ITT We Discuss Theology

[AXOmom]

Drollefille – Thanks for your response. Sorry it has taken me a few days to respond . I’m one month into the school year and already drowning in grading and suffering a sinus infection.


In reading through DubaisSis’s response, I didn’t even key in on the web site (I’m less observant in middle age) and focused instead on the books she recommended. Thanks for making the connection. I was aware of the issue in Kansas, but not of the website, so when the professor made the comment (last winter), we were not only annoyed, but baffled. Now it makes sense and yes, your description of her is apt although since I don’t know her personally, I’ll have to go on the evidence I have available, so I suppose that makes her “jackassness” a theory in the general sense of the term (not the scientific sense).

You are entirely correct about the definitions, and my use of theory was not accurate for science. My intent was simply to point out a respectful way to acknowledge different beliefs and that at this point there are very few things in the world (evolution included) that can be proven beyond dispute. I would add that evolution is broad term that generally refers to three different things- well, three primary things, and the typical high school science class deals with two: macro and micro evolution. Of those, my opinion is that only micro evolution fits the scientific definition of a theory and macro doesn’t work within that definition (on a much more minor and completely irrelevant point – gravity can be both a theory and a law depending on its use).

I would disagree with the website's contention that creationism is fudge science. I would add the qualification that creationism, like evolution, is a broad term that can cover many points of view, so I suppose, depending on what curriculum they were specifically proposing it could have been, but if they are talking about it in the general sense, I would see that as an unfair characterization. I know that the majority of the scientific community holds to evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of life on this planet, but there are scientists who disagree or at least see some flaws in macro evolution, hold to creationism, and who are qualified to know enough about the subject to have credible opinions.

I’m going to leave it at that (although I have a great book recommendation on this as well) because I don’t want this thread to become a discussion of evolution rather than theology. That wasn’t my intent. My point, and I think you and I agree on this, would be that no matter what you think of another person’s beliefs on any subject, you need to treat him or her with civility. Debating ideas is always a good thing and disrespectful side swipes like the professor’s just shut that down. I hold that they are used by those who know very little about opposing viewpoints and are somewhat insecure in their own.

Originally, I understood and somewhat agreed with your point that as long as they weren’t making offensive comments directed at those who hold to creationism, there was no particular reason for a teacher to mention that creationism was another viewpoint students could research on their own. As I gave it some more thought though – I guess my question would be: Why wouldn’t they? I don’t think they HAVE to say that, but if it keeps a substantial group of parents and their children happy, what’s the harm? What concerns would a teacher have about a student doing that?

This isn’t a perfect analogy because English is a more subjective subject than science, but let’s say I’m getting ready to teach Huck Finn. I know that recently there have been controversies surrounding the book, and it’s been pulled in a lot of districts because there are those who feel it has racist undertones. The district and I both disagree with this. I don’t think there is much evidence for that view, and I feel there is substantial evidence to the contrary. Still, there are many who disagree, and I know there are some literature professors who disagree (although they are a decided minority). As a teacher, the first thing I would do when I introduce the book is to acknowledge the controversy. I would explain why I feel the book is anything but racist while acknowledging that there are those who feel differently and have every right to do so. At that point, yes, I would let my students know that while we aren’t going to spend time debating that issue in class, they are more than welcome to read material on their own from those who feel otherwise and draw their own conclusions. Why? Well, my job as a teacher isn’t to determine what they shouldn’t learn or know. My job is to expose them to information, beliefs, and viewpoints as much as I can and to give them the tools (evidence and logic among others) to determine the validity of those beliefs and viewpoints. I can’t mention every idea coming down the pike, but when they know full well there is a substantial amount of controversy surrounding some part of my curriculum I honestly feel I would be irresponsible as a teacher not to at least acknowledge that fact. I can guarantee that someone in that classroom will bring it up, so I might as well be prepared for it and “head it off at the pass” so to speak.

I would say again, you have been a great example throughout this thread of how to debate an issue with reason and respect. That is, no doubt, a by-product of that Jesuit education!

Swerving off topic here, but my husband spent three years as the one and only protestant chaplain in the history of Gonzaga University (proudly Jesuit). We had a lot of lovely evening dinners with the priests, and when we weren’t discussing basketball, we had some great theological discussions. Listening to them discuss their opinions of the Dominicans was entertaining as well, but I admit, not very respectful.

Vandal Squirrel - The monkey thing bothers me as well from those in my own group. If someone is going to disagree with evolution, they shouldn't attribute to it things that it doesn't say. However, on a rather funny side note. This same anthropology class was on human sexuality. Apparently the professor felt actually discussing human sexuality or watching videos of it would be inappropriate for the classroom (this was U of O, so I personally think she could have swung it without much fallout). She decided to focus on monkey sexuality instead because she pointed out that monkeys were our closest relatives. For the next month my daughter was treated to a daily dose of videos showing monkeys well....doing their thing. Her boyfriend started referring to it as her "monkey porn class".

IrishLake - Don't mean to turn you against the Jesuits, but our Gonzaga buddies HATED Notre Dame....with a holy passion. Not sure why. My husband says it has something to do with Digger Phelps.