I was in a local restaurant some years ago. I had just finished teaching a night course at one of the local colleges and was tired and anxious to get my meal-in-a-sack and go home. While waiting, a friendly waitress chatted with me, and in so doing discovered that I was a high school science teacher by day, and that my assignments included subject matter that she had no fond memories of. In a very blunt, humorous, disarming way, she communicated that she could see no value whatsoever in the compulsory study of science, with the most wasteful, and pointless, effort expended on biology.
Well; I make it a point not to argue with people who handle my dinner. Besides, she had paid her dues and finished school. What needs to be said to a mature adult, content with their life, who declares that they are still waiting to make use of all those details studied in the classroom?
I hope you'll understand that I did nothing to provoke the discussion. I had one eye on my watch and the other on the kitchen. I had talked all the science I needed to between 8 a.m. that morning and 9 p.m. that same evening. Oblivious to any inconsistency, the young woman followed her denunciation of my chosen career with a series of perplexing science questions. “How did I deal with the topic of evolution in the classroom?”, “What did I think of cloning?”, and “Did I think that there was a connection between genetics and homosexuality?” I suppose there is some irony in the circumstance of a science teacher who can think of nothing but spaghetti and a waitress who cares for nothing but the most urgent science topics of the day. Of course there was no way that I was going to do justice to her concerns at that time and in that place. I didn't so much answer questions as I did attempt to hold up my end of the conversation, until my food came.
I wouldn’t intentionally insult her now, any more than that evening. Please take my word that she was quite personable and not the least offensive in her conduct. I hope it isn’t indelicate of me to say that the manner in which she framed her questions suggested that she had just the vaguest notions of what the terms evolution and clone meant; and as for a genetic component to behavior, she communicated no confidence in making a coherent, informed judgment about something so complex.
At last with my supper in hand, I encouraged her to consider that each of the topics she had enthusiastically raised, were best tackled by a person who possessed a sound education in a diverse collection of disciplines. Science alone is insufficient to answer the questions that are most important to us but it is not without its part. Science provides tools by which we explore and explain the physical, material world in which we live out this life. How we make use of the process itself and the knowledge gained is informed by other systems of knowledge and wisdom.
I gladly admit to my students that it is a real challenge to select which items of science instruction will be useful to them and which will not. The reasonable solution is a broad education, composed of many essential parts, the complimentarity of which, equips a person for whatever lies ahead.
Well; I make it a point not to argue with people who handle my dinner. Besides, she had paid her dues and finished school. What needs to be said to a mature adult, content with their life, who declares that they are still waiting to make use of all those details studied in the classroom?
I hope you'll understand that I did nothing to provoke the discussion. I had one eye on my watch and the other on the kitchen. I had talked all the science I needed to between 8 a.m. that morning and 9 p.m. that same evening. Oblivious to any inconsistency, the young woman followed her denunciation of my chosen career with a series of perplexing science questions. “How did I deal with the topic of evolution in the classroom?”, “What did I think of cloning?”, and “Did I think that there was a connection between genetics and homosexuality?” I suppose there is some irony in the circumstance of a science teacher who can think of nothing but spaghetti and a waitress who cares for nothing but the most urgent science topics of the day. Of course there was no way that I was going to do justice to her concerns at that time and in that place. I didn't so much answer questions as I did attempt to hold up my end of the conversation, until my food came.
I wouldn’t intentionally insult her now, any more than that evening. Please take my word that she was quite personable and not the least offensive in her conduct. I hope it isn’t indelicate of me to say that the manner in which she framed her questions suggested that she had just the vaguest notions of what the terms evolution and clone meant; and as for a genetic component to behavior, she communicated no confidence in making a coherent, informed judgment about something so complex.
At last with my supper in hand, I encouraged her to consider that each of the topics she had enthusiastically raised, were best tackled by a person who possessed a sound education in a diverse collection of disciplines. Science alone is insufficient to answer the questions that are most important to us but it is not without its part. Science provides tools by which we explore and explain the physical, material world in which we live out this life. How we make use of the process itself and the knowledge gained is informed by other systems of knowledge and wisdom.
I gladly admit to my students that it is a real challenge to select which items of science instruction will be useful to them and which will not. The reasonable solution is a broad education, composed of many essential parts, the complimentarity of which, equips a person for whatever lies ahead.