Wheres the debate on whether we teach creationism or evolution in public schools?

[jarofthoughts]

Creationists and ID proponents seem to miss a very vital point.
Before you get to teach ANYTHING in a science class you first have to show that what you're teaching is SCIENCE.
And science follows the scientific method, which means evidence, peer review and so on and so forth.
THEN, when you've pass all those hurdles, MAYBE you get to teach that stuff in science class.

In other words; put up or shut up.

Simple.

 

[Matthew78]

Dunno, if we put creationism in a science class, we might as well put alchemy in chemistry class, astrology in physics class, homeopathy in med schools, etc.

That's exactly the reason I suggested a "critical thinking" class before any students take a science class. I don't propose that we "ignore" creationism; I suggest that we tackle it head on. We teach science in the classrooms but we don't discuss pseudoscience or anything like it. We need to teach the kind of scientific skepticism that Carl Sagan promoted in his book The Demon-Haunted World.

 

[Photonic]

That's exactly the reason I suggested a "critical thinking" class before any students take a science class. I don't propose that we "ignore" creationism; I suggest that we tackle it head on. We teach science in the classrooms but we don't discuss pseudoscience or anything like it. We need to teach the kind of scientific skepticism that Carl Sagan promoted in his book The Demon-Haunted World.

It's called philosophy, and unfortunately you don't take it until College.

 

[jarofthoughts]

It's called philosophy, and unfortunately you don't take it until College.

Actually, in Norway we started teaching philosophy in elementary school a few years back.
Oh, and Humanism is included as a one of the topics discussed in Religion classes, and we don't call them 'Religion classes' anymore.
We now consider them to be 'Religion, Philosophy and Ethics classes'.

 

[Photonic]

Actually, in Norway we started teaching philosophy in elementary school a few years back.
Oh, and Humanism is included as a one of the topics discussed in Religion classes, and we don't call them 'Religion classes' anymore.
We now consider them to be 'Religion, Philosophy and Ethics classes'.

That explains why Norway is so damn awesome.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If they want to teach creation, teach it in their own private schools, because we all have various religions in public schools.

 

[Matthew78]

It's called philosophy, and unfortunately you don't take it until College.

Not everyone goes to college!

We need something in high school, call it "critical thinking", "philosophy", "science and skepticism", you-name-it. If they only teach it in college, we also miss the opportunity to reach creationist kids to try to help them see the other side. They might go to a Christian college and become even more indoctrinated against even considering the possibility of evolution, an old earth, and anything else scientific. We either try to train kids in scientific skepticism at a younge age or get used to creationism being with us for a long time!

 

[Photonic]

Not everyone goes to college!

We need something in high school, call it "critical thinking", "philosophy", "science and skepticism", you-name-it. If they only teach it in college, we also miss the opportunity to reach creationist kids to try to help them see the other side. They might go to a Christian college and become even more indoctrinated against even considering the possibility of evolution, an old earth, and anything else scientific. We either try to train kids in scientific skepticism at a younge age or get used to creationism being with us for a long time!

Oh I agree completely. Philosophy of logic and reason should be taught as early as Kindergarten. And don't give me that bull that children can't understand that, because they most certainly can at that age.

 

[outhouse]

Not everyone goes to college!

We need something in high school, call it "critical thinking", "philosophy", "science and skepticism", you-name-it. If they only teach it in college, we also miss the opportunity to reach creationist kids to try to help them see the other side. They might go to a Christian college and become even more indoctrinated against even considering the possibility of evolution, an old earth, and anything else scientific. We either try to train kids in scientific skepticism at a younge age or get used to creationism being with us for a long time!

look we dont teach myth to children in a science classroom.

should we have a bigfoot class? or a class on aliens? or how about that unicorn class??



But I do understand your point, this should be taught at home. If your children only learn at school then there not learning all of what they should. its a parants job to teach what they want.

I wouldnt want some joker/teacher trying to pass off his own personal tainted philosophy on my child

 

[Photonic]

look we dont teach myth to children in a science classroom.

should we have a bigfoot class? or a class on aliens? or how about that unicorn class??



But I do understand your point, this should be taught at home. If your children only learn at school then there not learning all of what they should. its a parants job to teach what they want.

I wouldnt want some joker/teacher trying to pass off his own personal tainted philosophy on my child

He means that kids should be taught a philosophy of reasoning/logic class that allows them to see if they are holding beliefs that are irrational.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

look we dont teach myth to children in a science classroom.

should we have a bigfoot class? or a class on aliens? or how about that unicorn class??



But I do understand your point, this should be taught at home. If your children only learn at school then there not learning all of what they should. its a parants job to teach what they want.

I wouldnt want some joker/teacher trying to pass off his own personal tainted philosophy on my child

Not every parent has the time to teach in depth or advanced concepts to their children. If everyone was bound by a 7 hour work day and worked at the same hours as their kids' schooling, then this might be a moot point, but the fact is some people work evenings or nights and some people work long hours (10-12 hours). 60 hours a week every week is a lot of work time and leads to serious exhaustion; that doesn't leave a lot of downtime that can be used for anything other than complete relaxation.

That doesn't even touch on the fact that not all parents are intelligent enough to teach critical thinking to their kids. A child with a 140 IQ born to parents with 100 IQ happens. And that is a lot of intellectual difference. Now with that much intelligence the child probably won't have a lot of trouble picking up critical thinking skills, but there is a danger to that.

Incomplete training in rationality is probably more dangerous than leaving them untrained. Ideas which are completely irrational are far less persistent and pervasive than ideas which are defended by someone who can eliminate most biases (but not all). There is also the problem that intelligent people create much more in depth and convincing rationalizations (both for themselves and for others). So early training in rationality would probably be a good thing.

The problem is that finding people qualified to teach rationality would be next to impossible for all areas. The number of strong rationalists is not all that high, and the number of people amongst those who are qualified to teach (know the methods used to teach and have the social experience/knowledge/empathy to be able to teach) would be even smaller. And I have a hard time believing that that number (especially when one considers that this will be done in competition with other occupations) would be anywhere near enough to satisfy demand for all schools.

MTF

 

[atanu]

Those "some" would be proponents of abiogenesis, not just evolution. But abiogenesis does have experimental backing. They succeeded in producing organic compounds in controlled lab experiments. Basically the exact same thing abiogenesis supporting scientists have been saying it might have happened.

Thast is a very small part. Science and its methods are OK. But the philosophy developed based on some conclusions that hold within a specified scope, to speak about what is beyond the scope is not science.

This extension process makes claims (correctly) that science is the only way of knowing reality. Although we know that science is concerned only with the measuable. Then the arrogant philosophy says that there is no reality beyond its scope.

Do you see the assumption and its mis-use.

Whereas, obviously, in everyone's experience, the seer that sees and the knower that knows are not measurable.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Oh I agree completely. Philosophy of logic and reason should be taught as early as Kindergarten. And don't give me that bull that children can't understand that, because they most certainly can at that age.

Children are generally very good at asking questions, which is the first and most important step when doing both science and philosophy.
I see no problems with teaching philosophy and logic in kindergarten, and as mentioned, we already do so in elementary school.

 

[idav]

Thast is a very small part. Science and its methods are OK. But the philosophy developed based on some conclusions that hold within a specified scope, to speak about what is beyond the scope is not science.

This extension process makes claims (correctly) that science is the only way of knowing reality. Although we know that science is concerned only with the measuable. Then the arrogant philosophy says that there is no reality beyond its scope.

Do you see the assumption and its mis-use.

Whereas, obviously, in everyone's experience, the seer that sees and the knower that knows are not measurable.

I'm under the impression that science will eventually use physics to find out more about what you believe is currently "beyond its scope". I normally don't hear people saying they think they know everything even those know it all scientists.

edit: and as far as the seer knowing stuff that is unmeasurable. Thats why god invented super computers.

 

[Photonic]

I'm under the impression that science will eventually use physics to find out more about what you believe is currently "beyond its scope". I normally don't hear people saying they think they know everything even those know it all scientists.

edit: and as far as the seer knowing stuff that is unmeasurable. Thats why god invented super computers.

Speaking as a scientist I would happily say that we find more questions than we solve. But that's the fun. If there were no more questions there would be no more science.

The day we know everything is the day we become bored as hell.

 

[outhouse]

Not every parent has the time to teach in depth or advanced concepts to their children. If everyone was bound by a 7 hour work day and worked at the same hours as their kids' schooling, then this might be a moot point, but the fact is some people work evenings or nights and some people work long hours (10-12 hours). 60 hours a week every week is a lot of work time and leads to serious exhaustion; that doesn't leave a lot of downtime that can be used for anything other than complete relaxation.

That doesn't even touch on the fact that not all parents are intelligent enough to teach critical thinking to their kids. A child with a 140 IQ born to parents with 100 IQ happens. And that is a lot of intellectual difference. Now with that much intelligence the child probably won't have a lot of trouble picking up critical thinking skills, but there is a danger to that.

Incomplete training in rationality is probably more dangerous than leaving them untrained. Ideas which are completely irrational are far less persistent and pervasive than ideas which are defended by someone who can eliminate most biases (but not all). There is also the problem that intelligent people create much more in depth and convincing rationalizations (both for themselves and for others). So early training in rationality would probably be a good thing.

The problem is that finding people qualified to teach rationality would be next to impossible for all areas. The number of strong rationalists is not all that high, and the number of people amongst those who are qualified to teach (know the methods used to teach and have the social experience/knowledge/empathy to be able to teach) would be even smaller. And I have a hard time believing that that number (especially when one considers that this will be done in competition with other occupations) would be anywhere near enough to satisfy demand for all schools.

MTF

exactly my point

you dont want some knuckle headed public school teacher only trained to teach a script involved with this.

public school teachers dont have the education to teach anything more then the foundation of ToE or biology.

Another issue is with %60 of the population of the USA believing in creation, many teachers in certain geographic locations will not teach it properly and many children will refuse to learn based on the amount of brainwashing each has recieved regarding theology.

 

[outhouse]

He means that kids should be taught a philosophy of reasoning/logic class that allows them to see if they are holding beliefs that are irrational.

I agree, but not in a public school setting.

this would be completely biased to preconceived beliefs

 

[jarofthoughts]

I agree, but not in a public school setting.

this would be completely biased to preconceived beliefs

Actually, despite what many people think, logic is not a subjective matter in which everyone is allowed to have their own version.

Originally based on the teachings of Aristotle, formal logic in philosophy is a system of thought with very clearly defined rules and methodology, covering things like inductive and deductive reasoning, consistency, validity and so on.
I think Meow_Mix put it (something) like this at one point: "Logic is not so much invented as it is discovered".
In other words, a statement in formal logic can conclusively be deemed correct or incorrect, depending on various factors.

Teaching kids logic would, therefore, not be biased at all.

Logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SincereDebater]

Creationism should not be taught in public schools, at least not as science, since it is a religious view.

Why should Darwinian evolution be taught? Can those of you who support the teaching of Darwinian evololution in schools (as science), name one tangible benefit to the student? Teaching the student to read will produce so many tangible benefits it's not worth mentioning them. The biggest benefit being the ability to learn on his own. Teaching the student to write also has numerous benefits, including enabling the student to communicate with others. Teaching the student math prepares the student to at least manage his finances, and a lot more if his career involves science. Teaching the student a foreign language enables them to communicate with people from other countries and better understand their own language. Providing gym classes improves a student's physical fitness and can improve his confidence.

How does teaching evolution benefit the student in any tangible way? Couldn't this student be a brilliant doctor (i.e., heal or help many people), a brilliant veterinarian (i.e., healing or helping animals), a brilliant chemist, a brilliant geologist, etc. Can you name how teaching the student will tangibly benefit the student or others? (The only reason seems to be to keep them from believing in God, but in that case, evolution would of course be better taught in a religion class than a science class.)

 

[fantome profane]

Creationism should not be taught in public schools, at least not as science, since it is a religious view.

Why should Darwinian evolution be taught? Can those of you who support the teaching of Darwinian evololution in schools (as science), name one tangible benefit to the student? Teaching the student to read will produce so many tangible benefits it's not worth mentioning them. The biggest benefit being the ability to learn on his own. Teaching the student to write also has numerous benefits, including enabling the student to communicate with others. Teaching the student math prepares the student to at least manage his finances, and a lot more if his career involves science. Teaching the student a foreign language enables them to communicate with people from other countries and better understand their own language. Providing gym classes improves a student's physical fitness and can improve his confidence.

How does teaching evolution benefit the student in any tangible way? Couldn't this student be a brilliant doctor (i.e., heal or help many people), a brilliant veterinarian (i.e., healing or helping animals), a brilliant chemist, a brilliant geologist, etc. Can you name how teaching the student will tangibly benefit the student or others? (The only reason seems to be to keep them from believing in God, but in that case, evolution would of course be better taught in a religion class than a science class.)

I doubt you could be a brilliant doctor, or a brilliant veterinarian without a solid understanding of evolution. You certainly could not be a brilliant biologist, or a brilliant geneticists, or even a brilliant environmental scientists without a firm grasp of the concepts of evolution. You could not even begin to pursue any of these fields, much less excel in them without a full understanding of the theory of evolution. To eliminate the teaching of evolution would prevent students from pursuing the opportunities in these fields, and many others.

But even if someone is not going to seek a career in one of these scientific fields, there is still no reason to deny them an education. The theory of evolution provides an understanding of the world we live in. To rob students of this for some ridiculous political ideological reason would be an absolute tragedy.

And it has nothing to do with either discouraging or promoting a belief in “God”, any more than the teaching of physics or chemistry does.