What should schools teach?

[jarofthoughts]

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

Yeah. It does. The Biblical Adam and Eve did not exist.

 

[jarofthoughts]

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.

I'm not sure what your agenda is here, because you act as if there is reason for someone to get offended. No-one is saying science classes should be used to debunk religion, but when a direct question is asked we do in fact owe it to our pupils to give them the best and most correct answer we can. And I'm sorry, but when religion contradicts science, especially well established and accepted science with literary tons of evidence behind it, then religion is, by default, wrong. Particularly if it happens to pop up during a science class.

The Sun is not carried across the sky by the god Ra.
Thunder is not caused by the god Thor.
Lightning does not strike because Zeus is angry.
And humans did not appear fully formed upon Earth.

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

What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Jeremiah]

Yeah. It does. The Biblical Adam and Eve did not exist.

"The Biblical Adam and Eve did not exist."

That is an unfalsifiable statement, Jarofthoughts.

They may have myths surrounding them that you can disprove, but you can't actually prove that Adam and Eve did not exist. Just like you cannot disprove the existence of Jesus, Abraham, or Moses. It is possible that the mythical Adam and Eve is derived from actual individuals who lived in a garden.

At any rate, you are no longer addressing creationism, you are now addressing the Bible. You are talking about Biblical passages, in your class, and you are saying they are not true. Are you a preacher or are you a teacher?

How about you leave the religion up to the priest and you just teach the science.

 

[Jeremiah]

I'm not sure what your agenda is here, because you act as if there is reason for someone to get offended. No-one is saying science classes should be used to debunk religion, but when a direct question is asked we do in fact owe it to our pupils to give them the best and most correct answer we can. And I'm sorry, but when religion contradicts science, especially well established and accepted science with literary tons of evidence behind it, then religion is, by default, wrong. Particularly if it happens to pop up during a science class.

The Sun is not carried across the sky by the god Ra.
Thunder is not caused by the god Thor.
Lightning does not strike because Zeus is angry.
And humans did not appear fully formed upon Earth.



What does this have to do with anything?

"but when a direct question is asked we do in fact owe it to our pupils to give them the best and most correct answer we can. And I'm sorry, but when religion contradicts science, especially well established and accepted science with literary tons of evidence behind it, then religion is, by default, wrong. Particularly if it happens to pop up during a science class."


You do not have to engage their religious belief in order to teach science. You can just as easily use a non-religious example. I had a teacher who used an imaginary alien to talk about unfalsifiable claims; he didn't need to pick apart kids religious beliefs to teach. You can easily work around religious beliefs, with just a tiny amount of effort.

 

[AxisMundi]

Credibility would not be granted if it were refuted adequately through evidence. Regarding what creation myth should be debated, then my statement above should cover it. ALL creation myths which run contrary to the evidence should be debated, if they arise.

It isn't the job of government institutions to support, or more importantly refute, religious theosophy.

It is the utmost importance to preserve a child's religious rights in public schools (or right to lack of religion as well).

This is why it is paramount that religion be left for those institutions that cater to it, and at home.

OK, I'll check out your answers. Hopefully they'll take into account the diversity of opinions that young people hold and, what we as teachers, have to deal with without dismissing them out of hand.
Although we may not agree with the views they hold, they do deserve a response. From experience, the views that young people hold have come from their parents or the church, and not from their own logic.

Agreed. However, it is a fundamental right, listed in the first sentance of the First Amendment, for people to have those views.

Our public schools are supported by each and every citizen, regardless of religious affiliation, if any.

Our public schools are for the use of those children, regardless of their, or their parent's, religious affiliation, if any.

This is why I say, unequivicably, that public schools must remain absolutely secular in it's cirriculum, so as to serve each and every student, regardless of religious affiliation, if any.

 

[jarofthoughts]

"The Biblical Adam and Eve did not exist."

That is an unfalsifiable statement, Jarofthoughts.

They may have myths surrounding them that you can disprove, but you can't actually prove that Adam and Eve did not exist. Just like you cannot disprove the existence of Jesus, Abraham, or Moses. It is possible that the mythical Adam and Eve is derived from actual individuals who lived in a garden.

When we are addressing the Biblical "something" we are not addressing whether there might at some point in history have existed someone by that name. It may well be that the HISTORICAL Jesus existed, but that in no way validates that this person was the son of god, nor that he performed any of the miracles attributed to him in the Bible.
In the same manner when we discuss the Biblical Adam and Eve that presupposes what Genesis says, that they were the first two humans on Earth, that Adam was created fully formed from dust, that Eve was created from his rib and so on and so forth. This is not true, did never happen, and we have the evidence to show otherwise. We know that humans, like all other species, evolved over many millions of years, we know that we share a common ancestor with the apes, we know that the members of our lineage at one point some 380 million years ago were fish (although not like modern fish) and so on and so forth. Since this well established scientific understanding directly contradicts the Biblical explanation, they cannot both be true, and since we know the scientific version is correct, at least as much as we can know anything, that means that the Biblical one is wrong.

At any rate, you are no longer addressing creationism, you are now addressing the Bible. You are talking about Biblical passages, in your class, and you are saying they are not true. Are you a preacher or are you a teacher?

Creationism is based on the Bible (or in the case of Islamic creationism, on the Quran, but that is irrelevant for this discussion), which means that if creationism is wrong, then the Bible is wrong. For instance, the Bible also claims that bats are birds, something which I am happy to refute should the question arrise.

Also, since I base what I say in the classroom on facts and evidence I am most definitely a teacher and not a preacher.

How about you leave the religion up to the priest and you just teach the science.

Oh, but I do. I have clearly stated that in the Religious classes we talk about what certain groups of people believe, whereas in the Science classes we talk about what we know.

 

[AxisMundi]

Just to chime in...

The biblical A&E could not have existed, as they are claimed to have been the very first human beings. The fossil record clearly shows the evolution of our species, and ignoring Minimum Population Viability concerns for the moment, the fossil record does not show any sudden "springing up" of Man.

 

[jarofthoughts]

You do not have to engage their religious belief in order to teach science. You can just as easily use a non-religious example. I had a teacher who used an imaginary alien to talk about unfalsifiable claims; he didn't need to pick apart kids religious beliefs to teach. You can easily work around religious beliefs, with just a tiny amount of effort.

As I've been trying to tell you, this was a response to a direct question from one of my pupils. She asked me "Did Adam and Eve live at the same time as the dinosaurs."

The answer is, of course, no. And since we were dealing with the Theory of Evolution at the time it was fitting to show exactly how humans evolved, something that excludes the Biblical Adam and Eve story.

It is not as if I bring up religion in my science classes to laugh at how silly they are, nor is it in my job description to ruin any of my pupils religious notions. But when a question is asked that pertains to science, as this one does, then it will be answered.

 

[Noaidi]

"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.

"You are not addressing science, you are addressing creationism."

I am addressing the poor arguments offered by creationists that they try to pass off as science. A science class seems to be the ideal environment to address misconceptions regarding evolution and geology, don't you think? I leave other aspects of religion well alone in the classroom because that's not my remit, but I will address questions regarding how the Earth was formed, the fossil record or other questions that lend themselves to a scientific explanation.

"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."

Yes, I could use other examples. This thread, however, is about creationism.

"You should not be out to "correct" their religious belief, and you should encourage student to think for themselves, not to think like you."

I'm not aiming to get them to 'think like me'. I'm encouraging them to think like the vast majority of biologists. That, after all, is a purpose of biological education - to present them with the evidence and see how biologists interpret it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to think I am in favour of the teaching of creationism alongside evolution. All through this thread I have stated my position as one of addressing creationist views as and when they arise. I don't make a point of inserting creationist ideas into the lessons with a view to challenging them. If it comes up, we discuss it. If it doesn't, then we don't.

 

[Noaidi]

It is not as if I bring up religion in my science classes to laugh at how silly they are, nor is it in my job description to ruin any of my pupils religious notions. But when a question is asked that pertains to science, as this one does, then it will be answered.

Exactly.

 

[Alceste]

Jeremiah, I get the feeling you don't spend much time with kids. They have a striking tendency to speak their minds and ask questions. It would be a dereliction of any teacher's duty not to respond, regardless of the topic.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Let's turn this around for moment shall we?

Imagine that the topic was not Creationism but Holocaust denialism.
In a history class.
And the pupil in question was the child of neo-nazis.

Shouldn't the teacher correct them?
Shouldn't the teacher present the evidence that their, let's call them "ideas", about history is wrong?

 

[Jeremiah]

Jeremiah, I get the feeling you don't spend much time with kids. They have a striking tendency to speak their minds and ask questions. It would be a dereliction of any teacher's duty not to respond, regardless of the topic.

"Jeremiah, I get the feeling you don't spend much time with kids."

And you would be wrong. I have spent more time with kids then I ever wanted to, or ever planned to. And I have had my face turn red by the things that come out of their mouth more then once. But I don't recall ever having a problem saying, "You'll have to ask your mom and dad that."

 

[jarofthoughts]

They have a striking tendency to speak their minds and ask questions. It would be a dereliction of any teacher's duty not to respond, regardless of the topic.

One of their most endearing qualities I think. More people should speak their minds and ask honest questions. The world would look quite different if they did. And I hold that a question should be answered in the same spirit it was asked, which means that when there is honest inquiry behind the question the answer should be as truthful and honest as possible.

And I have had my face turn red by the things that come out of thier mouth more then once. But I don't recall ever having a problem saying, "You'll have to ask your mom and dad that."

Perhaps you're just a little bit squeamish...
Have you considered that maybe the reason they asked you those questions was because they didn't want to ask their parents and maybe it was because they trusted you?

Not everyone is lucky enough to have understanding parents.

 

[Alceste]

"Jeremiah, I get the feeling you don't spend much time with kids."

And you would be wrong. I have spent more time with kids then I ever wanted to, or ever planned to. And I have had my face turn red by the things that come out of thier mouth more then once. But I don't recall ever having a problem saying, "You'll have to ask your mom and dad that."

Then you're probably not cut out to be a teacher, frankly. I would not enroll my kids in a school where teachers referred their in class, on topic questions back to me for fear of accidentally correcting any erroneous beliefs I'd inadvertently inflicted upon them. If I felt the need to control my children's exposure to different ideas I would be better off never letting them leave the house.

 

[Jeremiah]

Then you're probably not cut out to be a teacher, frankly. I would not enroll my kids in a school where teachers referred their in class, on topic questions back to me for fear of accidentally correcting any erroneous beliefs I'd inadvertently inflicted upon them. If I felt the need to control my children's exposure to different ideas I would be better off never letting them leave the house.

You'll have to do a lot better then that.

 

[Alceste]

You'll have to do a lot better then that.

Like I said, terrible teacher. This little inspirational speech just makes me want to cut class.

:run:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wonder why no creationist have voted? I know they are here.

 

[Jeremiah]

Like I said, terrible teacher. This little inspirational speech just makes me want to cut class.

:run:

As if you would know.

Do you have anything worthwhile to say about my actual arguments?

 

[MEMNOCK]

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

I agree...give monkeys tools and they might learn how to use them...