how would you feel if a creationist taught your kids science?

[SmarterThanHick]

You haven't read the thread then. the thread which starts out with the question "would you want a creationist teaching SCIENCE". Not teaching creationism.

But carry on anyway.

And you clearly haven't read the counterargument. In your usual fashion. Opinions are great but those little thing called SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS tend to be of higher value. Let me refresh your memory:

"I haven't seen a single person in this thread on "my side" state that creationists can't teach evolution. Once again you are making crap up because you don't have an actual argument. ... anyone can teach science so long as they do so adequately while remaining within the boundaries of scientific understanding and professionalism. It doesn't matter whether a creationist, Christian, Muslim, or atheist does it, so long as their personal beliefs are kept out of the classroom.

Again I ask: what part of anything I've said thus far do you disagree with?

Well said. The cognitively challenged don't seem to understand what the thesis of the thread is. It was not an invitation to discuss the pros and cons of Creationism or Intelligent Design but rather to determine who would judge a teacher not by what he or she taught but by what he or she believed. And it was not specified as to what a Creationist was.

The thesis of this thread is without merit or understanding, and it seems people like you and Alliebaba have a very difficult understanding of the counterargument. Why judge a teacher on what they believe in their personal life if they can adequately teach their subject without their personal beliefs interfering? The concept is rather simple, and such a separation between personal and professional understanding happens every day by mature individuals.

I would not want anybody who openly denied the possibility/probability of Creationism or Intelligent Design teaching my kids any form of science. Such a person would be too likely to have a closed mind and be unable to teach science objectively and without prejudice. What the teacher personally believed would be irrelevent as long as he or she did not insert it into the class content.

Once again you seem to lack the understanding that either the acceptance OR denial of creationism/ID has NO PLACE in a classroom. Therefore, someone who acknowledges such baseless concepts as able to fill in some vague gaps in knowledge, despite you being completely unable to point out what they are even though you have a whopping two semesters of intro college biology, is INCORRECT and not scientific.

This is a point you have been completely unable to refute throughout this thread.

I wouldn't want somebody like SmarterthanHick teaching anybody as he seems to think it is okay to neg rep people who are simply expressing an opinion and making an argument for a point of view. I think he's hit me with neg rep three times now. I think too many people who hold Creationists or IDers in such low opinion would not be able to keep their prejudices out of the classroom and would be too likely to retaliate against those who offend them.

Ah there there. Poor baby. It's ok, let it all out. You got your feelings hurt because I clicked on a button ONCE in the last two months for you that said "I disapprove" when I disapproved of your unsupported uneducated opinions being put forth as having some worth. I understand. It's a cruel cruel world. Just let it out dear, and you'll feel much better.

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow, you put a lot of effort into a rambling diatribe that still doesn't change the premise of the thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow, you put a lot of effort into a rambling diatribe that still doesn't change the premise of the thread.

I didn't read much of it but I did see that he declares the thesis of the thread to be without merit. Wonder how Buc feels about that since they've been cheering each other on?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Major fail on your part. The OP clearly implies that someone who believes in creation should not or cannot teach science. You also seem to think that a person's beliefs are not part of teaching. Who and want a person is helps make up the style of teaching. A strong belief system makes for the best teachers.

Yes, that is what it implies, but it does not support that claim in the least, just as you don't support yours. Where can you show me any evidence that people with strong belief systems make the best teachers? Let's state the obvious here: the best teachers are people who can professionally convey the content of their subject with the highest efficacy. That's it. There is literally nothing else that makes a good teacher outside of that one thing, although that one thing has many influential attributes.

So the counterargument that has continued to be made by "my side" is that nothing matters outside that one point. If they personally believe in crazy conspiracy theories yet leave their lunacy at home to be an effective teacher, it doesn't matter. AS SOON AS their personal beliefs enter the classroom and impede their ability to effectively convey the content of their subject, THEN they are degrading their teaching ability, and there will quickly come a point where such a person should not be teaching.

I ask you the same as Allie: what part of that do you disagree with?

 

[geauxtohell]

no problem...you can hear it and see it explained...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5ixmLNwF9s&playnext=1&list=PLA3D6C9C847F27E6F[/ame]

have you seen the movie?

I've seen it. I've also seen the selective editing they did to make people like Dawkins look bad. I think Dawkins is a pretentious asshole; however, that movie is just dishonest.

Ben Stein must have needed money and wanted to cash in on some of the fundamentalist $. That's the only people that buy it.

Furthermore, at the university level, I would fully expect faculty to be excoriated for trying to propel a non-scientific theory (intelligent design) in the biology curriculum. The overwhelming majority of biologists find ID to be laughable. Most of the Ph.D.'s who have flocked to the ID movement were in fields outside biology. Probably the most notable is Behe, who was a biochemist and came up with the non-sense of "irreducible complexity". The idea was so scientifically unsound that a lawyer with no background in sciences made him look like an ass at the Dover trial and also got him to admit that, if ID were accepted as a scientific field, then astrology would have to also be accepted under the new "lax" rules.

All the noise that the Discovery Institute tried to create (i.e. "Expelled", "teach the controversy", etc) quickly fell behind the wayside at the Dover Trial, which was the high water mark for ID. That's why you don't hear much about ID now. Even the Discovery Institute has withdrawn from it's position of trying to have ID taught as a "competing theory".

 

[AllieBaba]

And speaking of hypocrisy..pretty funny coming from the person who apparently saves ancient posts to flood new threads with. Talk about "out of context".

Lol...what a loser.

I don't save anything.

It's called knowing how to properly use the archives system we have here at USMB.

Still funny you whine about somebody taking quotes out of context when you drag quotes from different times and different threads around to new threads, or start new threads specifically with them.

Typical...accuse the opposition of what you do regularly, and decry it and whine if anyone else dares to do the same.

 

[saveliberty]

Major fail on your part. The OP clearly implies that someone who believes in creation should not or cannot teach science. You also seem to think that a person's beliefs are not part of teaching. Who and want a person is helps make up the style of teaching. A strong belief system makes for the best teachers.

Yes, that is what it implies, but it does not support that claim in the least, just as you don't support yours. Where can you show me any evidence that people with strong belief systems make the best teachers? Let's state the obvious here: the best teachers are people who can professionally convey the content of their subject with the highest efficacy. That's it. There is literally nothing else that makes a good teacher outside of that one thing, although that one thing has many influential attributes.

So the counterargument that has continued to be made by "my side" is that nothing matters outside that one point. If they personally believe in crazy conspiracy theories yet leave their lunacy at home to be an effective teacher, it doesn't matter. AS SOON AS their personal beliefs enter the classroom and impede their ability to effectively convey the content of their subject, THEN they are degrading their teaching ability, and there will quickly come a point where such a person should not be teaching.

I ask you the same as Allie: what part of that do you disagree with?

1. Many times a gifted researcher or scientist cannot bring his/her knowledge down to the level of a student. Teaching clearly involves more than just knowledge.

2. Most "crazy" people have blinded themselves to at least some part of reality. It is not a switch they turn off when they leave home.

3. A person's personality is often what encourages a student to engage learning. That personality contains that person's beliefs.

 

[rikules]

We don't have to keep it separate, and there's no reason to.

there is no room for myths in science instruction

religion should be seperate from science

religion should only be taught in mythology courses.

i don't approve of any teacher inflicting their religious beliefs in public scoools

creation is a religious myth, NOT science.

MOST creationists believe that evolution is a lie....

I strongly disapprove of "science teachers" who believe that evolution is a lie teaching science at all

 

[geauxtohell]

Wow, you put a lot of effort into a rambling diatribe that still doesn't change the premise of the thread.

Shockingly, most threads evolve past the original OP and people tend to discuss the larger issue at hand.

Personally, just to answer the OP: I don't think being religious should exclude anyone from anything as long as they don't try and interject their religious beliefs where they aren't appropriate. For example, you never hear about Mormon police officers hassling people for drinking coffee.

Now that we've moved past that, we can move on with the topic.

I have to admire your new found devotion to being a message board purist and self-appointed thread Czar who wants everyone to stay on the OP. Most people can answer the OP in a few lines.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow, you put a lot of effort into a rambling diatribe that still doesn't change the premise of the thread.

Shockingly, most threads evolve past the original OP and people tend to discuss the larger issue at hand.

Personally, just to answer the OP: I don't think being religious should exclude anyone from anything as long as they don't try and interject their religious beliefs where they aren't appropriate. For example, you never hear about Mormon police officers hassling people for drinking coffee.

Now that we've moved past that, we can move on with the topic.

I have to admire your new found devotion to being a message board purist and self-appointed thread Czar who wants everyone to stay on the OP. Most people can answer the OP in a few lines.

Allie hasn't done that though. All she did, which is what I did, is defend herself when she answered the question posed in the OP. She was getting blasted for not answering the different questions the anti-religion group wanted to substitute for the original question.

I have no problem whatsoever in discussing the broader subjects generated by the original question and in fact have been discussing some of those. As has Allie.

But to be accused of saying one thing when you are clearly responding to something else isn't cricket either and one should object when that happens.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

1. Many times a gifted researcher or scientist cannot bring his/her knowledge down to the level of a student. Teaching clearly involves more than just knowledge.

True, this is not a point being contested.

2. Most "crazy" people have blinded themselves to at least some part of reality. It is not a switch they turn off when they leave home.

You don't know what "crazy" actually means, and have no basis in which to project that idea into the realm of teaching unless you want to claim that there is a significant portion of "crazy" teachers.

3. A person's personality is often what encourages a student to engage learning. That personality contains that person's beliefs.

Now you're just making up psychology, once again providing a completely unsupported claim. Mature professionals have it within their capability of separating personal from professional beliefs. If you feel YOU lack that distinction, as it sounds like you are implying everyone does, you should not project it onto others.

But to directly address the claim: Personality can promote effective teaching ability. While personality is comprised of a person's beliefs, that does not mean that all such beliefs are reflected in their personality at all points in time. A teacher responding to a child is a different set of personality traits compared to when they are speaking with parents, or their boss, or their friends while partying on a weekend night. This brings us back to the concept that mature individuals have the ability to tailor their interactions to the situation at hand.

 

[geauxtohell]

Wow, you put a lot of effort into a rambling diatribe that still doesn't change the premise of the thread.

Shockingly, most threads evolve past the original OP and people tend to discuss the larger issue at hand.

Personally, just to answer the OP: I don't think being religious should exclude anyone from anything as long as they don't try and interject their religious beliefs where they aren't appropriate. For example, you never hear about Mormon police officers hassling people for drinking coffee.

Now that we've moved past that, we can move on with the topic.

I have to admire your new found devotion to being a message board purist and self-appointed thread Czar who wants everyone to stay on the OP. Most people can answer the OP in a few lines.

Allie hasn't done that though. All she did, which is what I did, is defend herself when she answered the question posed in the OP. She was getting blasted for not answering the different questions the anti-religion group wanted to substitute for the original question.

I have no problem whatsoever in discussing the broader subjects generated by the original question and in fact have been discussing some of those. As has Allie.

But to be accused of saying one thing when you are clearly responding to something else isn't cricket either and one should object when that happens.

Both sides do that.

I don't think either of you have made a claim that the majority of the posters on this thread have also stated. So, the OP really isn't that compelling of an issue to discuss at this point.

As these threads always do, we've wondered into the larger issue of the legitimacy of evolution and the larger debate. It's inevitable. I don't see a reason to avoid discussing it because of what was in the "OP".

 

[Foxfyre]

Shockingly, most threads evolve past the original OP and people tend to discuss the larger issue at hand.

Personally, just to answer the OP: I don't think being religious should exclude anyone from anything as long as they don't try and interject their religious beliefs where they aren't appropriate. For example, you never hear about Mormon police officers hassling people for drinking coffee.

Now that we've moved past that, we can move on with the topic.

I have to admire your new found devotion to being a message board purist and self-appointed thread Czar who wants everyone to stay on the OP. Most people can answer the OP in a few lines.

Allie hasn't done that though. All she did, which is what I did, is defend herself when she answered the question posed in the OP. She was getting blasted for not answering the different questions the anti-religion group wanted to substitute for the original question.

I have no problem whatsoever in discussing the broader subjects generated by the original question and in fact have been discussing some of those. As has Allie.

But to be accused of saying one thing when you are clearly responding to something else isn't cricket either and one should object when that happens.

Both sides do that.

I don't think either of you have made a claim that the majority of the posters on this thread have also stated. So, the OP really isn't that compelling of an issue to discuss at this point.

As these threads always do, we've wondered into the larger issue of the legitimacy of evolution and the larger debate. It's inevitable. I don't see a reason to avoid discussing it because of what was in the "OP".

To me the OP was sufficiently provocative to encourage me to post. And I do like to stay on topic in a thread as much as possible. If folks want to study the merits or lack thereof of Creationism, I.D., or Evolution there are certainly other thread in which to do that or anybody interested in those subjects are certainly capable of starting one. As all are provocative and contain elements of controversy, such a thread will no doubt be successful if the trolls are kept at bay.

The thesis of this thread, however, was whether a teacher's personal views would affect his/her ability to be a competent teacher in a specific subject. I think that is a question worth exploring. And I don't think there is a cut and dried answer to that question.

If others aren't interested in that fine. I'll just unsubscribe and move on to something else and leave it to the rest of you to discuss whatever you want to discuss.

But the original thread thesis was the topic of interest to me.

 

[Intense]

how would you feel if a creationist taught your kids science?

Again, as long as the person was qualified to teach, and taught an approved lesson plan, what is the problem here?

I see the problem with the Thread though. It has been reduced to a pissing contest as to who is the most qualified in the field of Science. Why not start your own Thread on the Subject. I'm sure it will be fun Posting back and forth to yourself. Let's try to stay open to input from Posters on the Topic Subject, and stop chasing people away. Thank You so much.

 

[AllieBaba]

What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...

And what do they say in their taunts?

Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.

NO SHIT!

 

[Foxfyre]

What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...

And what do they say in their taunts?

Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.

NO SHIT!

And none of us have even suggested that it did.

Except. . . . .

If there is a Creator, then that Creator would be the author of Evolution and all science. Which also is a whole different subject than the thesis of this thread.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

The thesis of this thread, however, was whether a teacher's personal views would affect his/her ability to be a competent teacher in a specific subject. I think that is a question worth exploring. And I don't think there is a cut and dried answer to that question.

There's no cut and dry answer to that question because the question is reductive and crap. It's trying to draw a broad sweeping generalization where one does not exist, and is the reason we have moved past it.

It is impossible to make the determination for all teachers that their personal views do or do not affect their teaching ability in a specific subject. Impossible. Every single person is going to have varying degrees of being able to separate their personal and professional views, which is why almost all the answers on the first page were basically "as long as you keep your religion and your job separate," which is the right answer. Most people agreed with this, except for AllieBaba, who gave the wrong answer and is now victimizing herself for unrelated things no one actually cares about in her usual fashion.

What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...

As I just mentioned, you are not wrong for believing evolution has nothing to do with creation. You're wrong for all the incorrect things you've said in the thread.

And none of us have even suggested that it did.

Except. . . . .

If there is a Creator, then that Creator would be the author of Evolution and all science. Which also is a whole different subject than the thesis of this thread.

For someone complaining so much about people staying on topic to the original bad question, you sure are bringing up a lot of sidetracking topics.

 

[L.K.Eder]

What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...

And what do they say in their taunts?

Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.

NO SHIT!

you also get mocked for stating that scientific theory is just a guess.

 

[Foxfyre]

What kills me is that I am lambasted for disputing the theory of evolution (I don't, so long as it isn't being used as evidence that there's no Creator). The non-ID crowd brings it up, then jeers when you respond to say that evolution doesn't explain creation...

And what do they say in their taunts?

Oh, that evolution has nothing to do with Creation.

NO SHIT!

you also get mocked for stating that scientific theory is just a guess.

Any scientist worth his salt would know that scientific theory is just a guess. It is an educated guess. It is not unsupported by observation, testing, empirical evidence. Some theory does contain a very high degree of probability. But certainty is a huge word to a true scientist.

That is why those who say there is no such thing as a Creator or I.D. are close minded religionists operating on pure faith that contains nothing of scientific thought. Believing in a high probability that such does not exist is very different than stating such as an absolute which I believe no competent scientist would do.

And that is why I think a passionate Atheist might make as bad a science teacher as would a Creationist who denied Evolution.

 

[goldcatt]

To answer the question posed by the OP, I really don't care about the personal beliefs of the teacher in any science classroom instructing my kids, so long as they are not teaching those beliefs in class.

Until and unless they start indoctrinating my kids, what they believe or do not believe is none of my business and has nothing to do with their job. Neither is what I believe and teach to my children any business of theirs, nor is it their place to teach my kids things that should be taught at home and/or in our chosen place of worship.