by a fictional character in a book.

That's all you need to say about that, then you can go on and teach the science.

What everyone else said (apart from John - I thought he was a bit harsh).

And this: If the Deputy Head is a theist, DON'T refer the parents to him. You don't want your subordinates getting funny ideas....

only if you intend to present it in the same light as phlogiston theory