Why Do Science Teachers Have a License to Lie?

Post Reply New Topic

More turtles.

The classic answer is that it's turtles all the way down. Down to what has yet to be determined.

Heretic . How dare you questionning the true. Proof that's it true, it is WRITTEN. So it must be true.

Asking questions leads to the fire. OBEY! BELIEVE!

That is, with very little exception, true--having formerly been a classroom teacher myself.

What I experienced in the classroom for the brief time (3 years) I was in public schools was that teachers are subject to the whims of the academic or educational establishment. My Ed. Psych teacher happened to be ADHD, so her presentation of motivation, positive/negative reinforcement, and so on were more than just a little skewed (if not flat-out WRONG) because she allowed her own viewpoints to be colored by her disorder. My first clue that something was a little off in the educational world was when I was allowed to take a graduate-level course aimed at administration hopefuls. This lady basically acted like a salesman for Steven Covey (the planners and the "7 Habits" book). In my first teaching job, I worked for a superintendent who had become hooked on the Madeline Hunter teaching model.

There's nothing wrong per se with organization and teaching models. What IS wrong is when teachers and administrators rest on such things because they are trendy or seem to work for certain school districts. They don't stop to explore WHY some things seem to work--they just go with it and evaluate their teachers really based on how well they conform to whatever mold is hot THIS year. Teachers have to spend so much time trying to fit in that they don't really teach anything.

Granted, my first teaching experience was in a very poorly-performing school that desperately needed all the help it could get. But blindly wandering after whatever teaching trend appears hot "right now" won't really help in the long run.

While it is true that teachers teach what they have been taught, it is perhaps MORE true that teachers will teach what they are TOLD to teach. I, for one, will not likely teach in a public school ever again as a matter of conscience. It's less a matter of religious freedom and more a matter of artistic integrity. In principal, teaching music is not different than teaching science or history. I say "in principal" because all teachers have to be aware of how students learn and adjust teaching style to reach the maximum audience.

I've gone the "independent" route, tutoring children individually in piano. When I got started in that business, I did teach the way I was taught. But for me, that was just to get me through my first year of it. I've since gone on to get advice from other teachers teaching a variety of methods and started using a different method that, for me, gets MUCH better results. I've also become acutely aware of what is generally lacking in ALL music teaching methods, especially the traditional ones, and I've sworn that I'll teach all students such necessary skills as free improvisation, interpreting lead sheets, and playing by ear--and even advanced theory on request. If I'm ever around long enough to keep some high school students, such things as college auditions and scholarships, what to expect as a music major, and even how to pick a music school will all become part of what I do. I'm really not convinced that the typical classroom teacher really is that concerned over the life of the student. I once even helped a girl get into an exclusive but publicly supported art boarding school, and I STILL ask about how she's doing even though she's long graduated by now. But the main thing I've been able to do is get away from "educational trends" and decide for myself what works best and just simply do my job. I'll never stay anywhere someone tells me how to run my classroom!

The problem with the science teachers "teaching lies," as the writer put it, is that public schools aren't allowed to teach religion because of church-and-state issues. What evolution amounts to in a public school setting is a convenient way of avoiding religious dialogue. Intelligent design "theory" is religious by nature in the sense that intelligent design cannot be taught without teaching an intelligent Designer. My rejection of intelligent design as it is put forth in a teachable format is that it doesn't acknowledge that the God of the Bible IS that designer. It is basically offered up as an alternative to evolution. That doesn't mean I don't see the orderly design of the Creator God in the universe and the more immediate world around me, and that doesn't mean I think the way things are isn't by design. I just don't think that ID is religious ENOUGH! I also think that ID is too watered down to fit science as it is typically taught and is essentially ignorant of or in denial of a God capable of a miraculous special creation. Since God has no place in the school, children can only logically estimate that there must be no God, or at the least God is just some guy we talk about on Sundays.

The truth is adults and children aren't about to abandon their religious views any time soon, with or without God in the classroom. My second teaching job was in a district that really wasn't that much better than my first job--they just avoided a lot of the pretentiousness of my first school and actually let us TEACH. What was somewhat unique about that, something you can only get away with in Mississippi it seems, is that school really lived the idea that you don't stop being who you are once you pass the front door. Teachers didn't have to be afraid of expressing pro-religious sentiment, and church was something that was a big part of most students' lives. I found, in fact, that I had to make special exceptions only ONCE for a JW because I interrupted my usual curriculum to include Christmas songs--and even then the alternatives I provided were something that the student and I both agreed upon and had absolutely no conflicts of interest in doing so. I was able to put focus on Christmas music because it was otherwise friendly with my class.

I think better teaching will account for the diversity of belief/faith among students, rather than alienating them by ramming something down their throats. In MOST cases, evolution really is a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things. Obviously it isn't trivial if you plan on evolutionary science as a career, but that kind of specialized knowledge isn't practical in terms of the skills necessary for most career fields. For example, what immediate application of evolutionary theory is necessary for floral arranging? Or auto mechanics? Or selling cell phones?

Why should that be a concern? Isn't that taught in church or are you concerned about the children who's parents don't bring them to church or might draw an image of a different designer than the one you see?

I agree with Apple_in_my_Eye, the theory of evolution is not incompatible with the concept of a creator of the universe though Herman Cummings might disagree; it appears to challenge his image of God and opinion of how the universe came to be.

With all due respect to the opinion of some atheists, what we know about the interaction of mater and energy does not disprove the existence of something beyond the three dimensional observed universe. It only proves the wisdom of the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

When I went to high school I wanted to learn things.

The teacher did the old paper over the magnet and iron filings trick and talked about "magnetic lines of force".

I asked "what IS a magnetic line of force?"

The answer: "Umm err. umm err". They didn't know.

Then they lit a candle. I said "what exactly IS the flame? What is this thing that dances around and gives off light?"

They didn't know. Now I understand that not only high school teachers don't know the answer but the greatest physicists in the world don't know either.

They don't really know what a "magnetic line of force" is. They don't really know what an electron is or a photon is. (It is both a wave and a particle)
They don't know what gravity is.

We can make computers and moon rockets but really we haven't got a clue how the basic rules of our universe work.

Are you kidding me? Flame is hot volatiles giving off various gases and emitting photons through chemical reaction.

Magnetism is a stream of electrons flowing from one pole of a substance to another. Ferrous metals shed electrons readily and thus act like magnets when placed in a magnetic field.

Instead of making stupid(and false) claims, you should simply say YOU dont know. Your teachers didnt know. I'm just a layman and scientists know the facts a lot more readily(and factual) than me.

A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field and a starting location within the field. Field lines are useful for visualizing vector fields, which are otherwise hard to depict. Note that, like longitude and latitude lines on a globe, or topographic lines on a topographic map, these lines are not physical lines that are actually present at certain locations; they are merely visualization tools.

"Line of force" is a mathematical construct used for visualizing an electric or magnetic field. The magnetic field is as real as rain. You can see iron filings lined up on a cardboard surface placed near the poles of a magnet. Are your eyes deluding you when you see it?

ruveyn

Everyone knows the answer to that: It is Turtles all the way down.

ruveyn

Ah, but teachers usually ARE NOT scientists, nor do they verify if the information in the textbook complies with scientific standards. They depend on the publisher to do that, and publishers can have agendas.

Ah, but teachers usually ARE NOT scientists, nor do they verify if the information in the textbook complies with scientific standards. They depend on the publisher to do that, and publishers can have agendas.

I think it ought to be a concern for Christian parents. I think that teaching something that suggests or implies a denial through omission of God's role in the natural order leads to the assumption that there is no role, that implicitly there is no God. I agree that evolution and God aren't NECESSARILY incompatible; there just isn't any possible way to demonstrate an evolutionary mechanism nor lasting physical evidence (beyond creation itself) that there is a spiritual Creator--only what one takes on faith and personal experience. If one were, in other words, to assume that God exists from the beginning, there's no problem. But that's not the purpose of public schools.

The question for me is why (even for Christians) is God ONLY relevant on Sunday? You'll hear a lot of sermons about this, that congregants show up for church, say "amen," and then they don't actually LIVE out their faith. When I thought about it, I realized that the only time in my life I wasn't really all that concerned about learning more about God and the Bible was when I was a student, despite the fact I went to a private (secular) school. Church attendance took on a new importance after I'd been in grad studies for a year, largely because that was the first time in my life that I'd been absent from church for an extended time. And somehow I managed to find a church I was actually comfortable attending. And I think maybe it was that experience that led me to actually LIVE what I heard on Sunday, which at that time meant actually being open about what I believed.

What really took me a long time to accomplish (and getting out of the teaching business) was shedding the idea that a person HAS to accept everything he's been told, to include other religions, perversions of Christianity (the "emergent" church, "prosperity gospel," other false teachings), and in general cultural attitudes that are clearly contrary to Biblical teaching. Many of my college profs were right, including the non-Christian ones, when they encouraged me to think for myself, and it seems to me fewer profs out there have that "man-with-a-microphone" mentality that seek to squash a student's originality of thought and brainwash them with what they think is THE right way.

While I was thinking about this yesterday, it dawned on me that Christianity really only becomes relevant to people after they leave the institutional world. I think it has to do with the fact that they are no longer dependent on the institution and don't have to be worried about their ideas being dictated to them. They begin to actually read the Bible and understand it, upon which they find application of its wisdom to day-to-day life. They also recognize the importance of faith, which has the liberating effect of freeing them from purely secular concerns and making them rely more on spiritual matters as being of the ultimate importance.

My issue is why can't people begin this process as children when they first come into the faith when it's easier to do? The public school system (by law) is hindered from doing that, and it gives the false impression that just being a nice person and following the rules is enough for life and realizing your own dreams. Christians know that being good and following rules is NOT enough, that the matter of eternal salvation is of first and foremost importance. Only THEN does being good and following rules even make sense. Why? God is good and God loves us. Therefore, we should do good and love others. Why follow rules? God created order to the world, not chaos. Rules are a way of maintaining order. Therefore we should make and follow rules insofar as they do not violate God's law. What do I mean by that? Well, take the Decalogue and the Greatest Commandment as summaries of the Law as a whole and you pretty much have it. I realize the "real world" isn't quite so cut and dry, but that's just a starting point for what I mean. The "Great Commandment" and the first of the 10 commandments seem to be the ones we tend to compromise the most. As a Christian parent concerned with the spiritual well-being of my children, I want to see these kinds of values demonstrated in their daily life. I don't believe public schools (except with some exceptions, like larger schools in predominantly Christian or Christian-influenced communities) are really very conducive to Christian spiritual growth.

Science is about systematically observing the world and making inductions. Faith and spirituality is irrelevant. It is dangerous to expect public schools, especially classes to enhance belief in any religion - that is not what they are meant for.

In the year 1823, General Motors advanced Robot evolution into the Bieber phase-- a being virtually identical to a mannequin-- known as a Weegee. The Weegees had superior strength and agility, and were equal in intelligence to the monkeys that created them. After a combat team of Weegees destroyed the city of Hiroshima in 1776, they were declared illegal in South Carolina, under penalty of castration. Special vigilante forces-- the Cobra Organization -- had orders to urinate on, upon detection, any trespassing Weegee.
This was not called execution.
It was called a stoner's nightmare.

You can't do "work" without an input of energy, right?

But if you slide a magnet towards another then the second magnet will either be attracted or repelled.

The second magnet will move to or from the first magnet without being touched.

So where did the energy come from to overcome the inertia and friction of the second magnet?

What EXACTLY passes between the two magnets? We don't know.

How about this? A beam of light will go through a foot thick block of glass but will be stopped by a thin sheet of black paper. Why?

We don't know.