|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
So the evolutionary purpose of life is?
To breed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Tangle writes: Evolution does not have a purpose, it's just a human description of a naturally occurring process - Thank you, I knew it. I was just replying to what could be concluded from the previous post. Should we teach evolution and religion at school? We should teach neither.Show what nature has but don't put forward dumb conclusions, let the students make up their own mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
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. Observe and make your own conclusions. This cannot entail running tests on what others have concluded, but tests can only be done on whatever has practical value. All the strange theories of evolution will not enter education. 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.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. Edited by Colbard, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Education styles ... so many
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Yeah
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Thank you Sister in the habit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Ouch !
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
I like the comparing contrasting bit
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Very well said, and I agree.
I think that in chemistry for example, we could demonstrate most of it, and I am fairly certain that if the conclusions we have today - accumulated by much time and effort, are correct as I believe, then the students cannot help to make the same conclusions by observing. But when it comes to defining something which is not demonstrable like the evolution theory, then we could show how things can change over time, and leave it up to the students to work out whether it was millions of years or something which happens in our world on a generational basis, and remarkably quickly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
catsci writes: How do you demonstrate and observe sp3 hybridization or van der Waals force? That shit's pretty abstract... Man up: You just don't like evolution because of its implications to your religion. This has nothing to do with how children are educated. It is within your interest that I remain immature and disadvantaged, so that your species has less competition for your ultimate survival. Is that what the platform of education should be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Phat writes: I suppose a majority vote can define a belief, but am wondering how a majority could decide how old something is based on any sort of science or critical thought. I think some things like the age of the earth, don't matter when you have to get up for work Monday morning, and there does not have to be a majority consensus on these issues.I suppose some OC people would find it irritating that they cannot classify and categorize every thing and test people on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Coyote writes: Leave it up to students? Hah! What do students know about radiometric dating and all the other techniques for establishing age? * Students need to be told what science has established, whether some fringe groups accept that evidence or not. The evidence shows that the earth is very, very old, not some thousands of years old, so that's what students should be told. * Probably a lot more than creationists! I'm glad you said "probably" - that's scientific and safe for education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: Well, you'd have to tell them what you were demonstrating: you'd say, here's the theory, now let me show you (a tiny proportion of) the observations that prove it. (And you would only have time to show them a tiny proportion.)But this is just how evolution is taught too. Now in both cases if you just showed them a tiny proportion of the evidence and invited them to figure out the theory, they wouldn't get very far. Here's what happens, you say, when you add zinc to sulfuric acid, here's what happens when you drop sodium in water, then they would not all by themselves replicate the conclusions of Mendeleev or Kerkule or Pauling. After all, very few professional chemists managed to come to those conclusions after a lifetime of study, that's why we call the ones who did geniuses and give them Nobel prizes --- because out of our entire species, after hundreds of years of doing chemistry, only Linus Pauling was able to deduce what he did about the nature of chemical bonds, although when he had done so other people were able to understand it. So we have to supply the students with the theory, and then argue that it's supported by observation. That makes absolute sense, we could just say that so and so came to this conclusion, as we do in education. Why they came to a certain conclusion is essential. But I would not say that it is forcing a conclusion if it is presented as said. How something is taught is as important as to what.And if it was done I am pretty sure the two views of religion and evolution would be incompatible. However, most modern religious organizations have officially recognized Evolution and accepted it as part of their curriculum. That is because they do not consider the Bible as an authority any longer. Going by modern standards we might as well dispense with religion altogether.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colbard Member (Idle past 3391 days) Posts: 300 From: Australia Joined: |
Ringo writes: Show them under the microscope the tiny creatures that make up chalk. Then show them how high the white cliffs of Dover are and let them do the math. The millions of years will be pretty obvious. Or they could have been lumped together in a global flood?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024