Education about LIFE? while we can!

One aim of education is to supply students with facts. And during the span of a students education that is one heck of a lot of facts! What is a round shape called? What’s inside an orange? What happens when we fill a balloon with air? Why don’t we fall off the earth?
Another aim of education is to provide students with common answers to these questions, and an environment and tools with which to test these answers for themselves.Is it not so the best way forward when teaching creation and evolution to students in our schools? Give them the facts about creation, give them the facts about evolution, provide them with common answers, sit back and let them come to their own conclusions.
Regarding evolution versus creation I would guess that out of 100 students about to leave full time education it would be split around 45/45 with a ”don’t know’ of 10.A poll for the BBC's Horizon series here in the UK in January 2006 questioned people regarding their beliefs about the development of life on Earth and the results were:
” 48% Evolution
” 39% Creationism/Intelligent Design
” 13% Don't KnowLet's call it a draw shall we!Would anyone care to give their reasons as to why teaching BOTH creation and evolution in schools is wrong? Could we not have equal time allocated to both and then students can decide later on in their education whether they would want to develop their studies about either, or both? Could we not just call the subject LIFE?In our present climate, and I mean that quite literally, I would advocate that we teach both and here is my reason why. I believe we have a common ground here on which both could meet, and one that is relevant to both and takes nothing away from either viewpoint, it’s called extinction. From a creationist or evolutionist viewpoint, I wouldn’t deny, where we came from is important, that debate can go on forever. But do we not now have a more pressing argument to discuss? Human life on Earth whether created or evolved is in danger of extinction. Let’s forget the rest of natural life just for now because they have an uncanny way of coming through floods, volcano eruptions, meteorite collisions . . . let’s debate about us, humans, and our future, and let's start in our classrooms.okay admin', how'd I do?
ogon

Hi Ogon,
Please could you give some examples of the facts that we know about the creation of life?Any attempt at answering any such questions, with facts, would only result in me looking silly due to my lack of understanding on the subject. At this particular moment I am neither in favour of creation or evolution as an answer to the question of how life on Earth came into being. Hence my reason for joining the forum to listen, and learn.BUT, having said that, let me at least say something in reply as you took the bother to reply yourself. It may be factless! but I’ll give it a try.Your question specifically asks about the ”creation’ of life so I assume you only want to discuss the creation of life from a creationist point of view, and not an evolutionist point of view. An evolutionist has a different name for when life actually started on Earth I guess other than created? ”Evolved’ suggests something has already started and is already in motion so that can’t be the correct word. Or is it?Is there not 2 questions here? How was life created AND how did life evolve?? I’m sure I will be corrected if need be but that’s okay, I’m willing to learn.Can either creationists or evolutionists supply hard evidence as to how life started, began, was created on Earth? Sorry to use the ”created’ word again but to me it makes sense to say something was ”created’ out of nothing. OR, out of a chemical bound Earth something else was created. That something was biological life. I guess the absolute proof, accepted as hard evidence, would be the capability to reproduce a particular theory. Can either creationist of evolutionists do this? If neither can categorically prove their theories about how life started on Earth, then neither has a foundation to stand on.
Prove how life on earth began, replicate the theory, then that will provide a basis for everything else that comes after it. Don’t prove it, then everything that comes after it is opinion only.Before I get tangled up even further, I would like to get some feedback from what I have written so far. Then I can either go into a corner and lick my wounds or try and bring something else useful to the debate.ogon

Can I just say I don't remember saying that we should teach creation in a 'science' class. Just as I didn't say teach evolution in a religious lesson. What I did say is, why not discuss them side by side, just as we do in this forum, and suggested call the lesson LIFE.ogon

Larni, I agree, teaching children is a ”tricky job’ and a responsible job. And yes, especially in their formative years, children are likely to take things you say literally and as the truth. Hence the responsibility. I well remember working with a nursery class and telling them to wipe their feet as they entered the classroom from outside as it was wet and muddy. One boy literally took his shoes and socks off and wiped his feet. Afterall isn’t that what I told him to do.
To teach anything in a lesson you have to be clear about your objectives and have some idea’s about possible outcomes,’goals’, depending on the children’s ability. If I were to teach a lesson about evolution I would expect the children to understand the nature of evolution and all that that entails. If I were to teach a lesson about creation I would expect the children to do the same. The children will come to some conclusion as to where they stand on both issues if they have a responsible teacher. Children not only base what they believe on facts delivered by the teacher, but they also base them on their own personal life experiences.
Teaching about the creation of life on Earth, in my opinion, doesn’t have to be taught from a Christian point of view specifically. And so I see no reason why it should be exclusively taught in churches. Creation is a worldwide view held by yes, many religions, but also by many cultures. And from what I’ve read so far, some scientists also fall into a middle ground. Yes creation, but then evolution. Or are they not really scientists? Why does creation have to be boxed with religion when it is obvious that many non religious cultures, and many non religious individuals, hold the belief in creation? Or are you saying that to believe in creation means you belong to a particular religious faith?ogon

As Percy rightly says, I’m one person against many. Sorry that I can’t answer everyone’s questions. Half of the time I don’t understand the questions! Lots of words written but only a couple of things being said I think.Evolution is supported by scientists
Creation is ridiculed by scientistsEvolution is backed up by scientific evidence
Creation has no evidenceEvolution should be taught in schools
Creation should be taught in churchesEvolution and creation can never be compatibleWell you are almost convincing me guys. I’m neither a creationist nor an evolutionist I guess. I can’t prove creation and as a non scientist I couldn’t prove evolution. Does that make me a ”tionist’?
ogon