Should Evolution and Creation be Taught in School?

As I posted in Pandas Thumb, my daughter had a 7th grade science teacher who stated before the entire class that she did not believe in evolution. In the same grade the social studies teacher stated she did not believe in the Bering Strait migration. This was in a public school supported by compulsory taxation.This may be wildly OT, however I personally consider such public pronouncements in taxpayer-supported public schools against the prevailing scientific evidence an example of misuse of public funds.Fundamentalist Christians, by marginalizing the message of Jesus' teaching through parables in the New Testament and trading the critical examination of the Christian religion in favor of the simple- minded worship of money and power-grubbing false prophets, are essentially doing the work of the devil.In the United States, by trying to destroy science teaching in the classroom, the fundamentalists are doing the work of the enemies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by subverting the nation's economic and, therefore, military viability.It is my personal opinion that Fundamentalist Christianity is against both God and Country.This message has been edited by anglagard, 03-30-2006 03:58 AMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 03-30-2006 03:59 AMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 03-30-2006 04:01 AMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 03-30-2006 04:03 AMThis message has been edited by anglagard, 03-30-2006 04:05 AM

From the first article alone - "In truth, proponents of evolution know that it cannot withstand open criticism."What is this forum?Evolution is science, but "Christian fundamentalism," creationism, and ID are not Christian as they promote bearing false witness.

Just got Panda's Thumb for the library since it is what caused so much consternation. A quick perusal indicates some people should be embarassed, it is just a dumbed-down anti-science book, kind of like a bunch of Chick tracts strung together.{abe} spelingThis message has been edited by anglagard, 05-12-2006 10:17 PM

My mistake, meant Of Pandas and People{ABE - see what I mean, I just skimmed the book and my IQ just got lowered to the point I can't even get the title straight}Edited by anglagard, : ego

I don't know if you are familiar with the United States of America, but no citizen is gagged in expressing their opinions in accordance with the first amendment to the Constitution. I work for Howard County and the State of Texas, yet am a Spinoza Panthiest (1%<< of population), a member of the Libertarian Party (1%< of population), and a quite vocal critic of most government policy. Yet despite living in the Bible Belt, it is rare that I ever encounter anyone who would seek to silence me. This is because most Americans, despite their beliefs, basically support the Bill of Rights.As to eliminating the public school system, it would be breaking the social contract, which requires an educated populace regardless of financial means, to sustain democracy. Please see above. Does that mean if one calls oneself a "christian" regardless of any understanding of the term, that they automatically overrule all of science. I believe you are preaching medievalism, with all the witch burnings, plagues, ignorant medical practices, endless religious wars, etc. Most current for-real Christians in this country (USA) do not support medievalism. That is nothing compared to the stupidity (destroying public education) and intolerance ("how they tolerate such opressive little Godless opinions") you are evidently supporting.Additionally, as a veteran of the US Army, I have been and still am dedicated to provide for the economic prosperity and military effectiveness of this nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. Therefore I am against all efforts to diminish and/or destroy the economy and therefore the military viability of the United States through undermining public education. Indeed.

Part of the social contract is religious tolerance. It is true that I am an adherent of one of the smallest religions in the USA. Evidently you believe I should have no freedom of religion because I am not in the majority. It becomes first Panthiests, then Seventh-Day Adventists, then Jehovahs Witnesses, then Mormons, then Jews, then Catholics.That is why there is a first amendment. That is why creationism should be banned from science classes, it is an exercise in religious intolerance.

In the United States, the social contract at the federal level is called the Constitution. One purpose of the Constitution is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority, aka mob. Clearly you disagree with the Constitution and feel there should be no individual rights, only "majority" rights.There are 500 Indian tribes in the Western hemisphere. Each one has its own creation story. Under equal protection, if Biblical creationism is taught then each Indian creation story should also then be taught, along with Hinduism, Bhuddism, etc. in science class. I wonder when there would be the time to teach science in science class.Of course, under the tyranny of the majority, minorities would have no rights.

quote:

---

So teach the myths, all the myths, and let the kids learn to identify mythos when they run across it. Then they will be prepared to move on to learn what really happened, how GOD really did it.

---

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

quote:

---

I think students should be taugt about all major ideas and belief systems, if you cut out one set of ideas on, say, how the universe and life came to be, and only teach say Darwinian evolution and such as being truth, isn't it the same as censorship?

---

I agree, the schools should teach the equivalent beliefs of Fundamentalist Christianity, mainstream Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Jainism, Bhuddism, Sikhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Velikovsky Catastrophism, Wicca, Athiesm, all indigineous tribal creation stories (500 tribes in the New World alone), Classical Mythology, Scientology, UFOism, crystal healing, Astrology, Animism, Voodoo, Raelianism, and Satanism. To avoid favoritism, each one should be given exact equal time as anything less would be censorship.But not in science class because none of the above are science.

I understand where you are coming from but in this part of the country, it seems we are still waiting for evolution to have a place in a biology class, at least so far as public school is concerned. My daughter's last science textbook in 8th grade devoted all of two sentences to evolution. Will see what happens in high school.As to the story about Vet, how would it work if the teacher and all the students in the class save one were creationists? That situation was the reality here in junior high according to my sources.Under the circumstances, I consider any teaching of creationism, in this place, at this time, dangerous and illegal since it would be taught in an atmosphere where the vast majority, including the teachers, reject most of the findings of science due to religious fanatacism.However, under the different set of circumstances you have implied, I can see the merit of your position.

I don't know if this is any consolation but when a person's credentials to teach are questioned by one of the half dozen or so national accrediting agencies in the US, the hit is to the administration and not towards the instructor in question. The reason administrators are seeking your credentials is to back up their argument that they are not remiss in allowing you to teach a given class.Obviously, I am unfamiliar with your exact circumstances but from my experience (we went through accrediting last year) I don't believe any problems any accrediting agency may have concerning appropriate credentials should reflect upon you personally.Also, accreditors are usually pretty professional in their judgments, they will consider the source and validity of any cause of any complaints. May your administration realize this and behave in a similar manner.