Originally posted by bbarr
O.K., so your claims are essentially these:
(1) Those who teach evolution often (sometimes, usually[?]) present the view in a manner meant to offend.
(2) For a bunch of students, evolutionary theory is irrelevant to their ends.
As for (1), this doesn't seem like a reason not to teach evolution, or to teach ID, but rather a reason to get better sci ...[text shortened]... nce class (unless ID is included merely as a humorous aside).
I hope you're well,
Bennett
As for (1): This would, of course, be preferable. I would not even say that they are not good science teachers, but rather that they have not had the proper training/instruction to present the theories without bias. I believe this is highly due to special interest, political agendas, etc. influence on our public education system.
As for (2): The logic could be applied as you have said. They key difference is the contention with the subject in the social arena. As I have said, I believe it is important that the concepts be presented. Perhaps just not in the core curriculum. As electives, the problems are far less relevant as the courses teaching the controversial concepts are optional. Further, the problems are likewise most relevant in regards to general education.
In regards to my claim: I do not understand what you are taking issue with. My assertion is that personal opinion on the validity of the theories need not and should not be communicable via the presentation of the theories. Naturally, it would be absurd to teach ID in a science class, simply for the fact that it has nothing (little?) to do with science. The same is true with evolution in a theology class. This has nothing to do with a professional and unbiased respectful presentation of subject. Whether I go to a science class or a theology class, I do not expect sermonic propaganda eschewing alternative views. Such is not only unnecessary, but does not facilitate the learning process.
Example: A student raised in an atheist household attends a class in theology, world culture, etc. in which the instructor adamantly professes the validity of a theological belief and presents it as undisputable truth. If the students perception is swayed in this manner to believe in the theology, this will assuredly facilitate contention in the home. On the other side, if the student is not swayed as the instructor had intended, this can easily alienate the student causing contention between them and their instructor (directly or indirectly) and feelings of the classroom being a hostile environment.
The theories are debatable and should be presented as such, especially with consideration that the subject is integral with the identity of the individual.
I further do not understand when you state that there is no social norm for opinion of these matters. I do indeed believe that theology should have a place in the curriculum, just not in the core curriculum of general education. Same is true with anything else that teaches debatable subject specifically relevant to personal identity (philosophy for example). If this is absurd, I still fail to understand why. Alternatively, perhaps I did not express myself clearly earlier.
Best Regards in Wellness,
Omnislash