New Biology teacher in a Christian work place.

I began in CAtholic School and in 5th grade we began "General SCience: studies and we aso learned about the concept of "Special Evolution" a concept that Pope Pious XII had removed a few 10 yeras before I was in grade school. We then learned about )mostly) the historical books of the OT and we were exposed to the disciplines of science and the scientific metrhod. WE discussed evolution as a way to "Tie" all the works in biology and earth sciences together.

Today, the Parochial SChools still take their kids on better scientific journeys than do our public schools. There is much teaching, lecture, discussion, and "Honors work"
For a parochial NT based school system, the CAtholic school system was always alight years ahead of the public schools. (and werent bothered with all those 1st Amendment issues like the "Establishment Clause"

What is funny (on the flip side) is that most other Christian Academies and Charter schools do NOT recognize Catholicism as "Christian". They call Catholicism "a cult"

I see it as polarisation, your Democrat and Republican parties seem a lot further apart than our parties are. There almost seems a need to turn things political to prove yourself right.

Some things we look at with incredulity, like all the song and dance about Universal Health Care. I don't understand why anyone other that the richest 1% would oppose it. I suppose all this hoo hah about evolution/creationism is looked at the same way.

its pretty much a battle of litmus tests.Most people against Obamacare rent doing their own thinking anyway.
Sad really.

What with the TEAbagger -phenomenon the Repubicans are ham strung and mostly cant compromise by virtue of this vocal minority of GOPers who have stated openly that they want to "tear it all down"

Sweden is a Lutheran country. When and where I went to school we only had state schools and still 2 hours of religious instructions a week every school year for 12 years.
Remember once an American woman telling me I could not be very well informed as I never had gone to Sunday school.
I really do not know how many hours I had religious instructions in school but it must have been around 900 over the years.

Are Americans the only ones in the world who talk about "believing" a particular scientific principle?


Joe(That's really pathetic.)Nation

I try to think about it and I think and I believe the word is used differently too.
If I as a Swede say:"I believe in God". It is a fact.
But believe can also be used as a neutral form when followed by that.
"I believe that evolution is the most logical thing, but I believe that there is a possibility that creation also could have taken place" In this case I would use believe so I do not hurt someone who might not believe it, adding another sentence.
We Swedes are so afraid of conflicts.

Some American outfit had asked Swedes if they are religious. This outfit came to the conclusion we are not. I cannot remember the actual number, but it was very low.
The Americans used the word religious without finding out about how we use it. The word religious is for us rather negativ.

I would say tell it as it is, evolution is just a theory and isn't fact, but make sure you let them know the real definition of theory as it pertains to science: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment". While this doesn't equate to it being a fact, it will probably push the line. I'm not sure how important this place is for you and it's a good thing that you volunteer, but if it were me, I would teach what IS regardless of what I'm told to teach.

It also depends on what you are teaching, if you're teach anything that doesn't pertain to evolution then there really isn't any reason for you to go into it anyway. If it's small children as well, then I would also tread carefully because bible thumping parents can get insane about what people teach their children.

Im glad someobody reprised this thread, I was thinking about it a bit this summer. II guess you should be prepping for another semester SOOOO.There are a number of good resources that I could suggest. HOWEVER, as a possible way to teach good science and still not avoid the issue, why not take more time in genetics and look at the similar genomes of , say mice and people, chimps and people, or hyraces and elephants, or even horses and whales.
The genomes of these need to be discussed in a light of "SImilarites of genotype and derivation of phenotype"
Ive often thought about this very thing and Id be happy to dig deeper into some resources that you could use.
I WOULD STAY AWAY FROM THE INTERNET. WHY? because most internet sites of science (like some very great sites on evolution) have been studied over and attempts at refuting theor facts have been made over and over. Without going through a detailed analyses of these sites, you culd easily get blind sided by some pre-prepared bullshit that has a sound of truth but takes a deeper understandong to fond out where the errors lie. ID prepare my own from rw reources . That way many f these Creat"Quote miners" can be exposed to new analyses.

Good times youll have (or else youll go nutz-I teach too so I try to redo my syllibii each new term so that I stay ahead of the quote miners.

ALSO, my area has evolution evidence via the fossil record as my main topic, I use genetics often as a "Door slammer"