"Teachers first, scientists second"

[Skwim]

"That is one of the disquieting results of a new survey, Enablers of doubt, by Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer. The two Penn State professors interviewed a total of 35 students on 4 Pennsylvania campuses in 2013. All the students were training to be biology teachers; many were not comfortable with the theory of evolution, and many were “concerned about their ability to navigate controversy initiated by a student, parent, administrator, or other members of the community.” Indeed, instead of relying on their knowledge of biology, they intended to fall back on classroom-management techniques to deal with creationist students. Notably, these were not education students, but rather biology students who “take a set of required courses in educational psychology, classroom management, and methods of instruction.” Their lack of expertise in science seems not to concern them; to the contrary, they thought they would use their skills at avoiding controversy to avoid any controversies.

[Panda's Thumb] readers may remember Professors Berkman and Plutzer for their book, Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America’s Classrooms, which we reviewed here a few years ago. The disquieting conclusion of that book was that only about 28 % of biology teachers actually teach evolution according to recognized standards. The present study may help explain why."
source​

How very sad.

 

[Nietzsche]

sigh

Education is about dispelling superstition and ignorance, not treating it with kid-gloves. But because of the throngs of the willfully ignorant & painfully stupid we're no longer teaching. We're forced to coddle them out of misplaced respect for something that doesn't deserve it.

You want to teach Creationism in Science(though it defies the very name) class? Fine. Open up your churches so we can teach Evolution there. You don't get to have your way because you like to think you're special.

 

[Quintessence]

How is relying on sound pedagogy - which applies to teaching all subjects - "sad?"

How is being troubled by having to teach a subject that is going to breed conflict in a classroom "sad?"

 

[Orbit]

It's simply a lack of teaching experience that you're hearing. Having taught anthropology at the university level, I can tell you there are pedagogical ways to avoid religious conflict when teaching evolution. One is simply to lay out that there are 3 epistemologies: religious, philosophical, and scientific, and to say in this class we are using the scientific epistemology. Works like a charm. You're not denying their beliefs, you're saying "we're taking the scientific point of view in this class". I have never had a problem with a creationist in class after setting the tone like that.

 

[Skwim]

How is relying on sound pedagogy - which applies to teaching all subjects - "sad?"

How is being troubled by having to teach a subject that is going to breed conflict in a classroom "sad?"

Obviously you miss the point entirely, and I'm in no mood to set you straight. Perhaps someone else here will step up to the plate and explain.

Any takers?

 

[Skwim]

It's simply a lack of teaching experience that you're hearing. Having taught anthropology at the university level, I can tell you there are pedagogical ways to avoid religious conflict when teaching evolution. One is simply to lay out that there are 3 epistemologies: religious, philosophical, and scientific, and to say in this class we are using the scientific epistemology. Works like a charm. You're not denying their beliefs, you're saying "we're taking the scientific point of view in this class". I have never had a problem with a creationist in class after setting the tone like that.

Nice approach.

 

[Nietzsche]

Obviously you miss the point entirely, and I'm in no mood to set you straight. Perhaps someone else here will step up to the plate and explain.

Any takers?

I'll go for it.

How is relying on sound pedagogy - which applies to teaching all subjects - "sad?"

How is being troubled by having to teach a subject that is going to breed conflict in a classroom "sad?"

Because this conflict exists ONLY in the uneducated portions of society. The only controversies that exist in science regarding evolution are debates on mechanics and details. That's it. However, because of a bunch of mouth-breathing morons there is this notion that evolution is "Controversial". It's not. The science classroom is NOT the place to air Creationist dribble, because it's not science.

I'm with Bill Nye. Teaching Creationism is child abuse.

 

[suncowiam]

Here's a slittle snippert of Bill Nye's argument:

"In the video, which has garnered nearly three million views on YouTube thus far, Nye says that while America is the world leader in science and technology, “when you have a portion of the population that doesn't believe” in the theory of evolution, but hold faithfully to creationism, 'it holds everybody back.'"

From: “Science Guy” Attacks Parents Who Teach Children Creation "Story"

I agree with this ten fold.

When was the last time religion actually built technology that everyone uses? What of any religious doctrines are actual foundations for our current technologies? As I've stated before, religion will not find a cure for diseases. It will not create new technologies.

Religion trying to mask as science is, frankly, dangerous to society. Religious notions like creationism will hamper true innovation and stagnate our growth.

 

[MD]

jj

 

[Bunyip]

How is relying on sound pedagogy - which applies to teaching all subjects - "sad?"

How is being troubled by having to teach a subject that is going to breed conflict in a classroom "sad?"

Because that the 'conflict' exists at all is a deliberate political fraud. It is a scam, a con - a lie told in the knowledge that it is a lie to deliberately subvert the US education system. (See: The Wedge Strategy)

 

[Skwim]

Because that the 'conflict' exists at all is a deliberate political fraud. It is a scam, a con - a lie told in the knowledge that it is a lie to deliberately subvert the US education system. (See: The Wedge Strategy)

Thanks for reminding us about this subversive and deplorable Intelligent Design/creationism scheme.

The Wikipedia article on the Wedge Strategy.

The Wedge Strategy itself.​

 

[Bunyip]

Thanks for reminding us about this subversive and deplorable Intelligent Design/creationism scheme.

The Wikipedia article on the Wedge Strategy.

The Wedge Strategy itself.​

Yes, that this is a deliberate fraud is not emphasised enough. Cheers.

 

[Faybull]

Question, if the study and application of the design or ordered chaos that exists in nature, takes intelligence, to study, etc..., doesn't that mean that the ordered chaos, or randomness if you will, follows its own set of defined law/s, and with that mean that perhaps we are intelligent creatures, as mankind...but far less intelligent than the law/s that are defined in nature? Or are scientists just dumb for studying it?

 

[Faybull]

Question, if the study and application of the design or ordered chaos that exists in nature, takes intelligence, to study, etc..., doesn't that mean that the ordered chaos, or randomness if you will, follows its own set of defined law/s, and with that mean that perhaps we are intelligent creatures, as mankind...but far less intelligent than the law/s that are defined in nature? Or are scientists just dumb for studying it?

JUts seems to me that nature exhibits alot of behaviors that are worth studying, and if those with the ability to study it have the intelligence required to study it, that what we are studying is the pursuit of intelligence. because what we are studying is intelligent.

 

[Faybull]

JUts seems to me that nature exhibits alot of behaviors that are worth studying, and if those with the ability to study it have the intelligence required to study it, that what we are studying is the pursuit of intelligence. because what we are studying is intelligent.

such as: well h2o boils, to condense at a specified degree of some law we have classified by a name.

 

[Faybull]

such as: well h2o boils, to condense at a specified degree of some law we have classified by a name.

at certain altitudes, that law is redefined, but by the parameters unknown to us before.

 

[suncowiam]

Thanks for reminding us about this subversive and deplorable Intelligent Design/creationism scheme.

The Wikipedia article on the Wedge Strategy.

The Wedge Strategy itself.​

Wow. I didn't realize how systematic this was. I'm even more disgusted now.

 

[suncowiam]

Question, if the study and application of the design or ordered chaos that exists in nature, takes intelligence, to study, etc..., doesn't that mean that the ordered chaos, or randomness if you will, follows its own set of defined law/s, and with that mean that perhaps we are intelligent creatures, as mankind...but far less intelligent than the law/s that are defined in nature? Or are scientists just dumb for studying it?

JUts seems to me that nature exhibits alot of behaviors that are worth studying, and if those with the ability to study it have the intelligence required to study it, that what we are studying is the pursuit of intelligence. because what we are studying is intelligent.

such as: well h2o boils, to condense at a specified degree of some law we have classified by a name.

at certain altitudes, that law is redefined, but by the parameters unknown to us before.

Not sure why you need four different posts to convey a single message. And even then, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[Faybull]

I was being specific about people think they are smarter than they really are.

 

[Bunyip]

Wow. I didn't realize how systematic this was. I'm even more disgusted now.

This is something that needs to be made more known. Charges should be laid and the DI prosecuted for fraud on a grand scale.