students equating evolution with creationism ... ugh (literacy, high school, best, religious studies)

[karen_in_nh_2012]

Yeah, OK, I admit my bias. I think that anyone who believes in "creationism" is deluded and probably not that bright ... but I can ignore them if they at least admit that "creationism" is religion.

(And no, I would never say anything remotely close to "You are deluded and not that bright" to a student -- I am not THAT rude or mean-spirited.)

In one of my classes this semester, we were discussing textbook policies and looked at what several states have done. For example, in Louisiana (IIRC), the legislature had basically said that any class that discussed evolution (which, of course, would normally be a SCIENCE class) would also have to say "it's just a theory" and then discuss creationism as well -- as if they were the same and on equal footing scientifically. I don't even know what to SAY to legislators who would pass such a thing, except that they are idiots.

One of my students said, "Well, evolution is just a theory, the same as creationism is a theory." I stopped him right there and said, "You're using 'theory' in 2 different ways. 'Theory' in the scientific sense, as in the 'theory' of evolution, is not the same as the way we sometimes use the word 'theory' in everyday life." Note, I also very specifically said, "Of course you can believe anything you want in the name of religion, and I would never tell you not to and I would not call you stupid or anything else. But you CAN'T say that a religious 'theory' like creationism is the same, scientifically speaking, as the theory of evolution, because it's just not."

One Catholic student said she didn't "believe" in evolution, she "believes" in Adam and Eve. I told her that of course she could believe that, but added that the Catholic church had actually acknowledged that it was fine for Catholics to "believe" in evolution as they believe it can be reconciled with their teachings, but she had apparently never heard of this.

Note, again, we were talking about what should be taught in SCIENCE class. Not religion or world history or ethics class or anything else. SCIENCE class.

I knew I would get reamed on the course evaluations by some students in the class, and I did. (Oh, well.) But I also got one eval that went into detail about how I discussed the difference between religious beliefs and what should be taught in a SCIENCE class -- sadly, this student was the only one who acknowledged that we were talking about SCIENCE during that class conversation.

Clearly I need to figure out how to teach all this in a "nicer" way, while at the same time not allowing a student to go unchallenged when he equates "creationism" with "evolution" as if they are both scientific theories. I'm just pretty clueless as to how to do this (and I've been teaching at the college level for more than 20 years now).

(And BTW, the students often assumed that they knew my point of view on things, even when they really didn't -- i.e., I would ask them to think critically about a particular person's point of view, even if I did not agree with it. The point was CRITICAL THINKING, not indoctrination. I never shared my own point of view unless a student specifically asked, and even then it would only be at the END of the conversation, not at the beginning.)

[gravooms]

Imo it's inappropriate to teach creationism in Science class. Go ahead and teach it in a Religion class no problem. And the word "theory" is indeed misunderstood by those with low scientific literacy. These are crucial points to convey to students. After all, learning new perspectives is one of the reasons they're attending college. That and parties.

But yeah HOW you communicate makes a big difference!

I'm not a teacher, but it helps me to create a little space b/w what a person says and my response to it. If someone says, "Well, evolution is just a theory, the same as creationism is a theory”, my reaction is "You're using 'theory' in 2 different ways..."

The key for me is a conscious breath (or 2 or 3) b/w the person's statement and my response. This helps discharge the irritation in me & replaces it with a kind of serenity. From that calmer state, I’m a little more open, aware, and better able to sense things, like how this person innocently doesn't know the scientific meaning of “theory” and has a need to be acknowledged, etc. But if I react & confront them (especially in front of their peers), they’ll likely become more rigid/less open-minded.

Breathing also helps relax you and allows for broader views, like taking a few seconds to scan the room for others who might be just as confused/conflicted w/the topic. It also creates an opening for you to soften your message, so instead of reacting with, "You're using 'theory' in 2 different ways...", you could ask a few clarifying questions and preface your response with something that acknowledges that you heard them, like “I can see that your faith is extremely important to you…”

The nice thing about creating that space is it gives you many options on how to respond and creates an opening for students to express themselves more fully. So it’s empowering for everyone.

Not to be too woo, but people really do feel energy/vibes and that’s what they remember most strongly.

[karen_in_nh_2012]

Gravooms, you have great suggestions, and I thank you. I think my problem WAS that I actually interrupted this student (which I almost never do) as soon as he equated the "theory" of evolution with the "theory" of creationism. I should have let him finish, THEN said what I needed to say.

Interestingly, the student evaluations for my other 2 classes were very good -- NO ONE said anything like "she's rude" or "she interrupts us." I have been reflecting all of my teaching this past semester (writing an end-of-the-year report) and I think it was because of the kinds of things we talked about in the education class. Some topics were VERY controversial and discussions were lively (to say the least!). The odd thing is, I thought those discussions were great (and for the most part I stayed out of them, allowing students to address each other), but they were apparently too heated for some.

ETA: I also realized later that the student who was comparing evolution and creationism sincerely believes that creationism is "scientific." There actually are some religions that try to state this (they usually call creationism "creation science" ). It's mind-boggling to me.

[tnff]

It is very much a "how you come across thing." For example if you stated things the way you did here, I can easily see the judgment coming from you. Folks are going to pick up on that pretty quick. It's obvious you think those who disagree with you are "not that bright" and are using the science class to push a science vs religion debate. Whatever you might believe, the words you used did bring religion into the science class room.


Think about how someone would take these words, if spoken to them: "...I would not call you stupid or anything else. But you CAN'T say that a religious 'theory' like creationism is the same, scientifically speaking, as the theory of evolution, because it's just not."


These are the words someone will hear "You're STUPID. You CAN'T say creationism is the same as evolution, BECAUSE IT'S NOT.


A simpler take might be to point out that is an interesting question. And then go into a discussion on what the word "theory" means.


What I don't understand is who so many force an argument that doesn't even need to happen just to prove the religious wrong. Just teach science in science class and leave religion to the religion class and perceptions would evolve much smoother.

[gravooms]

Originally Posted by tnff

Just teach science in science class and leave religion to the religion class and perceptions would evolve much smoother.

That's what science teachers would prefer to do, but there is a movement in America to teach creationism alongside evolution, just as there is a movement to teach "the other side" of the massive scientific consensus on climate change. Both give the illusion of a great debate when there is no longer scientific debate and our children (and our country) suffer the consequences.

If you sense that science teachers are trying to pick a fight, maybe that's true rarely and maybe it's because folks twist the science to accommodate their worldview, teach their children the same, and then send those kids to a science class armed with that misinformation.

It's challenging enough for science teachers to teach the science without having to watch their backs when school administrators cave to political pressure and start including curriculum that has no business in a science class.

[karen_in_nh_2012]

Originally Posted by tnff

It is very much a "how you come across thing." For example if you stated things the way you did here, I can easily see the judgment coming from you. Folks are going to pick up on that pretty quick. It's obvious you think those who disagree with you are "not that bright" and are using the science class to push a science vs religion debate. Whatever you might believe, the words you used did bring religion into the science class room.

Well, as I wrote, I definitely did not say anything like "you're stupid for being a creationist" -- I would not say that. (I should add something that I just realized I left out of the OP: the Catholic student who said she didn't "believe" in evolution said that she has been called stupid in other classes for stating her religious beliefs. THAT is where my answer "I would never say you can't believe in your religion or call you stupid..." came in. Otherwise I don't think I would have used the word "stupid" at all.)

The class wasn't a science class like an evolution class, it was a social science class on education in which we were discussing the issue of textbooks. So talking about the Louisiana legislature's decision was definitely relevant in this particular class.

Originally Posted by tnff

Think about how someone would take these words, if spoken to them: "...I would not call you stupid or anything else. But you CAN'T say that a religious 'theory' like creationism is the same, scientifically speaking, as the theory of evolution, because it's just not."

Take out the first sentence of what you quoted (because it was NOT said directly before the next sentence), and I see absolutely nothing wrong with the statement. You CAN'T (factually!) say that a religious "theory" like creationism is the same, scientifically speaking, as the theory of evolution. It simply ISN'T the same.

(I am wondering if those who would be in favor of creationism being taught as a scientific "theory" would be as supportive of, say, Islamic or Wiccan creation stories being taught as scientific "theories"? Somehow I doubt it.)

Originally Posted by tnff

A simpler take might be to point out that is an interesting question. And then go into a discussion on what the word "theory" means.

Sorry, I simply can't say (honestly) that that's an interesting question. It's not. It's saying it's perfectly OK to teach religion in a science class.

I DID go into a discussion of what the word "theory" means.

Originally Posted by tnff

What I don't understand is who so many force an argument that doesn't even need to happen just to prove the religious wrong.

Again, it was a class about textbooks and what some legislatures have done. It wasn't me bringing in the argument out of the blue; the argument has been made part of the "debate" over textbooks because of what some state legislatures/school boards/review boards have done.

Originally Posted by tnff

Just teach science in science class and leave religion to the religion class and perceptions would evolve much smoother.

Tnff, my whole POINT in that particular class was that science should be left to science class and religion to religion class (or world history class, or sociology of religion class, or whatever) -- and I said that several times in that class.

I completely agree that some of my students perceived me as being rude to them, and I am trying to prevent that from happening again, so I appreciate your thoughts on that.

Originally Posted by gravooms

That's what science teachers would prefer to do, but there is a movement in America to teach creationism alongside evolution, just as there is a movement to teach "the other side" of the massive scientific consensus on climate change. Both give the illusion of a great debate when there is no longer scientific debate and our children (and our country) suffer the consequences.

^^^ This. Thanks, gravooms, you said it better than I did.

[MLSFan]

Imo it's inappropriate to teach creationism in Science class.

why? to me, it's no different than learning about spontaneous generation...

if people want to believe it, it's a science to me. then they have to go about to prove their hypothesis... and if it doesn't work, they need to try a different approach until it does.

since you can't really "disprove" the existence of a deity, it's valid to use it theory to me and no i don't believe in it, but i also wouldn't toss it out either. But if people want to use creationism as a theory, then they have to show that it wasn't the flying spaghetti monster god that did the creating

my issue with religion class is that no one really teaches it, it's all about "bible study", and not the history of the religion from start to present day in a cultural sense.

[karen_in_nh_2012]

Originally Posted by eyeb

why? to me, it's no different than learning about spontaneous generation...

if people want to believe it, it's a science to me. then they have to go about to prove their hypothesis... and if it doesn't work, they need to try a different approach until it does.

Sorry, but that is just silly. If I believe in the tooth fairy, does that mean it's a science? Should a science teacher really take time in a science class to "disprove" the existence of the tooth fairy?

Originally Posted by eyeb

since you can't really "disprove" the existence of a deity, it's valid to use it theory to me and no i don't believe in it, but i also wouldn't toss it out either. But if people want to use creationism as a theory, then they have to show that it wasn't the flying spaghetti monster god that did the creating

There's nothing scientific about creationism (or other creation stories by different religions -- should THOSE all be taught in science class as well?). Your definition of "science" is, well, odd to say the least.

[gravooms]

Originally Posted by eyeb

if people want to believe it, it's a science to me.

Ok but your definition of science won't be taken seriously by professional scientists and laypeople who understand the value of the scientific method.

Originally Posted by eyeb

then they have to go about to prove their hypothesis... and if it doesn't work, they need to try a different approach until it does.

Until it’s a scientific theory or at least on its way to being a scientific theory, why should it be taught in a science class?

Originally Posted by eyeb

my issue with religion class is that no one really teaches it, it's all about "bible study", and not the history of the religion from start to present day in a cultural sense.

Religious studies classes are offered at the college level, including online courses (free and free).

I can see talking about creation in relation to the Big Bang. The universe all came from a microscopic dot in space/time. Cool. Is it God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUOGxePBs50

But even that doesn’t belong in a science class.

Teaching or discussing creationism is different than discussing the origin of the Big Bang imo. It is based on the Judeo-Christian bible and the chronology developed by Bishop Ussher, which says God created everything in October 4004 BC, just in time to handout treats to Adam & Eve. In other words, it has nothing to do w/science.

Creation science also seeks to undermine evolutionary theory by cherry picking the existing data, coming up w/their own questionable studies and (worst of all) indoctrinating children who lack the capacity to critically analyze the claims being made by their authority figures (parents, clergy, teachers). The same thing is happening w/climate change btw.

Originally Posted by eyeb

But if people want to use creationism as a theory, then they have to show that it wasn't the flying spaghetti monster god that did the creating

Haha agreed! As long as it’s a comparative religion class

[almost3am]

The example of the Catholic girl is not surprising. I was raised Catholic and never discussed the intersection of creation and evolution until I asked a priest when I was in High School. So, I understood the reconciliation because I asked, it wasn't overtly taught. While, later in life, I realized that I was actually taught that the Old Testament isn't a bunch of facts, it didn't sink in right away.

I think I never had a big problem with the reconciliation as child because I was raised catholic by a religious Dad that was interested in science. We went to church together, but also learned about science together. I guess I was taught they can live side by side, but many people aren't raised this way. I think High School is when a lot of people start trying to reconcile science and religion, so it is a critical age and telling people that their beliefs are wrong is like saying "Your Mom & Dad are dumb."

Personally, I think the best way to answer this is to teach scientific theory first before even talking about evolution. Or, if already taught, say, "remember when we learned about scientific theory? Evolution has been subjected to that, creation has not. So, we are using the word theory in different ways here. In any case, our study today is on the theory of evolution..."