Tell them that such “beliefs” have no place in a science class, and any attempt to divert the class into a discussion about creationism will be grounds for disciplinary action.
I don’t understand that. How would the prof even know unless a student brought it up first? In that case, see above.
Well, you could start by NOT using a cartoon, for one thing. But like I said, I would simply refuse to discuss it for the same reason I’d refuse to discuss the idea that the earth was a giant turtle if I were teaching geology. Or that that the stars were “fixed in the firmament” if I were teaching astronomy. Or the tower of Babel if I were teaching linguistics.
And, yes, I know that many Christians can be absolute jerks on this subject. That doesn’t mean I have to be a jerk in return. All life isn’t the BBQ Pit.
“Should” differs substantially from “Do” and “Does”. The college years are exactly when most people start to question what they’ve been taught in childhood and adolescence. Remember it is possible to make it through K-12 without ever learning about evolution (raises hand) or being educated by good science instructors. Besides, this is an introductory biology class. A lot of folks who are “anti-science” take biology 101 because it fulfills a credit they need for graduation.
When I taught general bio, it amazed me how many students expected their Sunday School lessons to stand in for learning the course material. They didn’t seem to understand that I didn’t care what they “believed”. They just needed to show they properly understood the concepts. But even this was disturbing to them (just some of them, though).
I probably wouldn’t have put buddy Jesus on the slide if I had been the professor. Not because it’s juvenile, but because Christians believe humans were created by the Father, not the Son. And also, it’s not only Christians who beat the “creationist” drum. Muslims do too (at least the Muslims I taught did).
One of the best Astronomy textbooks I’ve ever seen opened with an introductory chapter on several creation stories: Greek, Norse, Hindu, Hopi, and, yes, the Book of Genesis. It was a quick (three page) survey of historical explanations for the origin of all things. It was factual and quite respectful.
The slide being discussed in this thread failed the “respectful” test. The point could have been made without the thumb in the eye.
In my experience, profs of intro biology courses generally take less than one minute out of an early class to say something to the effect of, “We don’t deal with creationism in this course because this is a science course, and creationism isn’t science. If you’re a creationist, you still have to learn the course material. Think of it as fictional if you must, but you’ll need to demonstrate an accurate understanding of it in order to pass, just like any other student.”
Why would you try to “explain” any of the infinite amount of complete nonsense that is believed by scientific illiterates when you’re teaching a university level class? Would you try to “explain” why the earth isn’t the center of the universe or why Zeus isn’t really the god of sky and thunder when you teach a class in astrophysics? You teach the facts, appropriate to the academic level, and let the facts speak for themselves.
As I said, I think this thing was puerile rather than offensive, and it ended up making both sides look foolish, for different reasons: fundies for being unthinking dogmatic idiots, and this particular academic for treating them as if they actually had a viewpoint worthy of debate in a university classroom.
More like, “IOW, don’t waste time in a university class dissing fundies”.
It would also be a pointless thing to do. As wolfpup notes, there are thousands of non-scientific beliefs out there. Why even give them the benefit of an acknowledgement in a class that supposed to be about science.
When I took college biology, the instructor (who said she was Christian herself) said, before the evolution section, “I only expect you to learn it. I do not demand that you believe it.”
The slide does not do that because there is no discrepancy between “real science” (what does that even mean?) and most religious doctrine. Only a small and obscenely vocal idolatry finds most scientific teachings in general and evolution in particular offensive.
For examples, most Christians believe an omnipotent and timeless God is perfectly capable of coming up with a clever mechanism such as evolution. Most do not believe the power of God has to be magic (i.e. “I sent three boats.”)
Most importantly, most do not believe in a God that would endow humans with capabilities, such as intelligence and curiosity, and expect us to not use them.
In short, most do not believe in the inerrancy of the bible.
IMHO, that’s wrong and stupid. The appropriate statement would be “these are the scientific facts … if you want to put a spiritual interpretation on them, that’s fine, but these are the evidence-based facts.”
For anyone in an institution of higher learning to say “I’m teaching scientific facts, but you don’t have to believe them” is ridiculous and sounds like appeasement to the usual gang of scientifically illiterate idiots. Seems to me that the major purpose of institutions of higher learning is to promote science and enlightenment. Which involves neither gratuitous mockery of the ignorant nor fatuous appeasement of them.
There are a lot of internet atheist assholes. I think it’s mostly an outgrowth of e-thuggery since I’ve never seen anything like it irl. Maybe in more liberal areas they’d be brave enough to act like that because of safety in numbers. My impression is most of these guys are 25 or younger. I can relate a little since I had the “really? we’re still taking this seriously” attitude when I was a teenager. Hopefully they grow out of it as they get older.
The most ridiculous behavior I ever saw were where they denounced anything religious or even influenced by it. Art. Music. Allegories. Even dead religions, like the Greek stories. Could’ve been a poe, but ya never know.
As for the OP’s article, well…that seemed pretty weak tea. The conservative responses were pretty funny though, like the one going on and on about the founders being hardcore Bible thumpers and how the prof should go learn about the Constitution. What does that have to do with anything? The Constitution and Americanism really are a pseudo-religion to some folks. Might as well say Hammurabi believed in Babylonian polytheism and you should go study Hammurabi’s Code. Those legends are way older than the Bible.
Why is there any need to respect a terrible lie, other than the desire to not turn off some of the students from the beginning? Like I said earlier, I don’t have to respect any other choices, so why is religion any different?
Not necessarily. It’s said that where religion is strong, atheism is also strong. I grew up in the South, and my vocal atheism (though I only bring it up when it comes up, i.e. I do not let superstition go unchallenged, but I don’t usually start it) in large part stems from this. I also feel like I have something to prove, having only come to atheism at 19. I may have first “come out” in public on the tenth of September, 2001, and have never looked back!
Also, the Internet means there are fewer potential physical consequences for stating unbelief as stridently as one wishes. I’m 32, and I often wonder why we’re still taking this stuff seriously. Why is that juvenile?
