3 of 3
The trouble with teaching evolution
Posted: 05 December 2005 01:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]  
Total Posts:  635
Joined  2005-02-06


I made similar statements months ago on other threads and while many agree, some felt that making the initial assumption that we can rule out the effect of supernatural forces is in itself a kind of faith.

On another note, Ray, I would be interested in your experiences teaching at the high school level. I’ve heard a few horror stories but I’m hoping they are the exception.


Posted: 05 December 2005 06:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]  
Jr. Member
Total Posts:  69
Joined  2005-02-12


Your comment
I made similar statements months ago on other threads and while many agree, some felt that making the initial assumption that we can rule out the effect of supernatural forces is in itself a kind of faith.

I don’t think it is necessary to rule out the effects of supernatural forces because that would be like trying to prove a negative.  I would shift the responsibility for proof to those postulating supernatural forces.  How one goes about using the natural universe to demonstrate the functioning of supernatural forces I have no idea.  That is why science does not go there but stays in the universe that is verifiable and accessible to any and all investigators.  I see no reason why it would be a problem to require evidence before accepting any supernatural effects or explanations.  Again I say I see no need of any kind for any belief in any thing.  Instead I think it is more appropriate (especially in science)  to say this is my conclusion and here is the evidence (form the natural universe) upon which my conclusion is based.

I have also posted this idea on other threads but have not had much luck getting replies that are favorable to it.  I started a thread back in Feb. 2005 under the category of “Specific Comments on the End of Faith.”  I titled the thread “Instead of the End of Faith How About End of Believing?”  It is still there (on page 5 ).


Posted: 06 December 2005 02:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]  
Sr. Member
Total Posts:  2821
Joined  2005-04-29

Rod and Ray, although you’re probably already aware of it, I just want to weigh in with my agreement about “belief.” Unfortunately, I suspect we’re in the minority in this world of ours.

As for the experience of high school science teaching, I have nothing to say firsthand, but I did get my English credential in Wisconsin and taught American Indians there in a Federal program, and later in an inner-city classroom.

But back to science teaching. Rod, if I were King of the U.S., I’d search out people with experience and energy exactly like what you have, to teach high school chemistry. Of course all these Rod-clones would be more than qualified without taking those tedious and silly education courses, because they already know their subject well enough to be able to figure out how to explain it.

I’m no longer a teacher, but that says little about the potential psychic rewards of doing that work, as they are great. Rod, if you can figure out how to get out of taking time-and-energy wasting ed courses, kids in your geographic area will be fortunate. Learning chemistry can be extremely challenging even when taught by the best teachers. But I can’t imagine a better high school chem teacher than an M.D., able to provide real-world context to much of their instruction. I’ve always wondered why our society seems not to care about the fact that we have so few Ph.D.-holding high school teachers. An M.D. is even better, in the sense that a person holding a terminal degree not only has far more expertise than someone who’s got a 4-year degree in education. He also has passion for his subject, which tends to rub off on his students. King Homunculus would encourage people to earn Ph.D.s in every field, then go teach our high school kids.

Ray, you’d also get paid well under King Homunculus for staying in the classroom, shining light on hypocrisy and ignorance.


Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

3 of 3
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed