|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
quote: I could not agree more. Teach the basics of all religions and/or myths that can be fit into a lesson plan in a class on comparative religion/mythology by the 9th grade at the latest. It would open up students to the understanding that the world does not end at the border of the nation (or in West Texas, at the Texas border). Provide them with the understanding that there are other cultures that under any true God should be treated with respect instead of condemnation. I also agree with Jar that if more people knew more about other religions and or mythologies (as you prefer) it would make true Christanity look pretty good by comparison (potential understatement). So I wonder what the problem would be with leaving science to teach science and give all the other forms of theism and even anti-theism an equal crack in another class. After all, it is part of history and culture. It would seem to me that a real Christian would not be afraid of having their religion compared to others in the appropriate forum. Of course, such a class would require that the basics of the other concepts were taught, not ignored or vilified. I could envision, however, that fundamentalist totalitarians may try to subvert learning about anything other than their version of life, the universe, and everything, like they are trying to do now in every aspect of public school teaching. Fundamentalist totalitarians are a minority in both the US and the world (thank God). Having a significant part of the population learn about other countries, their cultures, and their motivations (and languages of course) is necessary for any nation that seeks to prosper, it is required for economic and military success. Leave science classes for science (which is not religion. period.). In such a high school class as comparative religion/mythology I would not mind a "christian" fundamentalist giving it their all in one class, provided of course it is balanced by a representative of each of the following: historical religions (including Aztec, Inca, Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Celt, Nordic, African, etc. as time permits) Athiest, Agnostic, Bhuddist (all main lines including Zen, Matayama, and Tibetan), Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant (at the end, in decreasing number of adherents as time permits), Jewish, Islamic (including Sunni, Shiite, and Sufi), Jain, Hindu, Taoist, Druze, Bahai, Zoroastrian, Wicca, Voodoo, {ABE - Sikh, sorry} and Shinto. Also, for balance, it would be appropriate to discuss Spinoza Panthiesm, Deism, Rationality (as in Socrates), Communism, Confucianism, and Satanism. I'm sure I forgot someone. I am all for an informed electorate. Edited by anglagard, : Forgot an important religion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The topic of the thread is whether Evolution and Creation Myths should be taught in school. My position is "Yes, we should tech the Creation Myths so that the kids have a basic understanding of Mythos. Then they will be better prepared to learn what really happened."
If you have some other opinion, please present your best case in support of your position so that the readers may judge. So far all you have presented is some appeal to majority rule, and some claims that Biblical Creationism is the Christian Position. The former is refuted by the fact that the US is designed to protect us from the tyranny of a majority and the later by the fact that over 10,000 US Christian Clergy have publicaly endorsed teaching the Theory of Evolution and opposing teaching Biblical Creationism. If you have anything else to support whatever position it is you're hawking, this is a good place to bring it out. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
EZscience Member (Idle past 5153 days) Posts: 961 From: A wheatfield in Kansas Joined: |
I find jar's proposition quite a good one.
I can't see any reasonable person objecting to such a balanced approach. However, as I think Anglagard hinted, we might expect substantial objections from the fundamentalist christians to having their sacred religion's fairy story of human origin being lumped in with all the other 'creation myths' in an opbjective high school classroom. The problem is, the christian right doesn't just want their creation myth taught in school, they want it taught AS IF IT WERE GOSPEL TRUTH. And since science is the 'gold standard' when it comes to determining what is verifiably true, they WANT IT TAUGHT AS IF IT WERE SCIENCE. The problem is that science requires, nay demands, mechanistic explanations of process and functionality.Evolution provides the framework for a virtual infinity of such explamations when it comes to how living things change and have come to be as they are. Creationism's mechanism is 'GODDIDIT' - end of story. Not much of a mechanistic explanation there. Science is a study of mechanisms and creationism posits none. Ergo, there is absolutely nothing to study in context of science. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Let the majority define science. The only real parts of what is called science under question regarding orgins doesn't much affect the big picture anyhow. It is in that gray zone where science and belief become hard to tell apart where the controversy lies. In that zone, respect the majority. Period.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 821 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Let the majority define science. The majority of what, scientists? They already have and evolution is science and creation/ID is not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:The topic of the thread is whether Evolution and Creation should be taught in school. My position is "Yes, we should teach the Evolution Myths so that the kids have a basic understanding of Mythos. Then they will be better prepared to learn what really happened." quote:It is NOT the Christian position. It is the position of those that believe the bible as the inspired word of God, for the most part. As for majority appeal, that applies to more than creation. Almost nowhere is that the majority belief. This means it is my opinion it should not be forced on majorities of other persuasions. I expect muslim teachings in Saudi Arabia. I would not be offended or surprised if they threw in a few little prayers to allah, or references to ho they think the Koran might mention some aspect of science or creation. That is all fine. Majorities can do that. At least when not ruled and oppressed by minorities. Edited by whisper, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
The majority of PEOPLE.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
The only real parts of what is called science under question regarding orgins doesn't much affect the big picture anyhow. I'm a bit curious as to what you see is the "big picture" in science? I'm fully aware that you consider both abiogenesis and evolution to be myths - your belief on that particular question is not what I'm asking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 821 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
Well the majority of people are ignorant of most things, why the heck would you want them to vote on something as important as science. What next, do you let everyone vote on what Islam is or what Judaism is? How about we vote on what Christianity is as it appears that those darn Christians just can't seem to decide on their own! I mean really, how come there are baptists, catholics, methodist, espicopelians (sp?), protestants, LDS, seventh day adventists, etc ? There should only be one type of Christianity, right?!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
I don't know that science covers the big picture. It is out there in the gray zone where faith and evidence mingle that requires some assuming and believing. If we leave that part to the majorities the main areas of science are not that affected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Then maybe you can explain it to me so I can understand it. You said:
The rights of the minority do not include dictating to a Christian majority what to teach or believe. The clear implication is that you believe that some "minority" is dictating or trying to dictate what Christians should teach and believe. I responded:
Christians can teach and believe whatever they wish. They just cannot use state funds or state facilities to do so. Then your response was:
I think we all know that, so? which appears to contradict your first statement. Perhaps, then, you can explain what it was that you meant. "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I must not have expressed myself clearly, as you didn't address the question. I was asking you to clarify the following statement:
quote:You used the term "big picture". I'm trying to understand what you meant by that. If this "big picture" is outside of science, as you seem to imply in your response (if I'm reading you correctly), then I'm confused as to how what we teach (or don't teach) in science class has any relevance. On the other hand, you seemed to also imply in your response that whatever this "big picture" is that we're supposed to be teaching DOES have some impact on science when you say "the main areas of science are not that affected". Do you see why I'm confused? Clarification would be appreciated. If I understand what you're trying to say, I can possibly come up with some reasonable point of discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:What elitist nonsense. Why not get a sign and stand on a street corner that reads "You people are all stupid, I am the smart one"? quote:If the majority there is Jewish they may want to decide if they can eat pork in school, etc. Leave it to the people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Well, the minority shouldn't dictate to the majority in the public schools. We aren't talking about private, and what they can pay for aside from the schools they already pay for!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
But I have already explained that the minority does have the legitimate expectation that its rights shall be protected from the majority, and that among these rights is that state institutions shall not be used as apologetics ministries, even if the doctrines were that of the majority.
This is not the same as the minority dictating to the majority what they can teach and believe -- it is simply dictating that the rights of the minorities shall be respected and protected. This is a basic tenet of modern democracy. "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the same sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -- H. L. Mencken (quoted on Panda's Thumb)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024