Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron
Jain wrote:I was just wondering how people feel about science teachers that are religious.
Jain wrote: Maybe even religious enough to not accept the theory of evolution.
Jain wrote: Do they need to be passionate about their subject to be able to teach it well?
Jain wrote:Even if they are professional enough to hide their own beliefs, could their lack of true understanding for the subject be inhibiting?
Jain wrote:I was just wondering how people feel about science teachers that are religious.
Jain wrote: Maybe even religious enough to not accept the theory of evolution.
Jain wrote: Do they need to be passionate about their subject to be able to teach it well?
Jain wrote: Even if they are professional enough to hide their own beliefs, could their lack of true understanding for the subject be inhibiting?
Blackadder wrote:I have a friend who is a senior medical researcher, teaches medical science at post-grad level, is an assessor for Ph.D applicants in one of the UK's most renowned universities, has a significant body of published work on her specialist subject, namely environmental health. She is also a regular church going Christian.
I find myself baffled by this but she appears able to compartmentalise her mind and keep these two facets of her life separate. Perhaps it's because she belongs to a fairly non-evangelistic church (C of E) and doesn't wear her religious views on her sleeve.
So there are examples of when it is possible to successfully combine the two but I think it is only possible when the religious component is kept quite subdued. Those with more religious zeal than my friend could perhaps more easily fall into the trap of allowing their religion to influence how they teach the subject. Being a religious science teacher is not impossible but It's certainly not a desirable situation.
The_Metatron wrote:I never knew that my high school chemistry and biology teacher was a seventh day Adventist until ten years after I graduated. Oh, he believed that crap all right, but it never made it to his classroom.
There is the fact of evolution and a body of evolutionary theory, which consists of a bunch of differing theories of evolution. Some of these theories of evolution have been rejected by the majority of scientists, so being religious doesn't seem to be important as far as any theory of evolution goes. What is worrying is denial of the fact of evolution.Jain wrote:Maybe even religious enough to not accept the theory of evolution.
Chris Putnam wrote:Are there atheists who don't believe in the theory of evolution?
Does one require the other?
the National Academy of Science charted belief in God as low as 5.5 percent among biologists and 7.5 percent among physicist and astronomers in a 1998 study.
Darwinsbulldog wrote:I am a secular fascist, and proud to be one. To my mind religion, ANY religion is by definition, faith-based, not logic or evidence-based. True education is logic and evidence-based. Anything else, however one "pretties-it-up" is just propaganda. Thus a religious teacher is guilty unless proven innocent. The vast majority of religious teachers can't be trusted. In the past they were, and the result was a lot of abuse of children's bodies as well as abuse of their minds. Sorry to reverse the burden of proof, but there you have it.
Even if a religious teacher is beyond reproach, and can teach in an intellectually honest manner, it sets a bad example. For if there are talented and honest religious teachers, does that not also imply to the student that religion has something going for it?
IF a religious teacher can stand in class and actively encourage students to critically deconstruct their faith, then maybe it would be OK.
Religious teachers are often on their "best behavior" when teaching in secular schools [but often, not even then!]. But imagine a student in a church, or mosque, or temple, or synagogue. Do these students have the right to say : "Religion is bollocks?" Are they ACTIVELY encouraged to do so, without fear or favour? I suggest not. And so long as that is the case, so long as students cannot with reason and evidence [or for no reason at all] criticize or even mock religion, then religion has no business in assisting in the growth of young minds.
Science education may not be perfect, but questions are welcomed in science class. If they are not, then the science teacher is not doing it right. It is fucking strange that a thing like a whale should have an ungulate ancestor, and students deserve to both ask the question and have it competently answered.
Science fucking thrives on questioning and controversy. No idea has standing until it has run the gauntlet, and even then is not sacred. And the general public is saying things like: "Isn't the new Pope cool, he accepts evolution!" What utter bollocks. If Popes really accepted evolution, they would no longer be gobbing off about magical disembodied souls being injected into human meat by a magic man.![]()
It is true that some questions can't be answered by science. What is also true, but hardly ever stated is religion can't handle those same questions either, it just pretends to. Religion thrives on mental laziness and intellectual dishonesty. If student feel that they can't take the piss out of a religion out of some respect for a teacher's beliefs, then they are being denied their natural right to question everything. Exposed to such a system, many will cease to ask any questions at all.
Return to Parenting & Education
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest