Inspiring Teachers

At ScienceBlogs, a teacher blogs about why it is dangerous to teach evolution in wherever he works in America. This guy who goes by the handle Coturnix opines:

You cannot bludgeon kids with truth (or insult their religion, i.e., their parents and friends) and hope they will smile and believe you. Yes, NOMA is wrong, but is a good first tool for gaining trust. You have to bring them over to your side, gain their trust, and then hold their hands and help them step by step. And on that slow journey, which will be painful for many of them, it is OK to use some inaccuracies temporarily if they help you reach the students. If a student, like [Natalie Wright] who I quoted above, goes on to study biology, then he or she will unlearn the inaccuracies in time.

First question, what is truth here? Or is it Truth (capital T). Most likely it’s the latter since the guy denies NOMA. Second, why teach your Truth: your spin interpretation of the scientific data and concepts as the truth in a public school/college? Whatever happened to the noble ideal of secularism.

As a student, I say if ever I knew that my biology teacher was using NOMA to gain my trust, only to teach his version of the “truth”, I’d be mad. Thank God, my A-level (and high school) Biology teachers were not like that. If they were, it will only have served to destroy the respect I have for whatever truth the teacher represents.

I do not understand why it is necessary to use some ‘inaccuracies’ about evolution in order to “reach” the students (is it some kind of evangelism?). I mean Coturnix is most definitely not teaching about evolution to little children; rather to teenagers and adults I guess. So why the need for ‘inaccuracies’? And by the way, the students are not gonna like you for teaching inaccuracies (or lies if knowingly done) if they find it out later on in their academic life.

Reading Coturnix’s article, initially I thought I found a positive thing to commend:

If there is a potential resentment of my lectures, I have to thread carefully. I have to remember that I am not trying to turn them into biologists, but that I am trying to make them think for themselves and to understand evolution even if they do not want to ‘believe’ it for religious reasons.

However, I found his intention very insincere in light of his other desires.

Now I will mention some of the things about my science teachers that inspired me and put me steadily on the path to becoming a scientist. My chemistry teacher in A-levels was a huge inspiration. He almost never talked about religion or anything controversial–even when once given a chance to comment on Christianity, he politely declined. Not a disparaging word mentioned; he was definitely not religious. He was also a very genuine man–no false intentions. I must mention here that my interest in Genetics was kindled by him, since he was a Geneticist prior to taking up the teaching job. See, totally unrelated to what he was actually teaching but very much connected to how he conducted himself. It puts a positive perception on whatever the teacher stood for. He was the best chemistry teacher I had in my life I would say. He did not try to introduce ‘temporary inaccuracies’ in what he was teaching just to get a point across.

Another important teacher in my life was my lecturer for A-level psychology. He was a critic of evolutionary psychology. The way he teaches itself is inspiring. What he does is describes a model or a scientific study and asks everyone (we were about 10-15 students) to come up with one or two criticisms about it. Then he explains how the valid criticisms we raise applies. In the other subjects I studied (the more “hard” sciences), I had never encountered this type of teaching. They all merely expound on the “facts”. The pinnacle of my high regard for this teacher was reached when in one class, we were allowed to ponder whether psychology itself is a scientific discipline with arguments for and against. Think about it. Imagine the uproar if a teacher allowed some teenagers to ponder whether Evolutionary Biology is scientific. Hmm. Needless to say that I understood much more about the way science works and the scientific method there than in any other class I have attended in my entire pre-university life. As far I could tell, the lecturer wasn’t religious (neither was he explicitly atheistic).

The things that appeals and inspires students like me the most is humility and honesty. Being humble about what you confidently teach and know through the scientific method. Understanding and explaining the limitations of science. Honesty is the most appreciated. Making assumptions explicit. Not afraid to criticise received theories and models. Openly saying what we don’t know yet as “We don’t know”. Not being afraid of admitting it. We know you are not omniscient.