RE: Creationism in public schools

RE: Creationism in public schools (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:30:57 AM)
Creationism shouldn't be taught in school for the simple reason it is anti-intellectual and based on ignorance and superstition.

hapistan -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:31:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou So again....what is wrong with allowing this debate in public schools? Thought I'd do something silly and answer the original question. Theres certainly no reason not to debate it in schools I don't think, everything should be available to be up for debate, especially the older kids who are basically adults (though more fidgety). Where creationism absolutely should not ever for one second be debated is in a science lesson, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with science. Have it in pastoral time or in religious studies lessons certainly, just not in science. (I'm halfway through teacher training, the rest of my working life has been in various research or analytic labs...I think I should be reasonably comfortable speaking up for science here...) Certainly in england, the national curriculum has a fair bit of emphasis on scientific reasoning and rationales behind that and lessons should try to show that wherever possible. There is not one single argument for it that can be made like that, so actually I dont think a structured debate in class could even actually happen. Mercifully It'll never be an issue here. (though some colleagues at a catholic school last year I remember had the debate in class, wierdly the priest lead the side for creationism, despite the fact that the catholic church recognises darwins theory as being, 'Gods mechanism of Creation' or something like that anyway.) The mind really does boggle at some of the things people get worked up about over in the good ol' USofA

meatcleaver -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:34:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The very fact that the overwhelmingly vast majority children adopt the religion of their parents and don't question that religion and largely find it impossible to escape that religion, even when they are older and they can intellectually reject it, just shows that most children are indoctrinated and are very suseptable to indoctrination. I assume you would not make such a broad, sweeping generalization without some facts to document it, so I truly would love to take a look at the research that led you to this conclusion. How many christians have muslim children, hown many muslims have christian children or is someone's religion in their genes? Why are their great geographical blocks of single religions, is it the weather or the alignment of planets that decide someone's religion? Except that's not what you said. Of course parents teach their children their religion. Teaching them a religion does not mean indoctrinating them to the point they are brainwashed and can never decide for themselves what they believe. How else do you explain why most children adopt their parent's belief if the children aren't indoctrinated, genetics, climate, geography?

rulemylife -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:35:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Couple this with the incontravertible truth that Natural selection is a social philosophy and not established fact it seems to me that there should be room to teach both philosophies in a school system. A social philosophy? It's as much as an accepted scientific fact as the theory of gravity. Or is that a social philosophy as well?

thishereboi -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:36:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aileen1968 quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Teaching evolution as science and Creationism as religious philosophy is fine. I don't think creationism should be taught. It should be exposed for what it is in a political awareness class. Creationism is a tool in a conservative agenda. Its inventors probably don't believe in it themselves (I have yet to ask them). It has absolutely zilch to do in science class. edited because it's not fucking worth it. It was the truth and that's always worth it.

colouredin -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:37:08 AM)
I think trying to get as many options in as you can, sure evolution is considered to be the most scientifically logical expliantaion and once the world was flat and there be dragons at the end of the sea. Debate discussion and awareness is good. We actually dont know whats right, i remember in an RE lesson I asked if we were to be taught anything about wicca or paganism and the answer was no due to the fact that it wasnt a 'proper' religion. Well to be fair all beliefs are just that, its the THEORY of evolution not the fact of it. Bigotry is bred by ignorance, children should be given infomation. the fact that many people subscribe to a particular view doesnt make it right, the arguement that children are easily manipulated actually goes in favour of giving them more options than less because as ive said you cant teach any of them as fact anyways.

meatcleaver -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:38:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Couple this with the incontravertible truth that Natural selection is a social philosophy and not established fact it seems to me that there should be room to teach both philosophies in a school system. Evolution has and is being observed.

hapistan -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:39:35 AM)
Indoctrination is too strong a word but what it absolutely is, is social conditioning, but that extends to so many things not just religion.How many people for example believe they live in the best country on earth for no reason? How many people support the same football team as their Dad did? Its not brainwashing, its just the fact that deep down the human race a race of lazy cunts and once ideas are in heads a lot of people can't be arsed, they're fine as they are.

rulemylife -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:39:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver How else do you explain why most children adopt their parent's belief if the children aren't indoctrinated, genetics, climate, geography? I can't explain it because I don't believe it and have not seen you say anything to substantiate it.

meatcleaver -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:39:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colouredin I think trying to get as many options in as you can, sure evolution is considered to be the most scientifically logical expliantaion and once the world was flat and there be dragons at the end of the sea. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round, only the ignorant thought otherwise, so ids the difference between evolutions and creationists.

Musicmystery -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:43:58 AM)
A "theory" in this sense isn't a guess---it's a series of tested hypotheses that continually work, i.e., probable. No own explains that gravity (which it is) is "just a theory." Drop an apple in a gravitational field, it falls. If Creationists were honest about their interest in providing a number of explanations, (1) they wouldn't do it in science class, as it has nothing to do with science, but rather attempting to cast doubt on scientific learning, and (2) they be anxious for students to also learn how Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Australian Aborigines, Polynesian Peoples, Norsemen, Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, Native Americans and more view creation. Nope, they don't. Instead, it's a naked push of their own unsupported beliefs as indoctrination into the school system. And as such, it has nothing to do with learning, and belongs freely practiced in churches, not secular schools.

colouredin -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:49:53 AM)
In that regard I agree MusicMystery, I dont think the motivation has much to do with wanting children to have a wider knowledge base, from my point of view though I elieve they should. Yes theory is based on scientific research however it has to remain a theory because it cant be completely proven the fact is we just dont know. I personally am not religious so it makes no odds to me. I am not advocating the discussion of this in a science class either but more a RE class even if it is simply so that children can see that there are many differant views out there, but then I am coming from the view that it is not about teaching them what to believe but about allowing them to open their minds to posibility something that they will have to do more and more as they get older, the younger they are exposed to it the less riged they will be and hopefully the more understanding of other people. But maybe thats all a bit to idealistic of me.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:50:58 AM)
Another fact is that scientists actually believe in creationism themselves. The Big Bang....release of energy from nothing. Origin of Life....inert molecules suddenly becoming self replicating and proceeding to the "life" we see today. So why prefer one form of creation to another ? Only arskin'

Musicmystery -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 6:52:48 AM)
That's true-----but they don't pretend to call it science.

bluepanda -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:00:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou So again....what is wrong with allowing this debate in public schools? Well, first of all, let's draw the distinction between debating it and teaching it as a valid scientific theory on the same level as evolution. When most religious wackos talk about "debating" it, what they really mean is that they want it taught as fact. And that has absolutely no place in public schools. But if you want to talk about simply "debating" the issue of creationism, and comparing its merits to the proven science of evolution, then I have no problem with it. In fact, I think it's a great idea. The strongest measure of intellectual honesty is the willingness to test what you accept to be true against opposing ideas. The better you understand the arguments against your belief, the better you understand your own belief, both its strengths and its weaknesses.

bluepanda -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:03:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Couple this with the incontravertible truth that Natural selection is a social philosophy and not established fact it seems to me that there should be room to teach both philosophies in a school system. Can you explain what you mean by that? Because the way you worded it, it sounds as though you don't have a basic knowledge of biology.

tsatske -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:08:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Evolution has and is being observed. Yes, it is. And it is really fascinating to point out more current examples to children. However, I think indoctrination is wrong in any direction, trying to force on children something different than what their parents belive is wrong. There is nothing wrong with presenting intelligent design, although, honestly, I am mostly talking about the way it was presented to me in college - not nearly as much time spent on it, because, unless you are going to delve into theology, there is just not as much to say about it. Theology was avoided - just an explanation and short discussion of some of the theories, arguments, beliefs surrounding intelligent design, a mention of some of the theorists if you want more, move on, without a 'right or wrong' conclusion. That's what they will get in college, why the huge argument about what to give in public school? And where the constant concept that these two MUST be at odds? My children, schooled at a small, private Catholic school, were taught Biblical Foundation for Evolution. And they were taught the difference between MacroEvolution and MicroEvolution - MicroEvolution goes on NOW, as it always has. Can there really be intelligent people who don't belive in MicroEvolution? When I talk with anti-Evolutionists, I describe MicroEvolution with an example or two, and they agree that of course it happens. Did you know that human mouths have gotten significantly smaller in the last 100 years? how cool is that? (not so cool when you need your wisdom teeth cut out - as something like 60% of adults now do, a number that will keep growing if the evolutionary trend continues). Why are our mouths smaller? Our brainpans are getting larger, and taking up more room. (And smaller mouths probably means better head, I would think....)

rulemylife -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:10:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: colouredin I think trying to get as many options in as you can, sure evolution is considered to be the most scientifically logical expliantaion and once the world was flat and there be dragons at the end of the sea. Debate discussion and awareness is good. We actually dont know whats right, i remember in an RE lesson I asked if we were to be taught anything about wicca or paganism and the answer was no due to the fact that it wasnt a 'proper' religion. Well to be fair all beliefs are just that, its the THEORY of evolution not the fact of it. Bigotry is bred by ignorance, children should be given infomation. the fact that many people subscribe to a particular view doesnt make it right, the arguement that children are easily manipulated actually goes in favour of giving them more options than less because as ive said you cant teach any of them as fact anyways. Well to be fair, I'm trying really, really hard not to point out the irony of what you just said. Evolution is not a belief. It is not a theory even, in the context you use the word. Darwin just didn't sit around one day, have a few drinks with some other scientists, and say I think this is what happened. (theory from wikipedia) In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

Bethnai -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:13:18 AM)
I don't care if kids debate it on their own, just not in a classroom in a public school.

Musicmystery -> RE: Creationism in public schools (10/4/2008 7:13:39 AM)
quote: Evolution has and is being observed. Yes, it is. And it is really fascinating to point out more current examples to children. However, I think indoctrination is wrong in any direction So pointing out well-established matters of fact is now indoctrination? Education, by implication, then, all education, would be pointless beyond indoctrination. Like those surgical students indoctrinated into the medical culture. Just let them cut on faith in whatever system they believe!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875