|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Mike the Wiz illustrated the point about giving information about nature but not making up a student's mind for them. Learning is not an adventure if someone is force feeding. True education should be about training the mind to be free and to think, to discover and to enjoy. Who cares what MTW said? We all know his motivations. Sorry, but no. Science class is about introducing students to the scientific method. Students are taught to accept or reject using the scientific method and about historical applications of the scientific method. I highly doubt that you have the same objections to what is taught in math class. We don't allow students to be be free about whether to apply the Pythagorean theorem to right triangles in plane geometry or about whether the algorithm for long division works. Sorry but making school 'an adventure' does not mean failing to teach students methods for conducting rigorous investigations. Just teaching them facts without doing that would indeed be spoon feeding. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Learning is not an adventure if someone is force feeding. True education should be about training the mind to be free and to think, to discover and to enjoy. Considered and rejected. Unfortunately, we have a civilization to run here. We cannot afford to have our future citizens be ignorant of basic educational requirements, despite the fact that our current system prevents them from obtaining a "True" education.
Observe and make your own conclusions. Sorry, that'll ruin the economy. We need an educated workforce. Not a bunch of ignorant freeloaders.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Colbard writes:
It's a cute saying that "learning should be an adventure" but it isn'r really practical for an education system. Given the option, most children would do most of their adventuring on the playground instead of in the classroom, so a certain amount of "force feeding" is necessary. Learning is not an adventure if someone is force feeding. The problem with being "self-educated' is that there is no discipline. There is nobody to "force" you to look at the things you need to know instead of just the things you want to know. That's why people who are "self-educated" tend to fall for nonsense like creationism - they've chosen to look at only one side. A proper education system "forces" students to look at all sides. In the case of creationism, if it is presented honestly, the students will see for themselves that there is nothing to it. There is, indeed, nothing to teach.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So the evolutionary purpose of life is? To be, in the same way that the purpose of rocks is to be.
Message 369: Should we teach evolution and religion at school? We should teach neither. There is no problem with teaching about religion in classes on religion -- as long as many religions are compared and contrasted, which is the LAST thing fanatic believers want to see. This would however allow students to be open-minded and apply critical thinking to what they believe. Or in classes on human history and the contributions pro and con from the various religions in the development of modern society. Science should be taught in science class, and whether you like it or not, evolution IS science. It is strange that you single out evolution, when geology, physics, astronomy, and other science disciplines also show many religious beliefs to be invalid. Galileo showed that the earth was not the center, yet religion survived. There is massive evidence that the earth is old, very very old, yet religion survives. There is equally massive evidence that evolution is an ongoing process that explains the diversity of life on earth, and religion will survive this knowledge as well.
Message 375: All the strange theories of evolution will not enter education. You want critical thinking but you want to restrict it to fit your beliefs? What a strange idea. Most religions in the world, most believers of religions in the world do not have a conflict with evolution or sciences. See The Clergy Letter Project
Coyote, your remark about the talking snake, it is part of an old text, which if the students want to read, they can make their own minds up whether it is true or not. That would be approaching the topic with a skeptical open mind.
If they want to delve into Darwin, they can. But to make another person's ideas a a criterion for getting a career is not appropriate. Darwin is neither the beginning nor the end of evolution science. He is not the god-father\figurehead\icon of evolution, and his work was paralleled by Wallace, and built on work by his father as others have built on the findings of others in the field -- the way science grows.
... But to make another person's ideas a a criterion for getting a career is not appropriate. Not to worry one can always flip burgers. Or be a banker. But if you want to be a biologist you need to study the fields of biology, ecology and evolution. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Children are nowhere near as dumb as you seem to beleive.
Colbard writes: Show what nature has but don't put forward dumb conclusions, let the students make up their own mind. The problem with that is that many things are non intuitive. For example: levels of anxiety decrease with exposure to the anxiety provoking situation. But intuitively we avoid anxiety provoking situations. Children need to be informed about how the world works when it is counter intuitive. Does they Sun go around the Earth? Sure looks that way.Does the Moon circle the Earth? Sure looks that way. Both of the above statements are false: but it is not obvious unless one is informed why. Bo you see? Edited by Larni, : DVD extras.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3418 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Education styles ... so many
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3418 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Yeah
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3418 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Thank you Sister in the habit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3418 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Ouch !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3418 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
I like the comparing contrasting bit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3418 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
We could define force. Of course we don't want total self education or a lack of discipline at all, but exposure and experience.
I think we can submit to our children the things which we thought helped us to make our conclusions, but not to make those conclusions for them. In China children were taught that Chairman Mao makes the sun rise. That's force.Education would be to take them onto the China wall at sunrise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
Colbard writes: Yeah Hmmm. I wonder what "Yeah" means. Does it mean that you realize now that you have no grounds for excluding evolution from public school science classrooms? Or does it mean you now understand that a reference to "dumb conclusions" more appropriately applies to the Bible than to science? Or does it mean you agree we should introduce evolution to Sunday School classrooms and let students make up their own minds? Or does it mean you believe we should teach students the best of our knowledge in each subject? Or does it mean you accept all the above? Or was "Yeah" just a feeble attempt to deflect attention from questions for which you have no answers. Inquiring minds want to know. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How young are you?
Teenager?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2920 days) Posts: 882 Joined:
|
Yes we should teach both in their proper disciplines.
Evolution is science so we teach it in science class.Religion is social studies, so we teach it in social studies class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Evolution is science so we teach it in science class. Religion is social studies, so we teach it in social studies class. Comparative religion is social studies, so we teach it in social studies classes. Religious belief and dogma are religion, so they are taught in churches, etc.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024