"Teachers first, scientists second"

[Skwim]

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

Here on RF it was pretty well discussed in the fall of 2010 through the summer of 2011. As for prosecuting for fraud, I believe one would have to show damages of some kind. But I certainly support your sentiment; it's a despicable organization that deserves to be wiped clean.

 

[Nietzsche]

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.

But it isn't "intelligent". It shows no signs of any kind of "direction". It simply is. If what you are saying were true, water would boil at the same temperature regardless of altitude/pressure, because the desired outcome of 'boiling water' is an ends, and eventually a means for something. There would be no need for such a varied set of circumstances involving pressure, oxygen content, what have you. An intelligence would design it just to boil. Cut out the middle man.

 

[Quintessence]

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)

That's nice. That's not the conflict I was talking about, nor am I convinced that's the conflict the article (the actual peer-reveiewed article, not the non-authority, side show commentary in that blog Skwim linked to) was talking about.

Obviously, there is no controversy over the science (with respect to the relevant experts). There is however (and equally obviously), controversy over teaching evolution in my country. I would hardly blame any prospective high school biology teacher for being nervous about teaching information deemed controversial by their students (or worse, their parents). It takes sound pedagogy and good conflict management skills to deal with that, both of which are absent or undeveloped in the target sample population of the study (which, remember, are currently students themselves!). I'd be damned surprised if results from a study like that came out differently - even mid-career and mature teachers would understandably be concerned and frustrated about the crap they have to deal with if they happen to teach information students or parents deem controversial. It comes up in sex education as well, for example, or can come up when history classes touch on the topic of race.

 

[Bunyip]

That's nice. That's not the conflict I was talking about, nor am I convinced that's the conflict the article (the actual peer-reveiewed article, not the non-authority, side show commentary in that blog Skwim linked to) was talking about.

Obviously, there is no controversy over the science (with respect to the relevant experts). There is however (and equally obviously), controversy over teaching evolution in my country. I would hardly blame any prospective high school biology teacher for being nervous about teaching information deemed controversial by their students (or worse, their parents). It takes sound pedagogy and good conflict management skills to deal with that, both of which are absent or undeveloped in the target sample population of the study (which, remember, are currently students themselves!). I'd be damned surprised if results from a study like that came out differently - even mid-career and mature teachers would understandably be concerned and frustrated about the crap they have to deal with if they happen to teach information students or parents deem controversial. It comes up in sex education as well, for example, or can come up when history classes touch on the topic of race.

Evolution is not controversial, that there is a controversy is a deliberate political fraud that was exposed some years ago. What the parents think is controversial should have no impact on what science class teaches whatsoever. In your examples of sex education, and history it is equally vital to resist allowing parental concerns to interfere with education. School is about giving kids the best education we can, often despite their parents.

 

[Quintessence]

Evolution is not controversial, that there is a controversy is a deliberate political fraud that was exposed some years ago. What the parents think is controversial should have no impact on what science class teaches whatsoever. In your examples of sex education, and history it is equally vital to resist allowing parental concerns to interfere with education. School is about giving kids the best education we can, often despite their parents.

Okay.

Take a step off the soapbox for a moment and listen, because you seem to be entirely missing the point of what I'm getting at. Whether you like or not, and whether I like it or not, the current "controversy" surrounding teaching evolution is off-putting to the handful of prospective biology teachers interviewed by the study. That's it. That's all the quotes from the actual study say, assuming they're accurate. Go read that last post again. When not standing on the soapbox.

I don't find it even remotely "sad" that these prospective biology teachers are nervous about dealing with "controversy" in the classroom, or that they feel comfortable relying on what they learned for sound pedagogy. I find that to be a perfectly normal, human response to dealing with conflict. Is it sad that this happens over this specific issue? I suppose. But their responses to it as human beings? Not even remotely sad and entirely understandable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Because religious mythos have no place in a science class.

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

Because instead of using facts to firmly state their position, to assert what the facts are, to teach what it is that science teaches, they are cowering to the herd and letting the will to ignorance brake them.
Science is not the place for superstitions, stories, and picking a god out of a hat and saying that one done it.

 

[Quintessence]

Because religious mythos have no place in a science class.

Because instead of using facts to firmly state their position, to assert what the facts are, to teach what it is that science teaches, they are cowering to the herd and letting the will to ignorance brake them.
Science is not the place for superstitions, stories, and picking a god out of a hat and saying that one done it.

Okay. None of this has much to do with the point I'm trying to make.

Can you guys quit preaching to the choir already? Seriously.

 

[Me Myself]

Evolution is not controversial, that there is a controversy is a deliberate political fraud that was exposed some years ago. What the parents think is controversial should have no impact on what science class teaches whatsoever. In your examples of sex education, and history it is equally vital to resist allowing parental concerns to interfere with education. School is about giving kids the best education we can, often despite their parents.

It IS controversial on the demographic you ae speaking though. Controversial doesnt mean it is not scientifically sound. Heck, it doesnt even mean its not obvious. It just means that to the GROUP BEING DISCUSSED its controversial. to THAT group is not obvious, and even the opposite point is obvious to them.


I think the best approach was said to he who said "there are several versions of this and we are taking the scientific view of the situation for this class". Even that could be controversial a bit, but way less so and manageable enough. From his experience, it works like a charm, so there.

This students very well SHOULD be taught how to deal with such issues, but the point Quint made was that they ARE students. Still learning themselves. Pretending THEIR students are learnbots with no beliefs of their own (however ill foundd or wrong they may be) would be, in itself, unprofessional, and to be unconscious how to manage or unconscious of the seriousness of managing the beliefs of their classrooms on this delicate matters, would be both unprofessional and downright stupid of em.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Okay. None of this has much to do with the point I'm trying to make.

Yes, it does. These teachers are not just teachers but biology teachers. They need to just get over it and do the responsible thing and teach students how evolution is scientific fact, and leave creationism out of it.

This students very well SHOULD be taught how to deal with such issues, but the point Quint made was that they ARE students.

The only "proper way" to deal with the "issue" is to teach science and not religious mythos. If a student insists, the only appropriate thing to do is to teach that student so they understand why creationism does not hold up as a science theory and how evolution has a mountain of evidence to support and how this evidence works to support it. If the "issue" is handled properly and is successful the teach will have the students shedding their fairytale believes and replacing them with scientific knowledge.

 

[Me Myself]

The only "proper way" to deal with the "issue" is to teach science and not religious mythos.

If you think the students cannot hijack someones class with religious fervor and allegations of "ignoring the science of ID" then you are adorable.

Its not about them not teaching the science, its about accepting it takes pedagogical skills to avoid the political issue about that specific part of science.

The kid starts talking about adam and Eve, you say he is interrupting the class. Eventually you send him out of the class. He tells his parents, parents go to principals office, others agree with students, they say you didnt managed the thing with facts, etc , etc, etc.

It can degenerate. Fast.

If you think its merely "this are the facts, surely truth will reign over politics" then... well then how on Earth is there a controversy in the first place? No. truth does not just de facto win over politics. You actually have to learn how to deal with the issue to give a proper class and so that the time is spent teaching and students actually learn.

No one is saying they shouldnt teach evolution. What its being said, is that its expectable than STUDENTS who are not yet well equipped with the PEDAGOGICAL tools will try and dodge the hard part.

 

[Nietzsche]

It IS controversial on the demographic you ae speaking though. Controversial doesnt mean it is not scientifically sound. Heck, it doesnt even mean its not obvious. It just means that to the GROUP BEING DISCUSSED its controversial. to THAT group is not obvious, and even the opposite point is obvious to them.


I think the best approach was said to he who said "there are several versions of this and we are taking the scientific view of the situation for this class". Even that could be controversial a bit, but way less so and manageable enough. From his experience, it works like a charm, so there.

This students very well SHOULD be taught how to deal with such issues, but the point Quint made was that they ARE students. Still learning themselves. Pretending THEIR students are learnbots with no beliefs of their own (however ill foundd or wrong they may be) would be, in itself, unprofessional, and to be unconscious how to manage or unconscious of the seriousness of managing the beliefs of their classrooms on this delicate matters, would be both unprofessional and downright stupid of em.

But I don't care.

Let's switch the area to something I'm far more acquainted with. History. The argument now is discussing the Holocaust with children whos' parents are Holocaust Denialists. You know, the lowest form of man on the planet. It is not my job to coddle those who are brought up, or believe, absolute garbage. Their parents are the problem, no doubt, but that doesn't mean I'm going to tolerate an interruption because the individual believes it's a Jewish Hoax.

That's what Creationism is. It's the Biological equivalent of Holocaust Denial.

 

[Me Myself]

But I don't care.

Let's switch the area to something I'm far more acquainted with. History. The argument now is discussing the Holocaust with children whos' parents are Holocaust Denialists. You know, the lowest form of man on the planet. It is not my job to coddle those who are brought up, or believe, absolute garbage. Their parents are the problem, no doubt, but that doesn't mean I'm going to tolerate an interruption because the individual believes it's a Jewish Hoax.

That's what Creationism is. It's the Biological equivalent of Holocaust Denial.

There is nowhere near the amount of controversy on the holocaust than on evolution.

I am also not telling you whats you job. I am merely saying that I understand someone might be frightened to deal with one of the hardest subjects when it comes to pedagoging skills.

Did I understand something incorrectly or are we talking about people that are not truly teachers, but are being sent to teach?

 

[Nietzsche]

There is nowhere near the amount of controversy on the holocaust than on evolution.

I am also not telling you whats you job. I am merely saying that I understand someone might be frightened to deal with one of the hardest subjects when it comes to pedagoging skills.

Did I understand something incorrectly or are we talking about people that are not truly teachers, but are being sent to teach?

The article is about the issues to-be teachers have with teaching a subject only controversial amongst the illiterate. But the discussion is about where said teachers-to-be may find themselves, and what kind of society we'll find ourselves in, should they let their fear get in the way of their duty as educators.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The kid starts talking about adam and Eve, you say he is interrupting the class. Eventually you send him out of the class. He tells his parents, parents go to principals office, others agree with students, they say you didnt managed the thing with facts, etc , etc, etc.

I wouldn't send him outside of the class. Instead, I would be presenting on how we know, for sure, beyond any shadow of a doubt, there was no Adam and Eve.
If junior cries to his parents, oh well. A proper education cannot be sensitive to personal beliefs when those personal beliefs are false. A grammar curriculum and grading will not allow for things like double negatives and ending a sentence with a preposition, why should a science curriculum have anything that isn't science?
And, no, ID is NOT science. There is absolutely nothing concrete to support the idea of a creator, and tons of reasons on why this "design" is not so very intelligent.

 

[Me Myself]

The article is about the issues to-be teachers have with teaching a subject only controversial amongst the illiterate. But the discussion is about where said teachers-to-be may find themselves, and what kind of society we'll find ourselves in, should they let their fear get in the way of their duty as educators.

Wether its controversial because they are illiterate has little to do with why they are uncomfortable about teaching it.

Surely they shouldnt let their fear prevent them from teaching it, but almost any human would feel uncomfortable teaching as fact a subject with this kind of controversy (not bevause it is legitimate controversy, but simply because there is controversy and many wont like it)

If you are a teacher and you are not uncomfortable about this and are awesome at dealing with it, then kudos to you! by all means have the best of lucks as you advice the teachers to be on how to handle this subjects

 

[Me Myself]

I wouldn't send him outside of the class. Instead, I would be presenting on how we know, for sure, beyond any shadow of a doubt, there was no Adam and Eve.
If junior cries to his parents, oh well. A proper education cannot be sensitive to personal beliefs when those personal beliefs are false. A grammar curriculum and grading will not allow for things like double negatives and ending a sentence with a preposition, why should a science curriculum have anything that isn't science?
And, no, ID is NOT science. There is absolutely nothing concrete to support the idea of a creator, and tons of reasons on why this "design" is not so very intelligent.

I agree is not science, but whether you like it or not, there are a lot of convincing orators. No, they wont convince me or you but they DO convince.

So many or most teachers could feel intimidated on their class becoming a debating ground against hir. Even when you have reason and logic on your side, truly, do you honestly expect people to be reasonable and logic always? we know it doesnt work llike that most of the time.

 

[Bunyip]

It IS controversial on the demographic you ae speaking though. Controversial doesnt mean it is not scientifically sound. Heck, it doesnt even mean its not obvious. It just means that to the GROUP BEING DISCUSSED its controversial. to THAT group is not obvious, and even the opposite point is obvious to them.


I think the best approach was said to he who said "there are several versions of this and we are taking the scientific view of the situation for this class". Even that could be controversial a bit, but way less so and manageable enough. From his experience, it works like a charm, so there.

This students very well SHOULD be taught how to deal with such issues, but the point Quint made was that they ARE students. Still learning themselves. Pretending THEIR students are learnbots with no beliefs of their own (however ill foundd or wrong they may be) would be, in itself, unprofessional, and to be unconscious how to manage or unconscious of the seriousness of managing the beliefs of their classrooms on this delicate matters, would be both unprofessional and downright stupid of em.

No. Pretending that there is anything controversial about evolution is unprofessional and stupid. It is not a delicate matter, it is established scientific fact and has been so for more than 150 years.

 

[Bunyip]

Okay.

Take a step off the soapbox for a moment and listen,

No mate. If you want to be rude and insulting - I'm not going to even bother reading the rest of your comment. I'm not on a soapbox, and don't need to listen to you at all.

because you seem to be entirely missing the point of what I'm getting at. Whether you like or not, and whether I like it or not, the current "controversy" surrounding teaching evolution is off-putting to the handful of prospective biology teachers interviewed by the study. That's it. That's all the quotes from the actual study say, assuming they're accurate. Go read that last post again. When not standing on the soapbox.

I don't find it even remotely "sad" that these prospective biology teachers are nervous about dealing with "controversy" in the classroom, or that they feel comfortable relying on what they learned for sound pedagogy. I find that to be a perfectly normal, human response to dealing with conflict. Is it sad that this happens over this specific issue? I suppose. But their responses to it as human beings? Not even remotely sad and entirely understandable.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I agree is not science, but whether you like it or not, there are a lot of convincing orators.

They are not convincing. There is really just the issue of bad education in America, and this bad education does partly revolve around the fact people are scared to teach facts because they are scared of the herd.

Even when you have reason and logic on your side, truly, do you honestly expect people to be reasonable and logic always?

I know not everyone is. However, this does not mean teachers should be afraid to teach evolution. This "controversy" does not exist outside of science, teachers need to stand up instead of cower, and America must, if by force then so be it, run every last trace of religious mythos out of a science class room. The more teachers cower over the subject, the longer it will take to correct the error of this "controversy."

 

[Quintessence]

So... basically you guys are saying that these poor prospective biology teachers (who are currently students themselves) shouldn't feel what they're feeling?

Apologies, but that strikes me as pretty insensitive.

Also, it would remain to be seen how they actually handle the issue in practice. Based on the data, we simply don't know how this fear will actually impact their teaching. Self-report answers have some pretty strong limitations, guys.