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

[geauxtohell]

Fact: I'm a trained science teacher.
Fact: Theories are not proven fact.

What do you teach?

Scientific theories are exactly as I stated they were before in regards to biology: highly supported by data, testing, and all other relevant manners.

Suggestion: Become a surgeon. Your bedside manner sucks. Relating to people is critical to being a successful teacher.

And here's a suggestion to you fucktards: stop acting like you know anything about the way I conduct myself in professional school based on my postings on an internet message board. Other than what I post on here, you whack-nuts don't know a damned thing about me.

BTW, being a surgeon =/= bad bedside manner.

 

[geauxtohell]

Not a personal attack at all. My perception is you are not hearing what I'm saying and you are misinterpreting my point of view. I could have left off the patients thing I suppose but you're the one claiming expertise in science because you're about to be a doctor. So I think I wasn't totally out of line there. My intent is not to offend but to defend my own point of view.

Oh, that wasn't a personal attack? Have you ever seen "The Outlaw Josey Wales"? "Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining."

No sir. I have not become in any way nasty and I have refrained from personal insults or ad hominem comments. You're the one who said you wouldn't make a good shop teacher.

After you used it in an insulting manner. If you are going to go nasty, then at least own up to it. This trying to play the middle stuff is for the birds.

I wouldn't either. But neither one of us has any business in a discussion class of any kind if we are going to even appear to attack or criticize the faith of our students.

And I have no idea how you ever inferred I would do that. Are you even reading my posts?

And this is why I think you aren't listening. I have not even remotely suggested that intelligent design is a scientific theory and have specifically stated that numerous times in this thread. I have provided a lot of thoughts on the matter. Perhaps if you had read them you would not be suggesting that I am proposing what I am not proposing.

Perhaps you are not being as clear as you think you are. To reiterate; you said this:

I don't want the teacher to debate ID or Creationism or anything even remotely like that. I have been pretty explicit about that. But if you would choose that as the illustration of what scientific theory is not, it's shop class for you. You might suck at teaching shop but at least you would not be perceived as attacking the religious faith of your students.

Do you think ID is or is not a scientific theory? If not, then why would there be a problem in using it as an example? Once again, doing so can be done without commenting on the validity of ID.

But why in the world would you, the teacher, introduce a hot button topic such as that if it was not for the explicit purpose of appearing to attack the students' faith? That might not be your intent at all but it would absolutely have that effect and almost force the issue onto the surface. I think your principal would have every reason to see that as very poor judgment however objective your motive might have been.

Because it's an excellent example of a theory that has been paraded around as "scientific" by a dishonest group of hucksters that is, in fact, not scientific (per the consensus of the scientific community and the Federal Judge at the Dover Trial). It's also topical and has been in the news recently.

My question to you would be: what would be a better example?

I've already answered the issue of discussing ID without attacking faith.

You still aren't getting my point. My point is that this student will not give a flying fig about what your concept of scientific theory is.

LMAO. This might surprise you, but I didn't create the "scientific method". It's a well defined set of rules. If a student wants to reject it, they are rejecting fact. I have no control over that, but I am not introducing my "opinion" on what is and is not scientific.

If you doubt that, feel free to explain how a researcher could falsify the existence of God. If you can't falsify a hypothesis, it's not a legit hypothesis.

This student will be defending his belief system, his faith. Your job as the teacher, the way I see it, is not to attack or dismiss that faith in any way. All you have to do is agree that there are those who see it as the student sees it, but as it is a matter of faith and not science, it will not be discussed in your class. That would be the truth. And you can tell the student he does not have to agree with the theory of evolution. But he will have to know the subject matter in order to pass the test.

Making a statement of fact: "ID is not a scientific theory, it is more philosophical/theological." is not an attack on a student's belief system.

 

[geauxtohell]

Geauxtohell told me that it wasn't true that 'certainty' was a very big deal to a scientist.

I did? Where?

Also, when did I use the word: "scientific fact" in this thread?

 

[saveliberty]

And here's a suggestion to you fucktards: stop acting like you know anything about the way I conduct myself in professional school based on my postings on an internet message board. Other than what I post on here, you whack-nuts don't know a damned thing about me.

BTW, being a surgeon =/= bad bedside manner.

You seem very comfortable expressing how a teacher needs to conduct themselves. You reveal much more about yourself than you understand apparently. Your not even close to being the smartest person in the room here bub, so I'd watch who you call stupid.

 

[geauxtohell]

You seem very comfortable expressing how a teacher needs to conduct themselves. You reveal much more about yourself than you understand apparently. Your not even close to being the smartest person in the room here bub, so I'd watch who you call stupid.

Don't toss out personal attacks if you want to maintain a civil tone on this matter.

In other words, don't call people "dumbass" and expect them to have a degree of respect for your opinion.

It doesn't make you sound intelligent, it makes you sound like a jerk.

I also have said nothing about any other teachers than a hypothetical situation where I were the teacher and how I'd handle the matter. That seems offensive to you two, but I've yet to see where I have made an inaccurate statement.

As always, I'll take your assessment of intelligence and advice on career paths for what they are worth: jack and squat.

What did you say you taught again?

 

[Foxfyre]

And here's a suggestion to you fucktards: stop acting like you know anything about the way I conduct myself in professional school based on my postings on an internet message board. Other than what I post on here, you whack-nuts don't know a damned thing about me.

BTW, being a surgeon =/= bad bedside manner.

You seem very comfortable expressing how a teacher needs to conduct themselves. You reveal much more about yourself than you understand apparently. Your not even close to being the smartest person in the room here bub, so I'd watch who you call stupid.

I wonder if GTH is really a medical student? I've known a lot of med students and a lot of doctors but never one as disconnected in their train of thought. You never know though.

 

[saveliberty]

You seem very comfortable expressing how a teacher needs to conduct themselves. You reveal much more about yourself than you understand apparently. Your not even close to being the smartest person in the room here bub, so I'd watch who you call stupid.

Don't toss out personal attacks if you want to maintain a civil tone on this matter.

In other words, don't call people "dumbass" and expect them to have a degree of respect for your opinion.

It doesn't make you sound intelligent, it makes you sound like a jerk.

I also have said nothing about any other teachers than a hypothetical situation where I were the teacher and how I'd handle the matter. That seems offensive to you two, but I've yet to see where I have made an inaccurate statement.

As always, I'll take your assessment of intelligence and advice on career paths for what they are worth: jack and squat.

What did you say you taught again?

Lately my specialty has been God complex med students. Seriously, if you can raise Foxfyre to even a small degree of anger, you're a world class asshole. If I respected you at all, the language would be better.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Telling a student, who asks about ID, that it is not a scientific subject and redirect him or her to his religious instructors and parents is the appropriate response.

 

[geauxtohell]

I wonder if GTH is really a medical student? I've known a lot of med students and a lot of doctors but never one as disconnected in their train of thought. You never know though.

Again, if you are going to go nasty, go full bore.

If you are going to call me a liar, just do so to my face. It's not going to phase me. I'll still show up to GYN rounds tomorrow and go about my OB/GYN rotation regardless of whether you believe me or not.

 

[saveliberty]

Proctology. Somebody had to say it.

 

[geauxtohell]

Lately my specialty has been God complex med students. Seriously, if you can raise Foxfyre to even a small degree of anger, you're a world class asshole. If I respected you at all, the language would be better.

Here's a hint for you: if you think you are knocking us "God complex med students" down a peg or two, you have delusions of relevance. We don't give a shit what you think of us.

I've been civil on this thread. I reserved my insults until you two decided to become insulting.

To remind you, you tossed out the names first. If I upset Foxfyre, it wasn't through a personal attack. If people can't discuss this issue in a logical and rational manner without becoming enraged, it's not my problem and it doesn't detract from the larger issue.

Again, you are always welcome to comment on the content of my posts, as opposed to lame personal attacks.

And again, I have no regard for your opinion of me.

 

[Intense]

270 Posts and 18 Pages, and I'm wondering if we are any closer to a Constitutional Amendment from banning any Teachers that believe in God from teaching science. I don't think so. The only thing I see reflected here is intolerance and bias. Just an observation.

 

[geauxtohell]

Proctology. Somebody had to say it.

You are starting to get upset, aren't you?

What do you teach again? If you are going to take personal potshots at me, you could at least have the stones to tell us exactly why your opinion is relevant.

"Professionally trained science teacher" doesn't mean squat to me.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Sceince has large areas of theory, which by definition, are not proven fact. You choose to dismiss what I say, because it is truth and hurtful to your argument.

You seem to have a poor understanding of the term. It is true that scientific theories are not disprovable facts, but it is foolish to insinuate that they are therefore not reliable, reliably predictable, or the closest thing to fact allowable by scientific investigation. If you claim to be a trained science teacher, it is certainly not established certified American scientific training of any variety. A quick google or wikipedia search will confirm what GTH and I have been saying.

Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially."

But neither one of us has any business in a discussion class of any kind if we are going to even appear to attack or criticize the faith of our students.

Can you point to a SINGLE person in this thread who has stated science teachers should criticize the faith of students? Can you quote any mention of this completely unsupported fear of yours whatsoever? NO!

It is YOU who continue to remain clueless. GTH and I have clearly demonstrated understanding of your desires, that you believe teachers should state religious beliefs can explain holes in scientific understanding when asked. This is still false, and you have yet to demonstrate an understanding of what GTH, or I, or ANYONE else in this thread is saying on the topic.

Are you purposely ignoring logic and fact? Or are you just still so hurt over the neg that you can't bring yourself to concede the silly points you are making?

But why in the world would you, the teacher, introduce a hot button topic such as that if it was not for the explicit purpose of appearing to attack the students' faith?

NO ONE HAS SAID THAT. In fact it has been consistently clear that the only hypothetical person bringing up the topic is the student, and the teachers are NOT introducing the topic, as they shouldn't.

You still aren't getting my point. My point is that this student will not give a flying fig about what your concept of scientific theory is. This student will be defending his belief system, his faith. Your job as the teacher, the way I see it, is not to attack or dismiss that faith in any way.

It IS the science teacher's job to dismiss all religion from their classroom. It doesn't matter if the student feels he is defending his religion or not. What matters is the student learning the well studied material, in a way that hopefully convinces him of its validity based on the scientific method.

Fact: I'm a trained science teacher.
Fact: Theories are not proven fact.

Fact: they are the closest thing to fact allowable by science, and are reliably predictable.

 

[Foxfyre]

You seem very comfortable expressing how a teacher needs to conduct themselves. You reveal much more about yourself than you understand apparently. Your not even close to being the smartest person in the room here bub, so I'd watch who you call stupid.

Don't toss out personal attacks if you want to maintain a civil tone on this matter.

In other words, don't call people "dumbass" and expect them to have a degree of respect for your opinion.

It doesn't make you sound intelligent, it makes you sound like a jerk.

I also have said nothing about any other teachers than a hypothetical situation where I were the teacher and how I'd handle the matter. That seems offensive to you two, but I've yet to see where I have made an inaccurate statement.

As always, I'll take your assessment of intelligence and advice on career paths for what they are worth: jack and squat.

What did you say you taught again?

Lately my specialty has been God complex med students. Seriously, if you can raise Foxfyre to even a small degree of anger, you're a world class asshole. If I respected you at all, the language would be better.

LOL, thanks but I am not angry. I do get frustrated--okay I guess that's a form of anger--when people misrepresent my point of view and refuse to correct that when it is pointed out to them. You'll note Goldcatt did that and, when she realized her inadvertent error, did not repeat it but we were able to continue in a cordial manner. That's one of several reasons she has my utmost respect and admiration by the way.]

I suppose we've pretty well exhausted the subject here though. The anti-Christian crowd is not likely to acknowledge any point of view but the contentuous one they have adopted re Creationism or I.D. And the rest of us are just preaching to the choir. It was a pretty good workout before it started getting really stupid though.

Unless a good discussion gets going here again I'll probably find something else to do for awhile.

Ya'll have a good day.

 

[saveliberty]

Lately my specialty has been God complex med students. Seriously, if you can raise Foxfyre to even a small degree of anger, you're a world class asshole. If I respected you at all, the language would be better.

Here's a hint for you: if you think you are knocking us "God complex med students" down a peg or two, you have delusions of relevance. We don't give a shit what you think of us.

I've been civil on this thread. I reserved my insults until you two decided to become insulting.

To remind you, you tossed out the names first. If I upset Foxfyre, it wasn't through a personal attack. If people can't discuss this issue in a logical and rational manner without becoming enraged, it's not my problem and it doesn't detract from the larger issue.

Again, you are always welcome to comment on the content of my posts, as opposed to lame personal attacks.

And again, I have no regard for your opinion of me.

Seems like I hurt your feelings pretty bad. You had to comment on it multiple times in the same post. God complex folks use it as a defense for their very insecure feelings. Interesting that you find your arguments logical and rational, when your theory cannot explain in the least where the smallest parts of creation started and what started it in motion. A rational and logical person would not default to chance.

 

[geauxtohell]

I suppose we've pretty well exhausted the subject here though. The anti-Christian crowd is not likely to acknowledge any point of view but the contentuous one they have adopted re Creationism or I.D. And the rest of us are just preaching to the choir. It was a pretty good workout before it started getting really stupid though.

Unless a good discussion gets going here again I'll probably find something else to do for awhile.

Ya'll have a good day.

I am "anti-Christian" now? That's news to me too.

As much as you whine about people misrepresenting your viewpoints, I asked you to clarify and you refused.

Run along, now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most believers in deity understand that ID is not scientific and belongs in the comparative religions classroom, not the science classroom.

 

[geauxtohell]

Seems like I hurt your feelings pretty bad.

You did. You really did. I am sitting over here frigging crying myself to death over your "proctology comment". Your verbal arrows are more harrowing then when I was in the 'Stan. You are truly a master debater and a USMB God.

You had to comment on it multiple times in the same post. God complex folks use it as a defense for their very insecure feelings. Interesting that you find your arguments logical and rational, when your theory cannot explain in the least where the smallest parts of creation started and what started it in motion.

Again: Evolution doesn't pretend to have the answer to the origins of life Mr. Professionally Trained Science Teacher.

Nor does it pretend too.

Maybe you slept through that part of your professional training.

A rational and logical person would not default to chance.

And we've come full circle. The ever lame: I don't accept evolution because it's all "chance".

It's not really true and it's a silly counter point to hang your hat on. What's next? Pascale's Wager?

 

[Modbert]

It's not really true and it's a silly counter point to hang your hat on. What's next? Pascale's Wager?

Speaking of which, I feel this would apply nicely to this thread and others on USMB.