Monday 6 to 9 Class--Blog # 1
Dear Monday Evening 1010 Students,
In our first class, we got off to a very energetic and positive start in our conversation about the film Inherit the Wind. Several of you spoke vehemently about the relationship between religion and science as it plays out in the public sphere. Some of you seem passionate about what is taught (or not taught) in schools, particularly in relation to the question of evolution versus creationism/intelligent design. Others of you were quiet for various reasons, perhaps because you don’t like to talk in class or because you couldn’t get a word in edgewise or because you don’t really care one way or another about this issue.
Whether you have strong ideas about these matters or feel apathy about them, I am interested in your thoughts. Therefore, for this blogging exercise, please comment on whether or not you think creationism should be taught in primary and secondary schools’ science curricula. When you write, be sure to explain why you hold the opinion that you do, and, as you write, remember that people from outside of our class can read what you’ve posted to the blog.
Happy Blogging!
Ms. O
posted by Shan Overton @ 7:58 AM
27 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mr. Voas' link to the Guardian article was cut off at the end. The link should end with "0,,1559743,00.html"
Bravo, A. Boles! Very nice comment. As a reward, I'd like to pick on you ... er, "review your theses"... a little :-)
Either side has followers in large numbers; therefore they have a right to express their personal feelings. A few thoughts...
--Are you certain that both sides are "justified" and have a "right" to express their feelings because they have a large number of followers? Does the number of people who agree with you give you the freedom to express? Consider how many British agreed with the Colonists and their "opinion" on sovereignty in the late 1700s.
--How do you figure those people all came to the same belief system? When it was only one person who thought one way, if it was only one person, according to this point they wouldn't have the "right" to express it in a group or scholarly setting? If not ... then I wonder how so many came to the same conclusion?
Now, I'd like to analyze "Although in a classroom a teacher has no right to try to sway a student either way". You, quite correctly IMO, beg a definition of "teach" with this statement. While I'll refrain from reprinting the whole definition from Merrian-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=teaches), I will reference 1a to cause to know something and 2 to guide the studies of. I'd be interested in a discussion on the "difference" between exposure to competing theories and "sway". I'd contend that a teachers purpose is precisely to "sway" the student, even if it's a truly objective topic such as math, between the many possible "truths" presented in the world on a topic. (Sorry, this is what happens when Ms. O. asks a Philosophy major to join the converstation). Just exactly where the student stops the sway, though, is up to the student (although, whether the student passes the class or not is up to the teacher's subjectivity ... but that's another topic altogether and I don't want Ms. O. to yell at me...)
Lastly, you mention (quite justifiably IMO) that a science teacher has a right to expose the student to evolution. You also say that the student has a right to follow a curiosity into the theory of creationism. But ... who has the right to expose the student to creationism? Who bears the responsibility for following up on that curiosity?
Does it matter?!
I hope I don't come off as too critical - truly, a very nice and considered commentary.
Stephen M. - excellent work! Well argued on the creationists side IMO.
On the evolutionary side - Schools should teach evolution because of its scientific relevance. Thus, for lack of other statement then, I infer that scientific studies and evolution are appropriate for the classroom. There's freedom there for the teacher to expose the students to evolution through empirical study and proofs. And, as a statement of fact, that which is studied in the classroom exposes the student to experienced results.
Good stuff ... "no one is asked to accept anything as belief or on faith." might be one way to rephrase, no? Objective truth of science is justifiably taught in schools through "applying its principles and observing or experiencing results."
And what would you say, then, if I mention that the above quotations come directly from the Church of Scientology? Where does that leave the argument? Whose responsibility then is it for teaching science?
:-)
Why do we teach science in schools? Many if not most of the students won't use anything beyond "kitchen sink" science after they graduate from the 12th grade. Why do we distract them with the names of the muscle groups and the movement of the spheres...I mean "tectonic plates"?
Before we launch into a neo-renaissance debate about the betterment of each man, let me step on to the practical answer. We teach science because we have an abiding belief in our society that the world is predictable and that we can manipulate our universe by learning its rules and building on them. Even if little Jamie forgets entirely what a co-efficient of friction is, she will still retain the knowledge that things slow down for a reason, that we can predict how and when things will slow down, and that there is someone out there who can solve the big slowing-down problems of the world.
Is it important to teach evolution in schools? Ask a farmer if it is important to know that crossing a heat-resistant strain of corn with a disease resistant strain will probably produce a heat and disease resistant strain. Ask him if it is important that the researchers understand that the corn that grows in the heat is related to the corn that grows in his own field and that they may be able to be combined. Evolution is important, not because it can be extended to show that the chimps are our cousins, but because it can be extended to predict the reaction of typhus to new treatments. It is important to teach evolution in schools because people have to understand that there is a reason why researchers are telling doctors not to prescribe antibiotics.
What about creationism? Should it be taught? Why do we need to know that there is a plan to the world, even if we don't understand it? Most people need to know that there is a reason behind the suffering and injustice that they experience. Even if they don't know the reason, they draw comfort from it's existence. In knowing that there is a Creator and a Plan, they find the strength to persevere and to endure. Religion should be taught in schools, not as an opposition to science, but as a separate subject. Not as "Being a Methodist 101", but as "Religion: An Overview of the Major World Beliefs".
Adding a separate class for religion would do well to address all of the expressed concerns of people who are clamoring for "Intelligent Design" to be taught as science. If the class was a survey of world religions, it would probably even pass the Supreme Court's review. Why isn't anyone pressing for this solution? Because many of the people who are opposing evolution are opposed to exposing "children to ideas that may confuse them." Some of the anti-evolution forces are not primarily concerned with the search for truth and understanding of our world, they are concerned with protecting Genesis from inconvenient questions. There are people for whom ignorance is a tool that is used to control other people. And that must be stopped. Individuals who are concerned with truly giving children a well-rounded education must separate themselves from purveyors of ignorance. That is the only way that a compromise will ever be reached in this conflict.
If it's good 'nuff for Ms. Overton, then it's good 'nuff for me. I sure do love that song for all the people in English class. Try to guess which bald dude wrote this.
Well i was just going to be goofy until I decided to read some of the comments. I was suprised to see so many actual opinions and not just a bunch of stupid statements about how one is right and one is wrong. You have to realize that people have the choice to believe what they want. It isn't something that is set in stone. Remember the other word in the title is "theory". For all we know, we are all wrong. That is what is so great about faith. "To each his own" as they say.
Wow! "jinan" writes: The fact is evolution in it’s self[sic] is a religion. There is no real way of knowing 100% which is right or wrong. It takes a great amount of faith to make either accusation. You must have faith in a God or have faith that there is not a God.
I agree with the statement that there is no real way of knowing 100% - we're not talking about a lab experiment that can be recorded and recreated by others with 100% success in order to validate the results.
And I would agree that it takes faith for both stances to hold personally.
But I don't agree with your statement that evolution itself is a religion. I could walk with you in the argument that it's takes, on the one hand, a lot of inference from Micro-evolution to get to Macro-evolution, but I wouldn't consider that the foundation of a religion.
Unless perhaps you are thinking about Scientology - but I would contend, based upon my reading of their belief system, that that's still a stretch.
Secondly, is it truly a definite choice between believing in God or not? I'm inferring that you think there's no way to believe in God and agree with (any degree of) evolution? That's a lively topic to discuss in an of itself.
Great point, "trinity", it is each person's own choice as to what to believe.
But, what do you believe?
You left that part out... and with a good lead in like yours, you've left us hanging.
I myself believe that we are created by God. I'm a christian but not one of the mean ones that thinks everyone that doesn't believe exactly what I do will burn forever. I am not the one to decide. I will be more than happy to talk to anyone one on one about my personal ideas. Feel free to email me at tnh2t@mtsu.edu. I just don't see how we came from monkeys. I bet it was a huge joke and then people started to believe it. How could only some monkeys make it to our state and some not? Imagine being the one in your family to turn. Going home to your family would suck. Monkey pooh and bananas is all would see and smell.
Very interesting discussion. But nothing can dissuade me from my long held belief that we are "stardust, billion year old carbon, and we've got to get ourselves back to the garden." (with apologies to Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young)(Please note that Crosby et al is not a law firm, but was a music/entertainment collective with which Ms. Overton should be familiar)
I thought the article was well reasoned, and I was thoroughly persuaded. I disagree with the notion that if we cannot be sure of the truth, dont teach anything. There is ample scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution, and virtually no evidence to support intelligent design. That does not mean that intelligent design did not occur, only that it is the subject of speculation without support of observable fact.
Think of it this way: when we have a political election, anyone who wants can run for office. But you have to have a certain number of signatures to get your name on the ballot. Otherwise, you are a "write-in" candidate at best. I am NOT suggesting that the number of believers determines the truth of the belief. I am suggesting that in order for something to be taught in a classroom as science, it must have reached a certain critical mass. To thoroughly mix the metaphors, creationism is a write-in candidate.
Creationism is a matter of faith, evolutionism is a matter of science. Public schools should not be in the business of instructing students about faith, but only about science.
Perhaps what I am saying is that public schools have the RESPONSIBILITY to teach science, but each of us have the FREEDOM to believe otherwise (Tip for getting good grades: throw something in about the course theme at the end of your term paper, so your prof thinks you learned something)
Point one:
If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Question one: (for trevor)
Help me understand how there can be a conflict of interest when a public school teaches a scientific theory.
Question two: (for Trevor)
If you believe "however you look at it, someone is going to make a big deal about it, so it's best to not worry about incorporating it into curriculum" as you wrote, then by extension, you must believe that controversy should be allowed to squelch/drown out/stifle the truth, whatever that may be, if only for convenience sake. True or False?
Question three:
Should public schools teach faith (not one faith in particulary, but religious faith at all), or the ability to reason (so you can decide what is true and what is not), or just teach basic knowledge (Austin is the capital of Texas, etc., Lake Titicacca is the largest freshwater lake, etc)
It should not be taught. I hate to be blatant, but I think that certain people believe in certain things and that it should left up to individuals what they believe in. Some might not believe in creationism by God and I don’t think that it would be fair to them to make it part of a required curriculum in school. Creationism can be taught at church. If people want to believe in other things, then they should be able to discover their beliefs on their own time. There is too much controversy over creationism and evolution and I think that both of them should be left out of the curriculum in order to calm hostile disagreements.
I think that the things taught in school should not be about either science nor religion it should be about whats going to benefit the people who are learning this the most. If a scientific explanation about how human were created will benefit and educate the children then yes it should be taught. I am a religious person and everything in the bible is in plain text if you read it and it says live godly but don't be a fool. Education should not be about politics and science against religion or what its being taught but how its being taught and keep an open-mind to everything. If you can't have a open-mind and be able to accept different aspects of things, you can't live in society because there is alot of things that piss people off but you always got to think that your opinions is pissing people off too, but that what make people different and unique and able to adapt,just as we do in life.
first of all, thanks to ms. o for opening up this forum... so far the conversation has been very interesting... i do have a few questions, though...
for those who prefer to use the phrase "intelligent design" over "creationism", i would ask since design implies designer who that designer is... if your answer is "god" then how would you differentiate i.d. from creationism?
for those who say that they should be able to choose what they are taught, or say that evolution or creation should not be taught because it makes them uncomfortable, i ask how committed you are to that... should you be able to choose which books you study in literature class? should you be able to choose which sections of the history book you are taught, but leave out all those icky uncomfortable parts like slavery and the treatment of the native americans by the settlers? (oh, wait, that's already happening isn't it?)
for those who favor the teaching of creationism in science class (we are talking about a science class, right? otherwise why would evolution even come up?) i would ask (and some of you have already begun to answer this) how far you would take that? should we also teach the hindu belief about vishnu and the giant snake found here: http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/y8/
1-1creationandenvironment/c-hindu.htm
or how about the hopi creation stories concerning Spider Woman found here:
http://www.drlamay.com/creation_story_hopi.htm
at what point do we leave science behind and purely get into the realm of fantasy and myth?
(a note: the definition of "science" from the american heritage dictionary: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.")
and for that matter, even if you stick to christianity, i'd still ask which version of creationism you'd want taught? jinan brought up micro-and macro-evolution, but there are just as many, if not more types of creationism... young earth creationism, old earth creationism, modern geocentrism, and many more (and for more discussion on these different types, i'd refer the curious to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism) or, for that matter, even if you stick solely to he biblical creation story in genesis, which version of that are you going to use? the one in genesis 1 and says that god saved man for the last of his creations, or the one in genesis 2 that says that god created man and then planted eden so that the man would be there to till the land and then created the other animals so that man wouldn't be lonely?
for those who say that creation should be taught alongside evolution because it's believed by a large number of people i would ask how far you would take that? should our medical schools teach homeopathic and holistic medicine and let the doctors then decide what they should use to treat their patients? should astronomy classes also include sections on astrology?
and finally, please trinity and geodarb tell me that your monkeys/apes comments were meant as jokes... ;->
I think that students should have the priviledge of learning both aspects on evolution and creation. They should both be taught by the professor as theories. Every student has different religious backgrounds. If creation was strictly taught to students, some would feel uncomfortable and not willing to learn. It violates the declaration of independence which allows student to have freedom of religion.
Michael, I was definitely joking when I made the monkeys comments.
geodarb: :-D
Ugh...I feel that I'm getting technical here. Alright, everyone keeps saying how evolution is a theory and should be taught that way. Well, technically there are two subcategories of evolution: interspecies evolution and intraspecies evolution. Interspecies evolution, or the ablilty for one species to rearrange its DNA to become another, is what you are debating. BUT! Intraspecies evolution is the ability for a species to change things within itself. This does not mean that the species becomes something else, it's only a tool for survival. Which means that it can create items to serve a specific need or get rid of the ones that aren't used. Changes occur when the being's needs are not met or as a result of its surrounding environment.
Intraspecies evolution, that we know of, is fact, not theory. This paves the way to theorize the possibility of interspecies evolution. So, yes, interspecies evolution is a theory. In regards to teaching evolution, you can't only consider interspecies evolution without its counterpart. No matter anyone's view on the subject, "evolution", in general, is a scientific fact. The term doesn't imply that a cat is going to turn into a squidfish...it only implies that something is changing.
On creationism...well, I'm the kind of person who needs proof. I don't think that creation is anything more than a philosophical theory, not scientific. In order to be a scientific theory, it would have had to have been observed and documented. If you show me liable documentation from someone who witnessed the creation of the world...I'll believe you. You have fun with that one.
Personally, there are too many questions and holes in both suggestions. I don't think that we will ever know the answers that we are looking for. God made Earth...okay, who made God? Who made whoever made God? And so forth... Same with the Big Bang Theory. It's a bit to etchy for me.
Honestly, it doesn't matter to me whether you believe we evolved from monkeys, we were created in the likeness of a greater being, or that the earth is really a giant, bacteria-covered egg ready to burst forth with magical jellybeans. We're here, what else could you ask for?
Y'know...everything I just said goes along with the micro- macro-evolution thing. In fact, it's the same thing, lol. But yeah, I had to say it anyway...just using different terms.
It doesn't matter to me if they teach creatism in class or not. If they do then that is fine. If they don't then it is no skin off my back. No matter what they teach in the classroom I will always have faith in my beliefs. There are many forms of creatism beliefs taught throughout the U.S. and it would be fair to some people if you only taught that one form of creatism. That is why it doesn't bother me one way or the other.
That's a good point about the impartial instructor. There really might not be such a thing. Maybe you should go and listen to more than one person. Base an opinion on a lot of opinions. Don't just hear two of the stories and pick from them. Listen to more and you'll have more of an idea of what you should believe. When I say "should" I mean you should believe what you think is right. Trust your own judgement.
My question is, how does popular belief justify scientific theory? People once believed the earth was flat...did that make it any more true? They had no proof it was flat, they just believed it. Personal religious beliefs are more philosophical than scientific. I've grown up going to church. I've been exposed to it my whole life, yet I still only consider the Bible a book of values. I never said that I did not believe in God, people just assume that. My beliefs are complicated. I don't think they could be categorized. I'll be happy to read anything that anybody would recommend, but you must know that I am not ignorant. I've put much thought behind my beliefs, but in no way do I expect anyone to push their beliefs on me. Just because I don't believe what you do, doesn't make me close minded. I've researched a few different religions. If the Christians are right, that's all good and well. But has any Christian ever thought that maybe they weren't right? Not that I've ever heard. Seems a bit of a catch 22 to me...
The theory of evolution and the theory of creation should both be taught in school. As stated ealier, they should both a approached equally as a theory. This should, if taught correctly, would give the student a chence to think on ones own to decide which thoery to believe. That is, if one is to believe anything.
I think evolution should be taught in schools. The Christian belief of creationism should have no effect on whats taught in our schools. Main reason being is the seperation of church and state in the Constution. I am a Christian by belief, but im not a hard head, I realise I may be completly wrong about religion who's to say that the Jewish people, or Hindu, Muslim, etc... are incorrect NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE!!! So no religion should have an affect on how our country is run, or how our schools are taught.
``Im not a robot. I was obedientand did what he told me to do and lay on my back and waited forhis penetration.
3d incest stories
horses animal sex stories
true group sex stories
adult free porn stories
xxx beastiality stories
``Im not a robot. I was obedientand did what he told me to do and lay on my back and waited forhis penetration.
Post a Comment
<< Home