Teaching Evolution
Hypothetical: The state passes a law requiring high school teachers to teach creationism in biology classes. You are a science teacher trained in the best scientific knowledge, you are committed to teaching truthfully to your students, and you understand creationism to be unscientific. After refusing to teach creationism because of your commitment to truth and your dedication to teaching, your principal threatens to fire you if you do not teach creationism as the state law requires. What do you do?
Labels: creationism, duty, evolution, faith, freedom, religion, science, teaching
posted by Richard Stanislaw at
7:55 PM
80 Comments:
Depending on my circumstances I would do it. Just because I believe in a certain situation does not mean everyone else does. Yes I will teach my students the truth but I will also let them know to think for themselves. My spiritual views would not let me do it, but I would have to drop my pride and do what I have to do to survive. I would teach them both just to satisfy everyone.
Honestly, I think I would just suck it up and teach the desired curriculum. You have a moral obligation to yourself, yet you have a moral obligation to the contract you signed with the school district. I would not be willing to give up my desired career for one decision on what I believe or do not believe in teaching for a short period of the school year. The students have a "right" to be presented with all the information that is available and whether or not they believe or take anything away from it is completely up to them. As a teacher, you gain more respect when you present all that is out there for someone to grasp. I feel you owe it to the parents to do your job and do it to the best of your ability.
The fact is you are supposed to be teaching a SCIENCE class. There is no debate in the scientific community whether evolution is false or not. Most have reached the conclusion that evolution is not even a theory. It is a biological fact. If I were the teacher I would fight it. Creationism does not belong in a science classroom.
I would let the principal fire me, collect unemployment, nourish my mom back to health, borrow money from my state funded retirement to pay for my child’s insulin, move to Georgia with my mom and family, where you don’t need to get a teaching license to teach (not that that would be a problem to get another one). And the school that hired me “an undisclosed college” would reimburse me for my travel expenses. Since college curriculum is normally not heavily enforced by the government, I would teach my students the Facts about Biology, and life as we know it, which would not be forcing my opinion on them, but actually teaching them real things, that go on in the real world.
And not in the world of the little guy on your finger...
The fact is none of us were around at the beginning to know what actually happened. Therefore, I believe it's adults obligation to teach children all possible situations or outcomes so an informed decision could be made. However, that doesn't mean I favor forcing the teaching of creationism in public schools. There are reasons why we take seperate classes for things that we learn. Creationism is not considered scientific, meaning the science community does not recognize it. So, it should not even be in the classroom. And for the people that do support teaching it in science classes, you should allow other forms of belief of how we were created. Including ideas ranging from reincarnation to us being all created by aliens.
As for what I would do in this situation, I would not want to lose my job due to a small portion of the lesson for the year. So, I would probably teach both, while also throwing in literature about the subject from third party ideas or sources.
~Dave Grager
I would force the principal into firing me, making as much noise as possible when doing so.
I don't see what the big deal is... Where I work, my boss tells me to do stuff all the time even when I don't want to do it, or I disagree with it.... I don't tell my boss to shove it, I shut up, put up, and get the big bucks... You have to think what you are more committed to, your source of income, or your faith. Which is more of a life-line?
I don’t think that this situation is black and white. In this hypothetical, I am a biology teacher hired to teach a state dictated curriculum. I am not in the classroom to stress my own views, religious or other, to my students. I am there to educate them.
Truth seems to be a popular motif within the analysis of this situation. I would like to explore that here. It is true that religion is not science. It is true that the public school system is no place for any sort of religious preaching. It is true that the job of a teacher is to educate and provoke thought. And it is also true that many things are taught in a science classroom in the context of history that are not true. For example, it is frequently mentioned that it was once believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. It was once believed that flies could come from meat or feces or any number of other substances. It was once believed that the sun circled the Earth. None of these examples are true and yet they are all mentioned in the walls of a public high school science classroom. Perhaps the most beneficial approach for the students, and that is who’s interests should be considered the most, is to present Creationism in the same fashion as these other concepts accepted by generations past as truth.
Give the students all the information you can. Show them how and why things are the way they are. As a scientist, one would expect me to challenge what I see, collect data, analyze it, come to a conclusion, and then continue to look for support to defend that claim. This is what, as a science teacher, I hope to motivate my students to do. In order for them to do this, they need all the information that they can get. If the principle is not in favor of this solution, then perhaps s/he has an alternate agenda that needs to be examined more closely by the school board and such personnel. I’m not sure if this is a plausible solution should this hypothetical become reality, but it is what I feel is the best solution for the students and all other parties involved.
Creationism is the theory that the universe was created by what I, for the sake of brevity and the fact that I may not have the terminology quite right, will call a supreme being. That having been said, they have what I'll again call, for the same reasons as above, a church, which teaches of this being's methods and doings, etc.
Public Schools are state-funded and to a large extent state controlled institution. We can all see where this is going. Separation of Church and State, blah blah blah.
Skerns said "students have a 'right' to be presented with all the information that is available and whether or not they believe or take anything away from it is completely up to them." How about this one: God created math and baking cookies. Isn't that a possibility? And yet we're not teaching that in schools.
The Church can teach people about spiritual or religious matters. They have no place in a public school, outside from the study of religion as a whole, not the teaching of one.
Point being, I'd fight it 'til the end. Maybe I'd go down, but I'd go down swinging.
On occasion, we all have to perform tasks within our scope of responsibilites at work in which occasionally we don't enjoy or agree with. The instructor must teach the material or leave that particular school district. Similar to most subject matter, the instructor can teach evolution in an impartial method. In another perspective, teachers who are strong supporters of Democrats must teach the views and opinions of the Republican Party and the same applies to Conservative teachers who support the GOP even if either party reflects different values, opinions and political ideology.
In this situation, it is essential to provide the facts of this issue to students despite personal convictions that the teacher may believe in.
I would teach creationism simply because there is no harm in teaching it. It is just an alternative to evolution. I think this topic is often blown out of the water. People will believe what they want to believe. Evolution is a fact, to what degree it's not quite defined. However, just because you may not believe in creationism doesn't mean you can't say "this is what some people believe". It doesn't hurt to show the other side.
I would teach the creationism, but I would make the information too difficult to understand. I would then pass the class. The students wouldnt have to know that they werent taught correctly and it would only be a waste of time. I also wouldnt have to compromise my beliefs.
Depends on certain circumstances and whether you are willing to risk something. In my situation, I would teach it because whether you teach creationism or not, the student is going to form their own opinion on the subject. Although it is not something I consider the truth, I would not want to risk losing a teacher career because of it. Especially if you just teach creationism, you would still be able to find a job elsewhere instead of being fired and having to work minimum wage jobs to keep up with bills. I believe its important to teach the truth in things, but to those who believe strongly in faith, that is their truth. Even though it may not be our own truth, it may be someone elses.
I believe the question posed by the hypothetical situation is the same question Antigone faced. Whether or not it is moral to break the laws of your government that you believe to be unjust. I absolutely agree with Antigone that there are “unwritten laws” and when the laws of the government clash with these “unwritten laws” I believe it is completely moral to disobey the laws of man. In an ideal government, I believe laws should be derived from the unwritten laws and our natural rights, but we all know that is not always the case.
In the teacher hypothetical situation I am less concerned with the evolutionary-creationism debate as I am in the duty of a teacher to teach what he knows or believes to be true, and I think any law that the state passes that tramples on my duties as a teacher would be invalid and I would continue to not teach creationism. I would face the wrath of my principle and be willing to sacrifice my job. It could be worse I could face the fate of Antigone.
-Dan Casher
You do have to consider social support you may be able to gather for your cause. If you can convince yourself that you doing the morally admirable thing, it may be easy to justify a sort of martyrdom of the cause. If you are not completely convince you are correct or that there is a large degree of opposition then it would be easier to conform to the system.
This is a very complicated issue and does not have an easy answer. If I was a teacher in that situation I would continue to teach the scientific material, but I would mention that the faith based theory of creationism exists. Faced with the option of losing my job, I feel that I would have no choice than to comply with what the school board wanted. That said, I do not agree with the teaching of creationism in public schools. Science class is for science. Although evolution and creationism are both theories, the theory of evolution is based on factual evidence. There is no factual evidence that supports the theory of creationism. Creationism is strictly a faith based theory. If this isn't a good enough reason to not teach creationism in public school science classes, there is another reason. Teaching creationism in public schools violates the separation of church and state. Public schools are funded by the government, both state and federal. The curriculum public schools choose to teach must be in line with what the government expects and, therefore, must respect the separation of church and state. The theory of creationism is faith based and should not be taught in public schools. If people are so adament in their push for the teaching of creationism in public schools, then all similar theories from the various religions should be taught as well. Bottom line, science class is for science, not religious beliefs. If parents want their children to learn about the theory of creationism they should send their kids to private religious schools (which are not federally funded and can teach almost whatever they want).
-Kevin Higham
i would get my gun and see how he liked it if i would kill everyone. this is a joke and was made to make sure that i could create blogs
When it comes down to it, you have to stand up for what you believe in, especially if you believe it to be true or believe the opposite to be false or wrong. Even bending at the slightest notion of losing everything means you have no conviction in that which you hold true. However, the other problem here is that human beings by nature are self-preservative - meaning they will protect themselves and those they love rather than risk harm. It's our basic instinct to do this, as well as to follow authority, do as we're told, and not push the issue on anything. It is not until the point is reached where we can no longer put up with the injustice we feel is being done that we begin to act, i.e. civil rights movements, civil wars, etc.
That said, I would personally refuse to teach Creationism because of the definition of science. Even though I don't personally believe completely in Creationism, I don't oppose teaching it. However, it is not science. It is a belief, and more importantly, one that can not be tested nor rejected. Believing something does not make it fact, though many would claim it does.
I'd teach it, why not. The course would be more diverse and you could say "This is not based on scientific fact" as many times as you like. Everyone has different beliefs, why should teachers only teach what they believe in.
I don't feel like I have good grasp for the boundaries of this "hypothetical" question, yet to give some generalized answer, I would try my best not to let my overwhelming pride as a high school biology teacher blind me from making a smart decision. I would teach the material for as long as I had to in the most minimal way possible. Perhaps mentioning that Intelligent Design is an alternative theory to Evolution, then describe the controversy. Meanwhile I would work hard to make my students and the public aware of current situation. I would become more politically active, raise money and give speeches if needed. I would exploit the fact that two-thirds of American’s think creationism should not be taught in high school at all. I would try to seek groups who would be sympathetic to my cause such as the National Center for Science Education to help my campaign. As long as I decided that this was important to me, I would expend what resources I have available to change the status quo, legally.
I would be hard for me to teach something that I believe is not true. I think that I would for the sake of my job do what the principal asked. I think however that I would teach creationism as a theory and then also present evolution as an opposing theory. This way the students would be able to form their own oppinions. If I truly disagreed with the law, the way to oppose it would be to start some political action, not start a war in the school.
Special creation and evolution need to be discussed in the high school biology forum. Even though they are polar opposites, they include every position on the question of origins continuum, from flat Earthism to materialistic evolution. In regards to cents11's comments, evolution is NOT a fact. It is only a theory, such as the atomic theory, and the theory of gravity, despite how well-documented geological history is. However, I agree, it is easier to exploit the fallacies in the creationist camp. Both sides do have arguments that should be heard. If you are convinced that this theory is fact, please give that final piece of conclusive evidence that it seems no expert can, but do not make yourself the expert.
I agree fairly well with hberkley. I can disagree with the program and launch formal protests of the idea though. That section of my class could be less than comprehensive, which would be my bypass of teaching it outright. In my high school biology, the teacher gave a disclaimer before teaching evolution theory, the same could be done for the creationist theory, however much sense it doesn't make.
-- Michael Stevens
Are you guys kidding? Unless anyone can convince anyone that this isn't a religious and/or spiritual matter, it has no place in our public schools. Unless you think that our constitution doesn't matter or is wrong, and unless you see the formation of a government under the rule of religious authorities as a good thing (remember, it may not be your own religion), this is a matter for the religious authorities. The difference you all don't seem to realize between the theory of evolution and the theory of creationism is that the theory of creationism is not a scientific one. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that our government shouldn't be teaching it, again, unless you are in favor of the Rule of the Church in place of our current government, in which case, please identify yourself so that I can fear you and your political ambitions. IT'S THAT BLACK AND WHITE. Wake up and realize that your opinion on this matter isn't the question. While it may be the sad reality that in our current government our leaders have demonstrated their willingness to put the needs of themselves and the few above the needs of the many, it is, in my opinion, this sad fact that is leading us down the road toward oligarchy, dictatorship, and religious extremism. I'm not suggesting that creationism is right or wrong, I just don't care. It has no place in a government which is open to people of all beliefs. Please pay attention and realize that this isn't "What are your personal beliefs 101." Address the issue at hand from a logical standpoint, not from the viewpoint of your own ideologies.
I think that given the situation, the teacher should just teach the assigned cirriculum. The teacher doesn't necessarily have to believe and support the material, and the students should have the ability to decide for themselves what they choose to believe even if the teacher decides to stress his or her opinions upon the students. Although this is the case, the situation is clearly one of morals and pride, so hypothetically the teacher could do whatever he/she wishes.
-Mike Rudolph
It all has to do with your principles. For me, I understand that if I refused to teach it and got fired, the school would find someone else to teach it. Being nobel and not wanting to teach lies is great, but when it comes down to keeping one's job by lying or getting fired and taking a worse job to stand on principles, in this case, I would chose lies.
-Tom Banyas
I would like to respond to Matt P.’s comment, who said, “our government shouldn't be teaching it (creationism), again, unless you are in favor of the Rule of the Church in place of our current government, in which case, please identify yourself so that I can fear you and your political ambitions.”
Although I appreciate his enthusiasm and think that emotional appeal is important to an argument, I would like to think that Matt is overlooking several things. For a High School teacher to deliver an alternative theory to students, and suggest that there could be an Intelligent creator who formed the biological structure of life, does not mean that our government needs to be overthrown and a theocracy put in it’s place. Nor does this also imply that one particular religion should be taught to students. It is not comparing Christianity to the theory of Evolution, merely a possibility that there could be an unidentified intelligent designer. I think Matt even goes on to contradict himself when he says, “It (creationism) has no place in a government which is open to people of all beliefs.”
I think this statement could even be used to make an argument of why Intelligent design should be taught. Because suggesting an alternative theory which isn’t anymore discriminative to Muslims than it is Christians would fit a government which is open to people of all beliefs. Because Intelligent design doesn’t single out any particular religion, and I think Matt over looked this fact. I would like to go on to say that, personally, I do not agree with the teaching of Intelligent Design because I feel it is a waste of U.S. tax dollars. Yet for the sake of debate, I can make an argument for it.
It is the obligation of a teacher to teach whatever the state outlines as appropriate regardless of their personal convictions. Although the teacher may disagree with portions of the curriculum, it is their duty to their students to teach all aspects of a topic, especially if it is as controversial as the debate between evolution and creationism. A teacher whom really believes in teaching truth in science, should desire to presents the factual pros and cons of the argument. If done properly, the students would untimely come to their own conclusion on which belief is best. Surely presenting the arguments for and against each theory will lead to the truth the teacher covets as well as staying within the guidelines established by the state.
Also, I would assume a science teacher who believes in creationism would have already encountered several occurrences of moral dilemmas. Since throughout history science has cast doubts upon traditional Christian beliefs, resulting in a constant friction between Christianity and science. Furthermore, wouldn't it be a sin for this teacher to agree and teach any scientific research or finding that identifies fossils and artifacts older than 6,000 years?
John Fellabaum
This comment has been removed by the author.
I see this hypothetical situation as a question of choosing self-pride or conformity. Personally I do not know much about creationism and have never learned the details. I am only going off what I have heard from other professors, students, and media. While I may be speaking with some ignorance this is my hypothetical response to this hypothetical question. The threat of job loss would force me to teach creationism. As much as I may disagree with the teaching of creationism in public high school biology classes, the consequences of losing my job far outweigh my pride. I believe that the law would be repealed after failing to stand up in the courts. When teaching creationism I would spend the least amount of time on it and would point out the lack of scientific proof. I believe that teaching creationism would be showing favoritism towards a religion, and also infringing on the separation of church and state. I am not a believer in the “big bang” but I think it has more proof surrounding it than creationism. I am all for one’s right to freedom of religion, but religion does not have a place in a public high school.
I believe that in this situation i would go with what the principle said due to the fact that as a teacher you most likely have a family to feed or bills to pay. The only thing that might be a possiblity would be the option of finding a new job that would allow me to teach what i like.
~David Turkovic
As a educator I would follow what my contract says, even if I don't agree with what I have to teach. As long as I know my feelings on the subject I think that is all that matters.I understand that everyone has their own views and beliefs and not everyone agrees on similar things. I would teach to the best of my ability and do my job.
-D. Slovan
I would teach what i strongly believe in and that is that creationism is a fact. Just because scientists think that have determined everything doesnt mean evolution is a fact. The School system could not possibly fire you for that or they would face a huge lawsuit. The bottom line in this whole scenario is that the moral fabric of America is under attack by the Secular left wing of America. They dismiss those of faith as ignorant but fail to realize that America was founded by those with the strongest of faith.
I would resign. If I felt deeply about the subject I would not be able to just give in to the principle and teach to my students what I believe are lies.You have to stand up for what you believe in because at the end of the day the only person whose opinion matters is the person looking back at you in the mirror.
"the opiate of the masses!!!" as thoughtfully stated by mister MARX...ask the students what they want to learn, they are still young and have yet to have their voices suppressed by a coercive regime...get the students to believe they have a choice in deciding what to believe through making their own decisions from the ideas laid out infront of them via their teacher, rather than being told what to believe. learning how to think rather than being told what to think. gather in the masses and protest the principal denying one an actual education, rather than reading a manual on how to live in the capitalist world!!!! woooow i just had deja vu!! chicago bulls are goin alllll the way!!!windy city...city of champions
~Iian McCloud
and oh yeah DA BEARS!!!...religion teaches one to not believe in other religions, or gods, therefor teaching you to close your mind!!! making sure you stay the course of every other religion fanatic like yourself!! i love all people and believe in trying my best to be honest and helpful to all, no matter what you are, clerk at giant eagle or CEO of giant eagle, you get my same respect and dignity, because thats works for me...there is no god in my life...hate to break the secret but Aunt Jemima is really GOD!!!
~Iian McCloud
The big picture in this scenario is that our country has truly lost its way. 50 years ago this would have never been an issue because people did not try as hard secularize our country. It is imperative that we not lose our Christian values that we were founded on. This slippery slope began when they took prayer out of school and continues today as such fascist groups as the ACLU try and eliminate Christianity and religion in general from America. Hate to break it to everybody but America was and always will be a Christian nation and that is how it should be. I think the real issue is that if a false theory such as evolution should be allowed to be taught in school. America needs to remember its roots and not fall into the Secular Left Wing trap because once that happens, God Save Us All!!
True enough, the United States was founded on Christian values. But please tell me what the hell that has to do with teaching children, of all faiths, a story with no scientific backing like creationism. Sure, evolution can’t answer all questions in the search for how we came to be. But it can be backed up with scientific evidence, thus securing it’s place in a science classroom. Creationism on the other hand has not one drop of scientific evidence to support it. It’s like me saying I created the world. Teach that in science class. It cannot be proven or disprove.
In my mind it is the job of a teacher to arm children with the information they know to be factual. Many children will hold on to what they learn at a young age from their teacher as fact for the rest of their lives (Christopher Columbus discovered America). If you want your children to hear about religion or the “theory” of creationism then tell them all about it at home. Tell them the sky is purple and happiness comes from magical rays of sunshine that come down when you are feeling blue for all I care. As a science teacher I would teach my students any theory without scientific support, even if it cost me my job.
-Matt De Pompei
The point is that you say its a science class so teach evolution. Well that will offend children of all religions because whether your muslim, jewish or christian you do not believe in evolution. Evolution is not a scientific fact even if you would teach it. There are many religious scientists out there that can disprove evolution. So why teach a conspiracy theory that is not even true and offends most of the population. That would be like teaching a conspiracy theory saying there was no holocuast because a couple of historians deemed it a fact. That would make no sense. As a teacher i want to deliver students facts so i would not deliver a theory that cannot be proven. In common sense i would like for creationism to be taught but i realize that is not possible in a public school. But evolution should not be allowed to be mentioned either.
Today we discussed the duty of guards or soldiers acting under orders. In the Apology, Socrates states that “wherever a man has taken a position that he believes to be best or has been placed by his commander, there he must I think remain and face danger, without a thought for death or anything else, rather than face disgrace” (28e). He describes his military experience and the justification for soldiers following orders. A soldier’s highest duty is to his commander, even an abstract commander like his conscience. Socrates alludes to conscience when he talks about the voice inside his head (31d). He seems to say you must live up to your own ego in order to preserve honor. But I believe this argument is tragically flawed. Socrates’ stubbornness to refuse exile or flee from prison is like one cutting of his nose to spite his face. He’s hitting his head upside the wall over and over again with this “honor” “truth” “justice” thing. Wake up, you’re on death row! They’re using the system against you, man! For goodness sake, can’t he swallow his pride to save his life? Just play by their game for one day? Disgrace be dammed! It won’t damage your soul; I’m sure the gods will understand. Live to philosophize about it later.
This is why I would never teach... especially science. Although, the Ohio state teachers retirement system is one of the best in the country. I would continue to teach the science of evolution, while explaining to my students that there is another theory that some people believe in called creationism. I compare this to the teaching of different religions, where is it simply to educate the students on the different beliefs some people have. It is up to them to decide what they actually believe in.
I guess what I would do is give in and teach creationism. After all, I do need my job. If I would quit, the district would just end up finding some other shmuck to get up in front of the kids and lie; this is not something that I would wish upon any of my students. If I was to teach this subject matter, there would be nothing false about what I am presenting. I am merely teaching an idea that truely exists. If some students choose to enbrace or identify with it than it is fine. It would be made clear to the students that there are other viewpoints as well. All takes on the concept of creationism will be heard and respected.
I would only agree to teach creationism if I was allowed to teach evolution as well. This would give the children the opportunity to decide what "theory" they found more accurate. My ultimate goal as an educator would be to let the children form their own opionions on all subject matter. If the authorities failed to compromise, I would chose to resign and find another job. Afterall, I'm the one that would have to live with myself every night when I went home, after teaching something I knew to be false to impressionable young children.
-Amber Gallihar
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
If the law requires high school teachers to teach only creationism rather than evolution, then I would probably teach the required state curriculum of creationism but I would undoubtedly, openly question its validity to my class and slip in my own beliefs in the process.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I would teach creationism but I would make it clear that it was just one idea and not a particularily scientific one at that. You should never force your beliefs onto others so by teaching both views you offer students a choice. In the meantime you still have a job.
Danielle Hurley
I think that claiming that creationism is a scientific principle is incorrect. But I dont exactly agree that evolution is scientifically provable. As a scientist believing in evolution, I would have to realize that my expertise was needed somewhere else. I think that if I didnt agree with what the school district did, I would change schools. "Pursue the truth" somewhere else. If I had agreed when getting my job to abide my their restrictions, its my job to listen to them. If I so utterly detest teaching creationism (or even if it were along with evolutionism) then I should change schools. If it came down to me losing the opportunity for any teaching job in a school district (which is extremely unlikely), I'd teach at Kent...I'm sure they'd want me. Or maybe just find a following to teach like the old philosophers did if I was so into the truth of evolutionism.
I think you have to evaluate what you expect out of your life when your faced with this kind of decision. Do you feel that you are a person that believes teaching the truth is the only ambition of your life? If so I suppose getting fired from one job shouldn't hinder your life's intent. If you feel it's not your sole purpose than teach the subject and live your comfortable life with the things you do feel are your purpose.
I believe that in that circumstance that I would teach the curriculum that has been issued. However, I would also voice my opinion on what should be taught to a superior. I would also poll the parents of the students to collect opinions on what they believe that their children should learn
I think what this debate shows more than anything is the fact that we can't really know anything. Just like Socrates professes to know he knows nothing, we will probably never prove the evolution/creationism debate one way or another. So you can't really teach "truth" if the truth is never known. In addition to that, everyone's truth is different, and this makes the situation even more difficult to grasp.
If it was the law, then I would teach it. I wouldn't teach it with the passion that I would teach other topics. I wouldn't even grade them on that part of the class. I would allow them to believe what they want to believe. If they want to believe we came from aliens that genetically engineered us, and left us on Earth with fire and a wheel, then I would support them. Also, I would immediately right a petition, and would hope that the state legislature would repeal the law.
I am going to a university to receive a degree in an area that I am interested in to pursue a job that I will enjoy every day. If your passion is teaching and/or science you will dedicate your time to teaching students what you have studied.
If I was put into a similar situation I must say I would have to move to another state to continue to teach. It is also hard when a profession is mixed with religion. Personally, I do not feel these two should be mixed. Once I was treatened by the principal, I would have to do what I felt is right and follow my gut instinct. I would continue to teach the scientific information that I thought to be true.
I believe that I would teach the required curriculum. As a teacher you have a obligation to teach the assigned curriculum. A teachers job is to remain impartial and not teach their own beliefs, so that the students have the oppertunity to decide what they believe. The fact that you may not always believe what you are teaching is fine, however you must remain professional and do your job.
- Sean McCarthy
I firmly believe in TOE which means theory of every thing.people have the right to know TOE be it evolution or creationism.
Contemplating on the issue and deciding on the subject must be open to every learner.
I think its fair to explore both theories equally w/ my students and let them decide what to think. In a perfect world, teachers should be impartial and let the students take the facts given and make their own judgements on evolution.
- Katie Shale
I believe that in her decision to go to this state, entering this particular school system was a choice. Therefore, she has the choice to teach elsewhere. I think that her training in evolution can be questioned. Today, most public schools and Catholic schools are teaching evolution with total disregard to religious preferences and beliefs. And, rather you believe in this teaching you, as the student, must be tested over the material. They have incorporated evolution into most public school's curriculum, so it is unavoidable. So, these practices of today are what I am using to illustrate my opinion. If creationism is law, and is declared curriculum than as those teachers today with strong religious beliefs must closet their beliefs; so should the Evolution teacher.
We have all been taught or told things that we didn't believe in over the years. This teacher seems obligated to teach creationism and so I believe he should do what is necessary. The students can choose what they believe in. As far as the teacher goes, I think he should continue to pled his case to the school and to the state. If it is something all biology teachers feel strongly about then time will cause change. Although it should be brought to the attention of the students the background situation and I feel the teacher is able to express his opinions freely in the classroom.
We have all been taught or told things that we didn't believe in over the years. This teacher seems obligated to teach creationism and so I believe he should do what is necessary. The students can choose what they believe in. As far as the teacher goes, I think he should continue to pled his case to the school and to the state. If it is something all biology teachers feel strongly about then time will cause change. Although it should be brought to the attention of the students the background situation and I feel the teacher is able to express his opinions freely in the classroom.
We have all been taught or told things that we didn't believe in over the years. This teacher seems obligated to teach creationism and so I believe he should do what is necessary. The students can choose what they believe in. As far as the teacher goes, I think he should continue to pled his case to the school and to the state. If it is something all biology teachers feel strongly about then time will cause change. Although it should be brought to the attention of the students the background situation and I feel the teacher is able to express his opinions freely in the classroom.
I think that that as long as you know what you are talking about and teaching the truth then it is ok to have different views on what a teacher teaches. As long as all aspects are covered and other teories and all that are covered I don't see why its a big deal. As long as its factual. There are a million different ways to mack chocolate chip cookies is it wrong to know that? No it's not it just makes you more knowledgeable and there is nothing wrong with expanding your mind. And I am sure nost of us don't evern remember what we learned in high school anyways.
~Colla
Sorry to add to that people really need to find better things to worry about in life and the world. It's not the end of the world what we decide to teach in school. If it's true and factual and is a learning experience expand your mind. We make such a big deal about the littlest things and there is more going on in the world than that.
~Colla
Among the thousands of teachers across the United States, each and every educator has some form of belief system concerning evolution. In fact, some teachers may believe in neither creationism nor evolution which is a unique viewpoint on its own. On this blog page, Amber Gallinar notes that she “would only agree to teach creationism if I was allowed to teach evolution as well”. This is a valid and solid opinion because both sides of the debate should be presented in class for the opportunity for students to develop their own convictions- if they do have not already.
A sensitive issue such as creationism vs. evolution is an emotional subject and both sides of the nation’s view should be allowed to be taught in the classroom. The same approach should be employed with other controversial issues such as the war in Iraq, the separation of church and state and role of religion in the White House.
Unless you’re teaching in the State of Kansas, school districts around the country should understand the value and importance of teaching both sides of any emotional issue.
I would teach the material as creationism for the sake of my job for the most part. If the state takes it as seriously as to actually pass a law to require you to teach this, it is obviously a big deal to the state. If a student enters into a state University where others have become adap tto this belief and have heard both sides of creationism, they will obviously have a head start on your students. A teacher has to look out for what is best for the hundreds of kids they teach, not only their morals
Can some one please answer a question for me? Why does every religion, ideology, or person with beliefs on Earth feel they have an absolute monopoly on the truth? I always thought that the true teacher presented a pupil with all the competing ideas and then let the student decide which one was correct instead of forcing ideas down their throats. People who want to teach evolution to the exclusion of everything else are no better than those who want to teach creationism (AKA ‘intelligent design’) the same way. A couple of centuries ago the predominant ‘scientific’ belief was the world was flat and those that taught otherwise were persecuted. What if a few centuries from now we find out Martians created life on Earth and evolution is crap? In both situations we would be teaching ‘theories’ as truths. And lest me not forget evolution is only a ‘theory’, which means it is the most likely case given the current evidence, not an absolute truth. I think the entire purpose of education is to learn as much as you can, especially about competing viewpoints. It is not teaching ‘untruthfully’ to simply state, “Some people believe a supreme being, e.g. God, created the Earth.” As long as the state is not forcing me to endorse one idea over another I would have no problem teaching evolution or creation. I think any responsible teacher should teach all viewpoints in any given situation.
I think if I were in that situation, I would teach it. Whether I think it is true or not doesn't really matter. I know what I believe in. If I had to teach it, I think I would make a statement at the beginning of the lesson stating that everyone has their own beliefs, and whether your belief about creation is, is fine, but just learn this for the sake of the class.
Creationism and Evolution need to be taught in schools. Both have just as much scientific evidence as the other, and they are both theories. Thousands of books are written that refute one another and prove that both will never be scientific fact. Creationism is faith based and so is Evolution, it takes just as much faith to believe in a God as it does not to believe in one. Both are beliefs. There are those who believe that evolution and creationism can coexist together, which is more reason that both should be taught. As a professor if I refused to teach one or the other based on my beliefs of truth, I shouldn't be condemned because it is a just reason. I doubt that schools would have a hard time finding three or more teachers lined up willing to teach in his place.
I think me deciding to become a high school teacher means I have to commit myself to do what a high school teacher has to do. Before being emotional about what I believe in my personal life, I have to fulfill my job as a high school teacher because I am being paid money for that and being expected to do a certain job. If my job requires me to teach certain subject, I just do it because that is what I am paid for to do. My commitment to do what my employer (in this case the state) wants me to do comes before my commitment “to truth”. Thus, I would just be a good employee (in this case a teacher) and teach evolution because that is what I am required to do.
I would just teach both.What makes my opinion more right than someone else's? Especially if my job is threatened, it seems piontless to loose my job over something like this. After all, the students have the right to decide what they believe in anyways, I shouldn't decide for them. Besides that I'm still teaching what I believe in anyways.
My name is William Givens, and I approve the following message:
Creationism is teaching religion in the schools. Religion is not science. Scientifically valid theories require there to be proof that they are valid. There is no scientifically valid evidence that Biblical creationism or Ginnungagap (Viking mythology) or Ra's lotus bud (Egypt) or anything else ever existed. Therefore, we cannot in good conscience teach ID in secular public schools in the science classroom.
However, since religion is a crucial part of life in this country, I propose that all public high school students be required to take one year-long course which will give them a primer on the major religions and ethical schools of thought that still exist worldwide. This includes all of the following: Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, Shinto (it's the traditional Japanese religion), Baha'i, Confucianism, Taoism, as well as the ethics of Plato, Socrates, Nietzche, and others. Intelligent design can be covered in the Christianity portion of the course, which ought to be a long one. I took such a course in my senior year in high school and I found it very useful. Requiring such a course to be taken as well at the college level should also be considered.
If i were the teacher I would stick to my morals. Its not like I'm not teaching because of religion, but based on truth. If I have a degree in science and using that knowledge do not believe there is enough support in teaching this subject, then I will not go through with it. Morals should come firt, and if I end up losing my job because I am thinking in the bet interests of my students (not teaching them lies), I'm sure that many will agree and I could find another job. I iwll never lower my standards or maorals for anyone or anything!
Personally, I would just teach the creationism. It's one thing out of an entire year. If i loved my job and loved teaching science this one thing wouldnt matter as much as continuing with my career..and also if I was such a strong believer in evolution its not like my views would change just from teaching my students something different from what I believe. I think the bigger issue is the students and what they believe. If their beliefs are one way they shouldn't be forced to learn another way.
I think that this question is a little different from a postmodern perspective. If there are all different kinds of metanarratives that govern my life and I realize that none of them can claim full jurisdiction for all of my actions and beliefs then I simply decide what narrative best suits my current situation. If I am in the academy which is fundamentally and exclusively rational and scientific then no matter what my religious or emotional experiences outside of the academy are while I am teaching it is most important that that narrative defines my position and actions. If science says that the integrated theory of natural selection is the consensus then that is most important, not most true, in that context. So, then it would seem that it is my duty as a member of the academy to ensure that the rational and scientific ideals are upheld in the classroom. But, this does seem a little modern in making a crusade or an almost moral principle out of evolution. Maybe even a little medieval.
So, maybe the most postmodern thing to do is decide what is the most important narrative at this point. Is it most relevant that I am a scientist, or a teacher, or a citizen, or a parent, or a Christian perhaps. And there doesn't need to be, in fact it is imperative that there isn't, any moral value attached to any of these roles in order that one narrative doesn't override the others.
~Anna Dowell
in my opinion, creationism has no place in science. its roots are blatantly religious and forcing it to be taught in public schools violtates the seperation of church and state. this is supposed to be a democracy, not a theocracy. however, if i was forced to teach the concept of creationism to save my job, then i guess i would just do it, even though i dont believe it in. -justin finlen
It is kind of hard to teach evolution when the shoolboard refuses to pay for textbooks that cover the subject. As much as one would like to think a person could rebel from the inside and fight the "man" as it were, the reality is that before any teacher could make any impact they would lose their job. Morality is a weakness that leaves us unflexible to deal with an evolving world. Scream your beliefs to the wind all you wish, it gets you no where.
-Craig Myers
If I was put in this position I would still teach the material just because I wouldn't want to lose my job. But I think that because creationism lacks scientific credibility it should not be taught in a science class. The teacher should say that the theory of creationism exists but thats all that should be said about it. If parents want their children to learn about that theory they should sent them to a parochial school. And if they cannot afford to send their children to a parochial school then they should at least tell them about it or they can just take their kids to church and they can learn about it there. The bottom line is creationism should not be taught in public schools. There are more than just Christians in public schools so if creationism was taught then every other theory would also have to be taught.
-Kim Gos
I think Randy Thomas is right, you have to think about what you are more committed to as a person. When it comes down to it, my integrity is all I really have. The principal may take my job, and my mom and my kid might die either way. I wouldn't place much value in myself as a human being if I let my fear corrupt my integrity. Creationism is a religious myth, not science. I respect the dedication that some people have to their religion and its beliefs, but the public education system in this country is not intended to teach religion. Science teachers teach science.
I firmly believe in TOE which means theory of every thing.people have the right to know TOE be it evolution or creationism.
Contemplating on the issue and deciding on the subject must be open to every learner.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home