What should schools teach?

[AxisMundi]

In my opinion, public schools should teach evolution in science class. They can discuss the creationism in a class devoted to religion. I personally see nothing wrong with there being a required class in high school which examines all of the world's major religions, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam but definitely not excluding Hinduism and Buddhism or other faiths both historical and modern.

There are over 2 thousand deities listed for the people of this planet.

Which should be excluded? Odin and Cern were present in Europe for far longer than Jehovah, and Ra is older than them all.

Kids have to have time to learn the basics of eduction, the "Three R's", after all.

Leave religious instruction to that particular religion.

 

[Noaidi]

You can not use public schools to "debunk" a religious belief. That is against our laws.

If they want to believe the world was created 6000 years ago, then that is their right. We have no right at all to use public schools to try and "debunk" that belief.

Okay. Perhaps 'debunk' was the wrong word to use. How about 'critically examine' that belief, based on evidence (or lack of).

 

[Noaidi]

Younger chidlren are simply too impressionable, and the images of Creationism too strong. Something organized religion has counted on for millenia.

I agree.

 

[Smoke]

In my opinion, public schools should teach evolution in science class. They can discuss the creationism in a class devoted to religion. I personally see nothing wrong with there being a required class in high school which examines all of the world's major religions, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam but definitely not excluding Hinduism and Buddhism or other faiths both historical and modern.

I don't see anything wrong with teaching sociology in high school, either. But it's not usually done.

 

[Smoke]

You can not use public schools to "debunk" a religious belief. That is against our laws.

If they want to believe the world was created 6000 years ago, then that is their right. We have no right at all to use public schools to try and "debunk" that belief.

We have not only the right, but the obligation.

 

[Noaidi]

"and may also explain why creationism is nonsense."

Schools should not be wasting their time and our tax dollars on nonsense.

I don't think challenging anti-evolutionist views is nonsense. We pay tax dollars (well, pounds, in my case) to educate children. Allowing them to consider different views is part of education. I don't think Smoke (or myself, who voted for the same statement in the poll) is advocating teaching creationism, but instead, teaching how creationism is not a valid scientific approach. If teachers are teaching the next generation of biologists, then we need to let them see how scientific inquiry is conducted and, equally importantly, how science shouldn't be done.

 

[Jeremiah]

We have not only the right, but the obligation.

No, we do not. We can not use the schools against religion; that is unconstitutional. They have freedom of religion, and if they want to believe some messed-up, backwards ideas, then that is their right. And we cannot use schools to tell their children that their religious beliefs are wrong.

Creationism is a religious belief, as such, it should be separated from public schools completely. As soon as you design to subject your opinion in the schools, they'll want the same right. This controversy does not belong in our public schools, at all.

 

[Jeremiah]

I don't think challenging anti-evolutionist views is nonsense. We pay tax dollars (well, pounds, in my case) to educate children. Allowing them to consider different views is part of education. I don't think Smoke (or myself, who voted for the same statement in the poll) is advocating teaching creationism, but instead, teaching how creationism is not a valid scientific approach. If teachers are teaching the next generation of biologists, then we need to let them see how scientific inquiry is conducted and, equally importantly, how science shouldn't be done.

Should we also teach how "God" is not a valid theory? Where do we draw the line? Who gets to say what religious beliefs gets discredited by the schools and which ones don't?

In America the school have no right to teach against a religious belief. There is a separation of church and state. Schools can address evolution because it is a valid scientific theory, supported by facts. However they can not address creationism, because it is a religious belief; they can not support or debase it.

 

[Noaidi]

Schools can address evolution because it is a valid scientific theory, supported by facts. However they can not address creationism, because it is a religious belief; they can not support or debase it.

But creationists are trying to get their ideas taught in science classes as a valid alternative to evolution, making it very much a subject for discussion in the classroom. You only need to look at Answers In Genesis or the Discovery Institute to see their motives. If they were content to keep their views out of the curriculum, then yes, creationism shouldn't be discussed in science - but that's not the case, is it?

Edit: As an example of this, last year, all UK high school Biology teachers were sent a free DVD from an organisation called Truth In Science. The DVD was called 'Unlocking The Mystery Of Life - The Scientific Case For Intelligent Design', produced by the Discovery Institute (emphasis added).

 

[jarofthoughts]

No, we do not. We can not use the schools against religion; that is unconstitutional. They have freedom of religion, and if they want to believe some messed-up, backwards ideas, then that is their right. And we cannot use schools to tell their children that their religious beliefs are wrong.

Freedom of religion, yes, of course. But that doesn't mean that religious claims that contradict accepted science gets a free pass. I have myself gotten the question of whether Adam and Eve lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and I have "debunked" that claim utterly explaining that there was, in fact, no such thing as the biblical Adam and Eve, and I have, indeed, told my pupils that we not only evolved from apes but that in a very real sense are apes. That's a fact. And school should be about learning and understanding facts. If someone's personal religious beliefs goes against those facts, that's tough, but if a pupils tries to pass off the Adam and Eve story on one of my tests I will fail them. Simple as that.

Creationism is a religious belief, as such, it should be separated from public schools completely. As soon as you design to subject your opinion in the schools, they'll want the same right. This controversy does not belong in our public schools, at all.

That would be so much easier if the Creationists felt the same way, but that is not what is happening, is it? The Dover trial as well as the Wedge Strategy shows a clear agenda when it comes to inserting this nonsense into the science classes.
Also, Evolution is not opinion, it is an evidential fact, as any biology grad-student can show you. Those who deny it are either delusional or ignorant*.
I would also like to point out that there is, in fact, no controversy, except perhaps in the heads of the Creationists. ID is not a scientific theory, heck, it's not even a hypothesis. It's not science and thus is has no place in any scientific discussion at all.


*Ignorant here meaning lacking in knowledge and understanding, i.e. uninformed.

 

[Jeremiah]

But creationists are trying to get their ideas taught in science classes as a valid alternative to evolution, making it very much a subject for discussion in the classroom. You only need to look at Answers In Genesis or the Discovery Institute to see their motives. If they were content to keep their views out of the curriculum, then yes, creationism shouldn't be discussed in science - but that's not the case, is it?

You can not persevere freedom of religion by acting like those who corrode it. You only corrode it further yourself. Making the same mistakes, they are, is not a solution to the problem. All you would be doing is shifting the group who is corroding freedom of religion. You have to raise above them, you have to be better then them.

Creationism will fade on its own; we don't need to violate freedom of religion or separation of church and state to do this. Beside, given the choice, I much rather persevere freedom and liberty then science any day.

 

[Noaidi]

Creationism will fade on its own;

I disagree here, Jeremiah. Just look at the popularity of creationism in the world today. It's not going to simply disappear of its own accord - not anytime soon, at least. In the meantime, it is up to teachers to highlight poor scientific and pseudo-scientific practices and views.

 

[Jeremiah]

I disagree here, Jeremiah. Just look at the popularity of creationism in the world today. It's not going to simply disappear of its own accord - not anytime soon, at least. In the meantime, it is up to teachers to highlight poor scientific and pseudo-scientific practices and views.

All things die, even religious beliefs.

 

[Noaidi]

All things die, even religious beliefs.

Yes, but my point was what we do in the meantime.

 

[Jeremiah]

Freedom of religion, yes, of course. But that doesn't mean that religious claims that contradict accepted science gets a free pass. I have myself gotten the question of whether Adam and Eve lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and I have "debunked" that claim utterly explaining that there was, in fact, no such thing as the biblical Adam and Eve, and I have, indeed, told my pupils that we not only evolved from apes but that in a very real sense are apes. That's a fact. And school should be about learning and understanding facts. If someone's personal religious beliefs goes against those facts, that's tough, but if a pupils tries to pass off the Adam and Eve story on one of my tests I will fail them. Simple as that.



That would be so much easier if the Creationists felt the same way, but that is not what is happening, is it? The Dover trial as well as the Wedge Strategy shows a clear agenda when it comes to inserting this nonsense into the science classes.
Also, Evolution is not opinion, it is an evidential fact, as any biology grad-student can show you. Those who deny it are either delusional or ignorant*.
I would also like to point out that there is, in fact, no controversy, except perhaps in the heads of the Creationists. ID is not a scientific theory, heck, it's not even a hypothesis. It's not science and thus is has no place in any scientific discussion at all.


*Ignorant here meaning lacking in knowledge and understanding, i.e. uninformed.

Well, Jarofthougts, my expressed concerns here is chiefly on how it is handle in the United States. How other countries handle it, is really none of my business.

But I don't see why it is needed to address religion, in order to teach science; if you are teaching science, then teach science. You didn't need to go as far as saying Adam and Eva didn't exist; all you had to do was tell them to pay attention to the material being taught.

" If someone's personal religious beliefs goes against those facts, that's tough, but if a pupils tries to pass off the Adam and Eve story on one of my tests I will fail them. Simple as that. "

I agree with this, they have to pass the curriculum as set down by the school, regardless of religious beliefs.

 

[Jeremiah]

Yes, but my point was what we do in the meantime.

Meantime? I don't think there will be much of a meantime. The focus will just change; in time the zealots will forget about creationism and pick up some other fancy. Perhaps some will take it to their heads that religion shouldn't be tolerated and zealously try to interject that into our schools.

Because of the influence education has on a society, as long as humans are humans, it will always attract this type of attention. All we can do is try to persevere the integrity of our schools, as best as we can. And I believe that separation of church and state goes a long ways towards this goal.

 

[Smoke]

No, we do not. We can not use the schools against religion; that is unconstitutional. They have freedom of religion, and if they want to believe some messed-up, backwards ideas, then that is their right. And we cannot use schools to tell their children that their religious beliefs are wrong.

Creationism is a religious belief, as such, it should be separated from public schools completely. As soon as you design to subject your opinion in the schools, they'll want the same right. This controversy does not belong in our public schools, at all.

I don't know how it's possible to teach science without contradicting both creationism and the notion that the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[Jeremiah]

I don't know how it's possible to teach science without contradicting both creationism and the notion that the earth is 6000 years old.

If that is how the cards lay out, then that is how they lay out, Smoke. Just as long as we don't trample separation of church and state in the process of teaching it.

My argument is that creationism should not be addressed in our public schools, at all. We should not seek to discredit it or recognize it. It should be ignored by the schools and we should just let the facts disprove creationism. It is a win win situation for us; the facts will disprove creationism and we don't have to further corrode separation of church and state.

 

[AxisMundi]

I don't think challenging anti-evolutionist views is nonsense. We pay tax dollars (well, pounds, in my case) to educate children. Allowing them to consider different views is part of education. I don't think Smoke (or myself, who voted for the same statement in the poll) is advocating teaching creationism, but instead, teaching how creationism is not a valid scientific approach. If teachers are teaching the next generation of biologists, then we need to let them see how scientific inquiry is conducted and, equally importantly, how science shouldn't be done.

I think we should leave any religious theology completely out of the equation.

Teaching critical thinking, and the scientific method, is more than enough, IMHO.

 

[AxisMundi]

But creationists are trying to get their ideas taught in science classes as a valid alternative to evolution, making it very much a subject for discussion in the classroom. You only need to look at Answers In Genesis or the Discovery Institute to see their motives. If they were content to keep their views out of the curriculum, then yes, creationism shouldn't be discussed in science - but that's not the case, is it?

Edit: As an example of this, last year, all UK high school Biology teachers were sent a free DVD from an organisation called Truth In Science. The DVD was called 'Unlocking The Mystery Of Life - The Scientific Case For Intelligent Design', produced by the Discovery Institute (emphasis added).

"Intelliegent Design", the pseuodscience that YECers tried to attach to Creationism, has been shot down in US courts every time it comes before a bench.

Even the most fundamentalist of judges cannot be persuaded by Behe and other YECers that ID holds any credibility, or approaches being a science.