What should schools teach?

[Jeremiah]

I'm not refuting a religious belief per se. I'm challenging the emphasis they place on the role of science within that belief.

I see, so you do. But you prefer to twist language until it no longers hurts your conscience.

 

[Noaidi]

Jeremiah.
I'll refer back to the OP:

"Public schools should teach evolution in science class but can discuss creationism there as a belief."

I stand by all that I've written so far.
Right now, it's almost 3.30am here. I'll continue this tomorrow.

 

[Noaidi]

I see, so you do. But you prefer to twist language until it no longers hurts your conscience.

okay, Jeremiah.

 

[Skwim]

Creationism is not something that should be mentioned in a decent school. The best way to deal with trolls is to ignore them, the same principle applies here. Bringing up creationism for debate gives it an atmosphere of legitimacy that only strengthens it even if they get crushed in the debate.

I agree, 100%

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Evolution only in class rooms. As for Creationism, and the many other creation stories that various religions have given us, are just fine in a religious studies class, to an extent history (such how it is mentioned that it used to be believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth), and literature classes (considering how some religious texts do hold significance in literature).

 

[jarofthoughts]

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.

I'm not saying that I go out of my way to debunk religion. That would be uncalled for, not to mention illegal.
The above was a response to a direct question about Adam and Eve, which I answered scientifically accurate, and that was my point really. That when these things rear their head in the science class they should be answered, and scientific truth trumps religious truth. At least, in the science class.

 

[Noaidi]

I see, so you do. But you prefer to twist language until it no longers hurts your conscience.

Hurts my conscience? I'm not sure what you are implying here.

You seem to think that I am trying to undermine the pupils' belief in god. This is not the case. I am trying to correct their erroneous view of evolution. It is possible to hold a religious belief and accept evolutionary theory. As I have said on another thread, the lecturer who taught me evolution at university was also a part-time Anglican minister. The two schools of thought can - and do - co-exist. Many on this forum can attest to that.

I understand your desire for freedom of religious belief but, as I say, it's not my aim to remove that freedom. As a teacher, part of my job is to allow debate within the classroom and to correct unscientific thinking. Science education is not merely learning facts; part of the education process is to debate about which interpretation of the evidence provides the best explanation of how the world works.

 

[evolved yet?]

Creationism is a view held by many, and the only way to debunk it is to present the evidence for evolution alongside it and challenge creationists to refute it.

And send a kid home crying? Most teachers would not want to get fired for hurting a child's personal beliefs.

 

[evolved yet?]

Well at least it wouldn't be appropriate for say 8 and under, in those grades the children would be offended or burst out crying, so in those grades creationism should not be taught. I voted for evolution in science classroom and creationism as a religious theory that could be taught elsewhere. I go to a catholic school so I'm worried about the teaching of evolution in the higher grades( I'm in grade 7).

 

[evolved yet?]

Not a single creationist has voted!

 

[Noaidi]

And send a kid home crying? Most teachers would not want to get fired for hurting a child's personal beliefs.

Obviously it depends on the approach.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I believe that if schools start teaching about creationism, then churches must be required to dedicate some time on Sunday to teach math.

 

[jonman122]

I believe that if schools start teaching about creationism, then churches must be required to dedicate some time on Sunday to teach math.

and evolution, they must stop being so ignorant and they must show the people the fossil record and all the evidence that there is for evolution, instead of leaving them all in the dark and demanding that only creation is taught.

 

[Jeremiah]

I'm not saying that I go out of my way to debunk religion. That would be uncalled for, not to mention illegal.
The above was a response to a direct question about Adam and Eve, which I answered scientifically accurate, and that was my point really. That when these things rear their head in the science class they should be answered, and scientific truth trumps religious truth. At least, in the science class.

What scientific truth did you use to claim that there is "no such thing as the biblical Adam and Eve"?

 

[Jeremiah]

Hurts my conscience? I'm not sure what you are implying here.

You seem to think that I am trying to undermine the pupils' belief in god. This is not the case. I am trying to correct their erroneous view of evolution. It is possible to hold a religious belief and accept evolutionary theory. As I have said on another thread, the lecturer who taught me evolution at university was also a part-time Anglican minister. The two schools of thought can - and do - co-exist. Many on this forum can attest to that.

I understand your desire for freedom of religious belief but, as I say, it's not my aim to remove that freedom. As a teacher, part of my job is to allow debate within the classroom and to correct unscientific thinking. Science education is not merely learning facts; part of the education process is to debate about which interpretation of the evidence provides the best explanation of how the world works.

"You seem to think that I am trying to undermine the pupils' belief in god."

No, not gods; I think you are actively trying to undermine their religious belief in creationism. Which you pretty much have admit; you just bent the words all out of shape, so it does not sound like you trying to undermine a religious belief.

And this is not about science, that is just what you tell yourself. You are not addressing science, you are addressing creationism. You are use phrases like "correct unscientific thinking" to justify an attack on creationism. But you could easily just use a different example, one that is not religious in nature.

It seems like to me that you are debating creationism because you do not want them to believe that any more. You should not be out to "correct" their religious belief, and you should encourage student to think for themselves, not to think like you.

Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. Hypatia (c. 350-370? – 415)

 

[jarofthoughts]

What scientific truth did you use to claim that there is "no such thing as the biblical Adam and Eve"?

Several actually.

The Evolutionary fact that we share a common ancestor with the other apes, the fact that we (as all land vertebrates) were once fish, the fact that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam lived some 60.000 years apart, and so on and so forth. Really the whole Theory of Evolution when you get right down to it, which, by the way, was the topic at hand.

 

[Jeremiah]

Several actually.

The Evolutionary fact that we share a common ancestor with the other apes, the fact that we (as all land vertebrates) were once fish, the fact that mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam lived some 60.000 years apart, and so on and so forth. Really the whole Theory of Evolution when you right down to it, which, by the way, was the topic at hand.

None of which proves that Adam and Eva didn't exist.

 

[PolyHedral]

Our current understanding of genetics tells us that it is impossible to build a species out of only two members. The story of Adam and Eve couldn't have happened.

 

[Jeremiah]

It is a complete mistake, you give them an inch and they'll take a mile. He is not only teaching evolution, but he has taken upon himself to teach religion as well. Neither side can control themselves, it is best to keep the issue out of the classroom.

Teachers should not be answering students religious question, they should direct the child to their parents with those questions.

 

[Jeremiah]

Our current understanding of genetics tells us that it is impossible to build a species out of only two members. The story of Adam and Eve couldn't have happened.

I also doubt Alexander the Great was the child of a god: Are you going to tell me he didn't exist?