Why did I have to talk about creationism in my biology lab?

[armyowalgreens]

This is a Bio 100 class for non-science majors.

To be fair to ASU, I'll type the complete hand out

What Causes Present-Day Species Diversity?

Three Alternative Answers Prominent in Western Culture


Spontaneous Generation Theory:
1. Living things arise spontaneously from nonliving materials when acted upon by special vital forces.
2. Different sorts of nonliving materials give rise to different sorts of living things.
3. Spontaneous generation had occurred in the past and still occurs today

Special Creation Theory:
1. On the third day, God gathered the water below the sky into one place to produce land and seas and created plants that bear fruit and seeds according to their kind to inhabit the land (From Genesis 1_9-1:11)
2. On the fifth day, God created all the creatures of the sea, according to their kinds, every bird, according to its kind (From Genesis 1:20-1:23)
3. On the sixth day, God created all the creatures of the land, according to their kinds, including a man in God's own image and a woman (From Genesis 1:24-1:27)

Evolution Theory:
1. All life arose from one simple kind of organism
2. Each species, fossil or living organism arose from another that preceded it in time.
3. Changes in living things were gradual and of long duration.
4. Over long periods of time, new genera, new families, new orders, new classes and new phyla arose by a continuation of the same kind of formation and development(i.e. evolution) that produced new species preceding geologic eras.
5. Evolution continues today in generally the same manner as during preceding geologic eras.


Use evidence found in the fossil record to construct hypothetico-deductive arguments of the following form to support or not support each theory

If... such as theory X is assumed to be correct (theory).
And... evidence is obtained from the fossil record (test conditions)
Then... Trait A, Trait B,... and Trait Z should be observed (expected observation).
But/And... such and such was observed (actual observation).
Therefore... theory A is not supported (conclusion).

So our class is split up into 6 groups. One theory was assigned to 2 groups and they had to find evidence that supports and does not support their theory. Thankfully, my group was assigned evolution.

Mostly everybody in the class seemed puzzled/amused by this exercise. A few people were giving the TA a hard time.

At the end of class, the TA announced that Pasteur debunked Spontaneous Generation. She said that we cannot prove nor disprove Special Creation and that it was based entirely on faith.

Now if Special Creation is based entirely on faith, why did we even bother bringing it up?


Disclaimer: The TA announced that she knew nothing about the bible. So I don't think that she is responsible for the content in this handout. I honestly have no clue where the documented originally came from.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Hmmmm.. It's a growing trend in some places, unfortunately. Luckily, my kids

lean towards scientific explanations of things and think that a lot of church things are "pretty far-fetched."

[armyowalgreens]

2. I'm just wondering if this is even allowed in a public university.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. I've heard of it being done a the classrooms of lower grades. And you would think that

it crosses the line with separation of church and state, but the ones for it swear that their "theory" is every bit as valid as evolution, which they also claim is a "theory." :eyes: (Never mind that only one of them has any evidence whatsoever in support of it.)

[Rick Myers]

3. That's disturbing...

Special Creation? I'd look into this further, if I was you...

[armyowalgreens]

5. I plan on emailing my bio professors. Maybe the ASU admin.

[spanone]

4. why do they list chapter & verse for creation and no footnotes for science. it's tilted sideways

[armyowalgreens]

7. It does seem like that doesn't it?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

8. I think they do it because there are many creation stories

across the various faiths and are documenting ONE with reference for those who might not understand the structure.

I think the overall point of the exercise seems to be that you cannot work within the bounds of the scientific method to try and work out the 'creation' story.

sP

[XemaSab]

14. I agree that that's the point of the exercise

I'm sure it's to forestall student complaints about evolution. :shrug:

[Starry Messenger]

9. Why the focus on origin theories in Western cultures, I'm wondering.

I'm pretty sure support for the theory of Evolution is global. Why not illustrate the creation myths of other cultures if one is going to discuss them? Strange.

[Ron Green]

10. It's a good way to show that Creationism is not a part of science, and that

Spontaneous Generation has been disproved by science. I think it's a very useful exercise for college non-science majors.

[armyowalgreens]

11. How is this useful? Why are we talking about religion in a science class?

What purpose does that serve?

[Swamp Rat]

20. Did your class discuss how ridiculous it is to include creationism in a science curriculum?

[armyowalgreens]

21. The teacher didn't. I think the class knew.

[Swamp Rat]

24. But y'all discussed it, right?

If so, then perhaps it was not such a bad thing to occur in a freshmen bio class.

Of course, creationism does not belong in a science class, nor in most other academic contexts (religion and philosophy classes excluded), but I think a single day spent debunking it is a day well-spent.

[armyowalgreens]

25. But like I said, we didn't debunk it.

The teacher said that science cannot prove or disprove creationism. She didn't say anything about the fact that it has nothing to do with science.

She did tell us that we needed to be sensitive to others beliefs.

[Swamp Rat]

26. WTF? Sensitive to other's beliefs???

Is she a scientist or a parochial guidance counselor?

If I were in your class, I'd make sure the next class was spent debunking the inclusion of creationism and HOW INAPPROPRIATE IT IS! ... and 'being sensitive' has nothing to do with it - It was a cop-out statement used to stop the discussion that has no scientific value whatsoever.

Creationism was injected into your science curriculum, and it needs to be addressed.... and thoroughly debunked.

Students pay a lot for their tuition and expect to receive a decent education that enables them to be competitive. If they want bible studies, they can enroll in Bob Jones U or Liberty U.

[walldude]

12. I thought the same thing.. this looks more like an exercise to disprove

Creationism in science. Keep it in faith where it belongs.

[TiredOldMan]

15. I agree. To prove one theory you have to disprove others.

[armyowalgreens]

19. No you don't. You prove a theory by proving it's validity.

[nini]

13. I went to Catholic school as a kid

and we were taught evolution and all kinds of science and history. We were also taught the creation story but not necessarily literally like the fundies seem to want to push down everyone's throats.

I had the coolest nun teachers and the older I get the more I appreciate them.

[Winterblues]

16. You seem to be implying that creationism is a legitimate theory

I would first like to see the hypothesis on such and the "experts" proofs of such hypothesis. Once I see the Proofs tried and tried again, I will consider it a valid theory.

[armyowalgreens]

17. I never said it was a valid theory. ASU did.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. I had no idea spontaneous generation was prominant...

at least not since the 18th century.

Other than that, though, the exercise seems like it had a good point to it-- the practical approach to applying scientific reasoning to popular ideas.

Observation, question, hypothesis, testing of hypothesis...

[Tansy_Gold]

22. It's a class for non-science majors, which means there could be

students in that class who come either from high schools or from home-schooling in which they've never really examined how creationism fits into the scientific method.

This is an exercise designed to get the students really thinking and analyzing and then defending their conclusions by way of scientific method and critical thinking.

It's not as if ASU is "teaching" creationism. It's absolutely true that creationism is an answer offered within some elements of western culture, and that's all the hand-out is saying.

I've taken history classes in which we were asked to defend various assumptions about the causes of the Civil War: slavery, economic inequality, states' rights (meaning slavery), resentment over independence from England, etc. Just because a cause was listed and championed by "some" didn't mean it was right.

I too took a biology class for non-science majors at ASU, but at the west campus not Tempe, 1999. It was 300-level class, and everyone in it was at least a junior. Some of the comments/observations in that class shocked me. There were people who didn't know the earth's axis is tilted relative to the plane of its orbit. There were people who couldn't name more than three planets of our solar system. There was even one student who was surprised to learn that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. Some of them didn't know that there are plants that don't produce seeds. Some thought spiders are insects. Some were surprised to learn snakes have internal skeletons.

It's not a matter of separation of church and state, since the school isn't TEACHING creationism. They're teaching ABOUT it, and that's a very different thing altogether.


Tansy Gold, who is constantly amazed by a lot of things, not least of which is the stupidity of some of her fellow human creatures.

[kevinbgoode]

23. You should question the scientific basis for number 2 as a

"prominent" answer, and, if you feel confident, ask the T.A. to ask the PROFESSOR and/or the DEPARTMENT chair to substantiate the source for that answer (i.e., specific "religious" interpretation). Don't settle for a simple "Christian" line - because that is rightwing propaganda...ask for specific denominational acceptance of those passages as doctrine and then ask for an explanation as to why it is explained as "prominent."

At that point, you are also within your rights to question what the department means by "faith" and why they selected that specific biblical interpretation as explanation. They should not only be able to explain the basis of that selection, but WHICH faith claims that it is a viable alternative "prominent" answer. Right wing 'religious" non-denominational created political action committees that call themselves "churches" - with no historical denominational basis in religious interpretation, do not represent "prominent" belief. . .

My guess is that some right wing whiner complained that his personally selected "religious" beliefs as a faux "Christian" were unfairly challenged by the use of evolution in biology classrooms without "competing" claims of rightwing dominionists. You can certainly suggest that in the future, so as not to offend the possible pastafarians in the classroom, they include the Flying Spaghetti Monster as an alternative "prominent" belief - after all, it is just as creative as the non-denominational claims of wingnuts.