Any science teachers out there?

[judanne]

Absurd as the situation may be, if it comes to pass that science teachers are forced to teach ID in their science classes, how might you handle the situation (presuming you're not an anti-evolution type creationist)? Could this be seen as an opportunity to completely discredit ID or would the nuances of both evolutionary science and the ID claptrap even be understood by the average middle or high school kid?

I'm a little skeptical of the average kid's ability to fully comprehend either the science involved or the ID arguments. I opted not to teach in the public school system, but do work as a science educator in a public museum. I've seen that blank look of incomprehension on the faces of many (adult and children alike) while talking about even the simplest of scientific concepts.

The only way I could ever envision complying with such a request (to teach ID in a science class) would be to thoroughly debunk the nonsense. Of course, I'd probably be fired within a week too.

[Gooch's dad]

I would hope that by the time any ID laws came to pass here in Wisconsin, I would have tenure. And I would simply refuse to teach about ID. At most, I would say "ID is the nonscientific claim that some living organisms were designed by some designer, which ID'ists actually want to be the Christian God. There is no evidence for this claim, and that is the extent to which we will study Intelligent Design"

I'll probably end up teaching physics, so it isn't likely to come up. I might have to teach a freshman or middle-school general science course. The issue might come up in a class like that.

[badger3k]

Absurd as the situation may be, if it comes to pass that science teachers are forced to teach ID in their science classes, how might you handle the situation (presuming you're not an anti-evolution type creationist)? Could this be seen as an opportunity to completely discredit ID or would the nuances of both evolutionary science and the ID claptrap even be understood by the average middle or high school kid?

I'm a little skeptical of the average kid's ability to fully comprehend either the science involved or the ID arguments. I opted not to teach in the public school system, but do work as a science educator in a public museum. I've seen that blank look of incomprehension on the faces of many (adult and children alike) while talking about even the simplest of scientific concepts.

The only way I could ever envision complying with such a request (to teach ID in a science class) would be to thoroughly debunk the nonsense. Of course, I'd probably be fired within a week too.

I'm currently working towards certification to teach here in Texas, although it looks like that will be on hold for a year until I can get a job (note - they want Chemistry not Biology in Texas, at least this year). If this came up, I would have to do my responsibility, and use the time to show that there is no controversy, and that the claims of ID are vapid and nonexistent in reality. Obviously, it would have to be scaled to the audience - some concepts and ideas would get mentioned, but I might not go into real depth because the students would be out of their league. However, one of the problems we face is when we encounter students who aren't prepared for the concepts, and we (as teachers) can't skimp and gloss over that - we have to ensure comprehension, and if that means remedial teaching, then that is what we have to do.

From talking with teachers here in my area, there currently is no problem with evolution. That may be because I live in a military town where a good portion of the students are more cosmopolitan. Other areas might not be so intelligent (Odessa, anyone?).

[judanne]

I'll probably end up teaching physics, so it isn't likely to come up.
At the moment, I am teaching about the physical properties of water - surface tension, cohesion, adhesion, capillary action, etc. I too thought that the subject of evolution or abiogenesis wouldn't likely come up. I was wrong. Not too long ago, a couple of xtian academies had a school trip to the museum. There I was, happily doing experiments with the kids (middle school age) when out of the blue, one of the xtian teachers burst into a very loud and theatrical diatribe about the big bang theory, ending with "and we don't believe that baloney do we kids?" She was glaring at me and obviously trying to bait me or engage me in some argument about it. To their credit, there was no resounding chorus of "no mam" from the kids who simply looked distracted and confused at her interruption. I completely ignored her, continuing on with the water science lesson that the kids seemed to be enjoying and were fairly attentive. When I didn't bite, the teacher simply demanded that the kids move on to another part of the museum leaving their experiments and my explanation incomplete. She looked fairly irritated when she left. It was pretty bizarre and definitely unexpected.

[Non-praying Mantis]

I am a science teacher, but I am currently out of work.

If I was forced to discuss ID in the classroom (fortunately this has never come up before since I have only taught college age students), I would discuss the basic hypothesis, and then discuss/show evidence to the contrary which suggested that the hypothesis was incorrect. Plus, I would explain the religious and political base for ID and how it has nothing to do with actual science.

NPM

[judanne]

If this came up, I would have to do my responsibility, and use the time to show that there is no controversy, and that the claims of ID are vapid and nonexistent in reality. That would be my inclination too, but do you as a public school teacher have the freedom to do that? I have visions of irate parents marching down to the school to complain. Would your job be at risk because of something like that? Like you, I live in a very religious southern state and while my job doesn't entail discussing either evolution or cosmology, I often get the impression that controversy avoidance (don't piss off the funding sources) is the deciding factor in what exhibits and programs are offered. Even in casual conversations with patrons, the unspoken rule is to avoid the "E" word or anything remotely controversial. Sad but true.

[whichphilosophy]

That would be my inclination too, but do you as a public school teacher have the freedom to do that? I have visions of irate parents marching down to the school to complain. Would your job be at risk because of something like that? Like you, I live in a very religious southern state and while my job doesn't entail discussing either evolution or cosmology, I often get the impression that controversy avoidance (don't piss off the funding sources) is the deciding factor in what exhibits and programs are offered. Even in casual conversations with patrons, the unspoken rule is to avoid the "E" word or anything remotely contraversial. Sad but true.

As I mentioned earlier that the seperation of Church and State are a good thing,if the parents want to study a particular subject then why not let their children do so.

I only think that Maths and English should be compulsory and the rest optional.

Regards,

[judanne]

As I mentioned earlier that the seperation of Church and State are a good thing,if the parents want to study a particular subject then why not let their children do so.

I only think that Maths and English should be compulsory and the rest optional.

Regards,
Unfortunately, that line separating the church and state, despite being ensconced in the constitution, is a little blurry at the moment, at least where I live right now.

Why just math and English? Our public school system attempts to provide introductory instruction in many subjects. In high school, there are compulsory subjects and some electives. Post-secondary education is often more specialized. I think this way allows kids to make academic and career choices a little later in life. For example, all my 16 year old stepson envisions for himself right now is becoming a rap or movie star. Pretty typical fantasizing for teenagers here in North America. I like that he has to learn about a variety of subjects, you know, just in case he changes his mind ;)

[Dorje]

I teach physics, so the chances of IDC creeping into my curriculum is slim in comparison with biology. But if it ever did come to pass that IDC had to be incorporated into the physics curriculum somehow, I would outright refuse to do so. I would use the same strategy employed by the Dover science teachers: it would be professionally unethical for me to introduce IDC in science class:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/PA/304_dover_teachers_refuse_to_read__1_7_2005.asp

[Ergaster]

Well, I'm a new science teacher, who doesn't yet have a job.

OTOH I will be teaching in Ontario, where hopefully in my teaching career the issue will never arise.

However, if I had to, I would probably try to use it as part of a lesson/discussion on the evidentiary nature of science, tailored to whatever age group I'd be teaching. Older kids (high school) could be given a project: have them research ID and non-ID evidence for some example, and present the evidence.

We know what the result of that will be. :)

Younger kids (i.e between Grades 6 to 8), I probably wouldn't bother to bring it up. They have a hard enough time with basic ideas, and there is enough flexibility in the curriculum to be able to ignore certain stuff.

[badger3k]

That would be my inclination too, but do you as a public school teacher have the freedom to do that? I have visions of irate parents marching down to the school to complain. Would your job be at risk because of something like that? Like you, I live in a very religious southern state and while my job doesn't entail discussing either evolution or cosmology, I often get the impression that controversy avoidance (don't piss off the funding sources) is the deciding factor in what exhibits and programs are offered. Even in casual conversations with patrons, the unspoken rule is to avoid the "E" word or anything remotely controversial. Sad but true.

It really depends on your school, and how serious the administration is about education. Teaching evolution is part of our standards, and is part of the statewide tests all students have to take (it's part of the test I had to take as well). It boils down to what you are willing to teach and how - there are ways of showing the idiocy of the ID "science" through teaching good science, without being insulting about it. That's a big part of it, as well as making sure that you explain it so that the kids understand. Of course, anytime you teach anything you risk fallout from parents, But as Dorje said, it would be unprofessional and unethical to teach anything else, so I would take that chance. We have an obligation to give the students the best education they can receive, and to do less is criminal. Obviously, I haven't had that chance yet, but if it comes up I've considered ways of teaching it.

[judanne]

I like the response of the Dover science teachers. It seems very sensible. One can only hope that the students don't take the administrators spiel too seriously. I agree, teaching real science and fostering a deeper understanding of evolution is the best defence. In a high school context, I expect students would have enough maturity and background to understand the issues, but is this ID junk also intended for middle school classrooms as well? Yikes.

[judanne]

OTOH I will be teaching in Ontario, My home and native province too. The "bible belt" has been a real cultural shock for me. I doubt it will come up any time soon in Ontario, but be wary, Stephen Harper and his small band of theocrats are on the federal march up there too.

[Ergaster]

My home and native province too. The "bible belt" has been a real cultural shock for me. I doubt it will come up any time soon in Ontario, but be wary, Stephen Harper and his small band of theocrats are on the federal march up there too.

At the moment they appear to be marching in place. At any rate, I think if Harper is to survive he has to make sure that the wingnuts are out of the party, or at least completely muzzled and tied up in the backyard where no-one can see them.

Anyway, school curricula are a provincial matter, and I doubt the teacher's unions and associated organizations would ever allow that kind of rampant nonsense in, no matter what the local government might want.

I can't imagine what it must be like to teach science in the US. Heck, from what I can see, American teachers are not paid half of what they should be to have to put up with what they have to.

But just my CA$0.02

:D

[judanne]

At the moment they appear to be marching in place.
I'd feel better if they were marching backward. Say I heard some rumblings not long ago about the mindboggling possibility of an electoral alliance with the BlocQ. Tell me it ain't so. I'm trying to imagine what form this cooperation would take and I'm not getting any picture.
I can't imagine what it must be like to teach science in the US
As a public school teacher I can't imagine, as a public science educator in a non-profit it can entail frequent blank stares of incomprehension, listless wandering of attention, smug indifference, outright avoidance, defiant destruction or hostility. It's not all bad though. There are a few bright lights out there too. Today I had a sizeable group of primary age kids that were just amazing - interested, attentive, inquisitive, talkative, happy and friendly. In short, grade two kids that exhibited more focus, intelligence and intuitive understanding than many of the older kids and most of the adults.

[badger3k]

As a public school teacher I can't imagine, as a public science educator in a non-profit it can entail frequent blank stares of incomprehension, listless wandering of attention, smug indifference, outright avoidance, defiant destruction or hostility. It's not all bad though. There are a few bright lights out there too. Today I had a sizeable group of primary age kids that were just amazing - interested, attentive, inquisitive, talkative, happy and friendly. In short, grade two kids that exhibited more focus, intelligence and intuitive understanding than many of the older kids and most of the adults.

We had a student-teaching course, with 2 weeks of 3-hr classes. My group of 4 worked with kids ages 9-12, and they were fantastic. When asked what they liked the best, my classes were it, and they all wanted to have me as their teacher. They had fun and they learned. I tried to get into natural selection, but it was a bit beyond them (for the time I could teach), but they understood the basics of adaptations, mutations, and genes. The youngest one was the one who had heard about recessive and dominant genes, as well. They gave me hope.

We'll see if I can get a class now - I have two interviews tomorrow, one for high school and one for 8th grade. Hopefully I will have a class with similar views - if not, I'll have to work a little harder. :)

[Supersonic 77]

My home and native province too. The "bible belt" has been a real cultural shock for me. I doubt it will come up any time soon in Ontario, but be wary, Stephen Harper and his small band of theocrats are on the federal march up there too.
Strangely enough this was discussed earlier in another thread--Stephen Harper believes in evolution, and when Stockwell Day's beliefs about creationism were made public, the media raked him through the coals over it.

[Kotter]

I work privately as a maths/physics tutor, but sometimes have students for junior science. One school does "teach the controversy" (no prizes for guessing it is a Christian school), and creationism (OEC) does come up. I have only seen it a few times, but have just mentioned that creationism is religion, not science, and leave it at that. (Haven't had a problem yet.) Just state your case quietly and clearly, and tell them you aren't bashing their religion, but there is no evidence for it, regardless of what the fundies say.

[travc]

I have only TAed sections of intro college bio. But I did include a little discussion of the nature of scientific knowledge and the very sailient point that, even if you don't think it is really the TRUTH, evolution provides a coherent framework to understand biology (especially paleobiology, "tree of life", and characteristics of different phyla/classes/familes). Got not a single argument, and I know I had a least one fundy in the class.

Forcing teaching ID is really stupid. ID has no cohrent thought to it, so how can you teach it? Anyway, I could imagine spending a few minutes doing the famous back of the envalope calculations on the probability of a bacterial cell to arise de-novo (or an eye or some other "irreducbly complex structure")... then spend the rest of the class showing how the process of evolution gets around creating anything de-novo and thus can create complex structures.

Spending a class on the nature of science and scientific "truth" is also time well spent IMO. Beats the hell out of the stupid "scientific process in 5 easy steps" or whatever it was that I remeber for school.


.... However ... I imagine that should ID be forced into the cirriculum, teachers will be given as little leyway as possible in how they approch it. Many teachers will probably be reduced to reading (or at least hading out) some provided material. Of course, it will have to be added into the testing material too, which means that student will have to regurgitate some memorized "facts" from whatever material is provided. A sure fire way to make sure the teachers don't deviate from the material, since their student would then miss the absurd test questions on it.

[judanne]

Strangely enough this was discussed earlier in another thread--Stephen Harper believes in evolution, and when Stockwell Day's beliefs about creationism were made public, the media raked him through the coals over it.
I don't want to derail here. Has Harper said publicly that he supports evolution? If there is a link to such a statement I haven't been able to find it.

[judanne]

.... However ... I imagine that should ID be forced into the cirriculum, teachers will be given as little leyway as possible in how they approch it. Many teachers will probably be reduced to reading (or at least hading out) some provided material.
That was my concern, though the Dover teachers have a very good argument regarding their professional ethics.