Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Teaching.
27 Answers
If Public Schools allow the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, would you let your private Christian school or church allow the teaching of evolution?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MWB. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I can only speak for the Christian schools I'm familiar with here in the U.S., and in each case it's already that way. Creationism and evolutionary theory are taught side by side with no detectable editiorializing by the teaching staff. Simply presented to the student with a "here's the contrast, you decide"...
'With no editorialising' - how unbelievably depressing. A idiot's charter.
Why do they not bother to point out that one of these so-called theories is a load of twaddle with no scientific merit whatsoever? It will be interesting to see how these students turn into the scientists of tomorrow, attempting to fight disease while refusing to use any knowledge that has any connection to the theory of evolution.
Other subjects of an exact analogue to teaching evolution and creationism side by side include gravity vs Intelligent Falling and 1+1=2 vs 1+1=5. But hey, let's not editorialise about this - we don't want to offend anyone's beliefs.
Why do they not bother to point out that one of these so-called theories is a load of twaddle with no scientific merit whatsoever? It will be interesting to see how these students turn into the scientists of tomorrow, attempting to fight disease while refusing to use any knowledge that has any connection to the theory of evolution.
Other subjects of an exact analogue to teaching evolution and creationism side by side include gravity vs Intelligent Falling and 1+1=2 vs 1+1=5. But hey, let's not editorialise about this - we don't want to offend anyone's beliefs.
'Here's the contrast, you decide?' What sort of an education system is it that allows children to decide upon an answer, and believe they have it right, without guidance or correction? 2+2 in that case could most certainly add up to 5. What an appalling way to teach young people. That's a complete abrogation of duty.
Clanad, please don't see everything that disagrees with you as an argument. OK, it may get a little heated here on occasions, but that's the nature of debate. You can hardly expect to get no response to what you've written - and I would guess that many responses to this, will, like mine, emanate from concern for the education of future generations. I can only speak for myself, but I believe that rather than have their heads filled with information for which there is no evidence whatsoever, children should be taught facts. School is a place for mathematics, history, science, geography, literature, and for opening a child's mind to all the wonderful realities and opportunities of life. If people, as adults, want to investigate religion, then that's their choice, but teaching children about religion in any shape or form in school, amounts to nothing less than indoctrination - and in my opinion, that is very, very wrong. And since evolution is proven, it's even more wrong to leave the choice between that and creationism to the child. How confusing! Belief is not reality, and religion has no place in any school - anywhere.
You miss the point Naomi.. I simply answered a question with an observation of fact and for that endure another attack. If any one of you just want to answer the original question, fine. But I remind you that the original question simply asked a response of an opinion, and I didn't respond with an opinion, since I knew without a doubt where that would lead. But even a response with no opinion is attacked... unique concept, unless the intention is surpression of any mention of alternate views.
I came onto this site several years ago and in a very short time engaged in an exchange on the question "Is there a God" that ran well over 500 responses. No one came away with their mind changed, but we all agreed we came away with a better understanding of the other's views.
That's all changed. Now, there's no attempt to have a reasoned discussion, only the derision once again exhibited inthis thread. Seems I never learn. Magna res est vocis et silentii temperamentum... therefore, I shall.do that great thing...
I came onto this site several years ago and in a very short time engaged in an exchange on the question "Is there a God" that ran well over 500 responses. No one came away with their mind changed, but we all agreed we came away with a better understanding of the other's views.
That's all changed. Now, there's no attempt to have a reasoned discussion, only the derision once again exhibited inthis thread. Seems I never learn. Magna res est vocis et silentii temperamentum... therefore, I shall.do that great thing...
Clanad, my answer wasn't an attack and neither was it derisive - it was a polite opinion in response to your post. I was truly shocked by that. I've never heard anything quite like it before. That said, I don't see how anyone, unless forewarned, could possibly know that a reasonable response would upset you, and additionally, if we all stuck to simply answering the question, as you appear to want to do, then no debate would ever develop. I have to agree with you on times past, though. R&S was, without doubt, a far more pleasant place.
I agree that tangents and metaphors form huge parts of debate on R&S it's part of it's attraction to me.
To teach atheism without contradiction is indoctrination also, the teaching of philosophy is all about contemplation and thought within oneself.
All philosophies have different doctrines Confucianism and Taosim for example.
To not allow a child the scope to imagine different answers in all but mathematics and spelling I'd view as negligent.
Is'nt science based wholly upon criticism, scepticism and scrutiny?
To teach atheism without contradiction is indoctrination also, the teaching of philosophy is all about contemplation and thought within oneself.
All philosophies have different doctrines Confucianism and Taosim for example.
To not allow a child the scope to imagine different answers in all but mathematics and spelling I'd view as negligent.
Is'nt science based wholly upon criticism, scepticism and scrutiny?
Everton, Atheism hasn't been mentioned. The question relates to the teaching of creationism, for which there is no evidence, and evolution, for which there is a plethora of evidence. Yes, a child can 'imagine' different answers, but no teacher worth his salt would allow him to believe that his answer to any question, on any subject, was correct if it wasn't. That would be negligent.
To teach atheism without contradiction is indoctrination
As Naomi said, who mentioned atheism? To understand evolution doesn't require one to be an athiest.
also, the teaching of philosophy is all about contemplation and thought within oneself.
All philosophies have different doctrines Confucianism and Taosim for example.
Yes, but we're not talking about philosophy. We're talking about something backed up by empiricle evidence.
To not allow a child the scope to imagine different answers in all but mathematics and spelling I'd view as negligent.
We don't allow children to set the curriculum. It is those that do that have the responsibility to decide what should be taught as true.
Isn't science based wholly upon criticism, scepticism and scrutiny?</>
Yes. Which is why there is no doubt about the fact that evolution is true. It is a falsifiable theory and despite the fact that some people dislike it greatly, none of them have falsified evolution.
Clanad can throw his toys out of the pram all he likes and make out as though he's being oppressed and attacked but the fact remains that creationism is suitable only for the religious studies class and not the science class.
Hands up who thinks that if we teach Judeo-Christian creationism in science class, we owe it to the kids to teach them all the other theories of *exactly* equal credibility, including Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?
As Naomi said, who mentioned atheism? To understand evolution doesn't require one to be an athiest.
also, the teaching of philosophy is all about contemplation and thought within oneself.
All philosophies have different doctrines Confucianism and Taosim for example.
Yes, but we're not talking about philosophy. We're talking about something backed up by empiricle evidence.
To not allow a child the scope to imagine different answers in all but mathematics and spelling I'd view as negligent.
We don't allow children to set the curriculum. It is those that do that have the responsibility to decide what should be taught as true.
Isn't science based wholly upon criticism, scepticism and scrutiny?</>
Yes. Which is why there is no doubt about the fact that evolution is true. It is a falsifiable theory and despite the fact that some people dislike it greatly, none of them have falsified evolution.
Clanad can throw his toys out of the pram all he likes and make out as though he's being oppressed and attacked but the fact remains that creationism is suitable only for the religious studies class and not the science class.
Hands up who thinks that if we teach Judeo-Christian creationism in science class, we owe it to the kids to teach them all the other theories of *exactly* equal credibility, including Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?
I reject the suggestion religion has no place in school, all schools.
I am firmly of the belief that religion should be compulsory in all schools and that pupils should be taught the basics of all creeds at least until the age of 13.
Do you object to the "science" of creationism being taught in religious studies?
I am firmly of the belief that religion should be compulsory in all schools and that pupils should be taught the basics of all creeds at least until the age of 13.
Do you object to the "science" of creationism being taught in religious studies?
Everton, I am firmly of the belief that religion should be compulsory in all schools and that pupils should be taught the basics of all creeds at least until the age of 13.
So you would take the most formative years of a human being's life to compulsorily teach it religion, a subject that carries no evidence of proof whatsoever, and therefore has no value in a classroom. Why? For what purpose, and to what end?
So you would take the most formative years of a human being's life to compulsorily teach it religion, a subject that carries no evidence of proof whatsoever, and therefore has no value in a classroom. Why? For what purpose, and to what end?
Actually, I disagree with you Naomi. I too support the teaching of comparative religion, though I don't think it should be done until high school.
As for teaching creationism in RS lessons, it's certainly the right place for it. As above, I support the teaching of comparative religion, so I wouldn't object to it being taught as 'a thing some people believe' but I would have a problem if someone tried to teach it as though it were science.
It would be a bit like teaching medical students homeopathy.
As for teaching creationism in RS lessons, it's certainly the right place for it. As above, I support the teaching of comparative religion, so I wouldn't object to it being taught as 'a thing some people believe' but I would have a problem if someone tried to teach it as though it were science.
It would be a bit like teaching medical students homeopathy.
Actually I agree with you, Waldo. Teaching in the way you suggest amounts to teaching social studies to older students, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, that's an entitrely different thing to teaching children, as Everton suggests, religion and the 'science' (what science?) of creationism for the first eight years of their education, which is what I was objecting to.
it is a fact that religion exists and that many countries and cultures practice it, for children to understand the basics of all religions removes all confusion and irrational fear.
If when they are older they reject all religion as false, then good for them, at least they'll have some understanding of others who disagree.
If when they are older they reject all religion as false, then good for them, at least they'll have some understanding of others who disagree.
