First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
Evolution and Creationism in School
16179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/1/09 , edited 1/1/09

dmitsuki wrote:



Yes, they do teach the Big Bang theory in school, but it is only mentioned under the subject of physics and in the chapter discussing universal origins. It does not have a separate subject devoted to its intricacies. It is taught, again, as a supplement and as a theory, not as the main course material and not as fact.

The way I see it, there are absolutely no problems if they teach Creationism under "Philosophy of World Religions", in the chapter "Origins", along with all the other genesis theories from all the other religions. It is when they want to teach Creationism, something not begotten from physics, in the physics course that people start objecting.
Posted 1/1/09

excalion wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:



Yes, they do teach the Big Bang theory in school, but it is only mentioned under the subject of physics and in the chapter discussing universal origins. It does not have a separate subject devoted to its intricacies. It is taught, again, as a supplement and as a theory, not as the main course material and not as fact.

The way I see it, there are absolutely no problems if they teach Creationism under "Philosophy of World Religions", in the chapter "Origins", along with all the other genesis theories from all the other religions. It is when they want to teach Creationism, something not begotten from physics, in the physics course that people start objecting.


All I was saying is that you were saying there is no evidence to support any genesis theory, and that's not true, there is.
16179 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 1/1/09

dmitsuki wrote:



Actually, I said "there is no real evidence to support any genesis theories." The definition of real evidence to me is conclusive evidence, and we do not have any of that for any of the genesis theories. The point, however, is moot either way as the topic is not about whether genesis theories have any evidence, but rather whether Evolution or Creationism should be taught in schools and how they should be taught.
Posted 1/1/09
I would agree with it as an optional course or just sending your kid to a christian or catholic school. I have a friend who graduated from catholic school and he believes in evolution so they are not really cramming "magic" into their minds. Though I am in Canada where we do not not have some of the kooks that the U.S.is known to have.
181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Seattle, WA
Offline
Posted 1/1/09
No, I do not believe that creationism re-labeled as "intelligent design" should be allowed in schools. It's not science...Period.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/1/09

excalion wrote:

Yes, they do teach the Big Bang theory in school, but it is only mentioned under the subject of physics and in the chapter discussing universal origins. It does not have a separate subject devoted to its intricacies. It is taught, again, as a supplement and as a theory, not as the main course material and not as fact.

The way I see it, there are absolutely no problems if they teach Creationism under "Philosophy of World Religions", in the chapter "Origins", along with all the other genesis theories from all the other religions. It is when they want to teach Creationism, something not begotten from physics, in the physics course that people start objecting.


I agree with your opinion but personally I’ve been schooled in two different countries, three different states, and four different schools. In Washington the big bang was taught to me as fact during a middle school Intro to Physics class. Then in Texas it was taught to me as fact during IPC. Then at a separate Texas school the same thing was taught during a General Physics. Finally, in Oklahoma, it was taught to me in Survey of Science class.

It was never introduced to me as a theory, at least not through school. Now, I’ve since studied physics and learned some of the conflicting theories. While I find none of the arguments against the big bang entirely persuasive, they legitimately possible. Anyway, I just wanted to note that in at least some schools the big bang isn’t taught as theory.

Which doesn’t actually bother me. Mid-High school courses are just supposed to introduce you to a topic. They’re not supposed to be detailed and specific. They’re supposed to be brief and diverse. Consider how terse your typical high school history class is. They give you the most likely theory as fact and then move on.

1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 1/1/09
I might even take it a step further: make the course mandatory, not optional. If we are to learn history and politics, why not religion? Whether we accept it or not, knowledge of it would surely enhance our understanding of other people.

What objections might there be?

Problem: They couldn't possibly learn about every other religion.
Response: Students are taught neither every country's history nor every perspective of each history. Shall we abandon that field as well?

Problem: It forces religion down their throats.
Response: It forces knowledge down their throats, not religion. Let's not confuse teaching with indoctrinating.

Problem: Bias would be present.
Response: Bias is present in most classes of the liberal arts, whether it be in the textbooks or the teachers. Even if it were more of a problem in the case of religion, I can't imagine that anyone would get away with actually promoting one religion above the others.

Problem: My religion is true OR No religions are true, so learning about religion is pointless/harmful.
Response: Shall the parents read every textbook and interview every teacher, then, to see if their children might be taught something they don't believe in another subject? These conclusions are to be made by the student, not the parents.

As much as I would like to propose mandatory classes on ethics and basic philosophy as well, teaching such classes would require much more caution in both the choice of material and its delivery. Unfortunately, such courses were not even required at my university, so I can't imagine it will happen in high schools in the near future. (Besides, the students might even start to question what they're taught in other classes, and we can't have anything disrupting the important structure of K-12 education!)
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 1/2/09

Regulus133 wrote:
Problem: They couldn't possibly learn about every other religion.
Response: Students are taught neither every country's history nor every perspective of each history. Shall we abandon that field as well?


Is history mandatory in all countries? What particular mandatory history is learnt each country? Reason for choice? Cross reference with quoted statement.


Regulus133 wrote:
Problem: My religion is true OR No religions are true, so learning about religion is pointless/harmful.
Response: Shall the parents read every textbook and interview every teacher, then, to see if their children might be taught something they don't believe in another subject? These conclusions are to be made by the student, not the parents.


Then said parents should abandon all responsibilities to said child. Responsibility of said child is then handed over to the government.
Posted 1/2/09

Regulus133 wrote:

I might even take it a step further: make the course mandatory, not optional. If we are to learn history and politics, why not religion? Whether we accept it or not, knowledge of it would surely enhance our understanding of other people.

What objections might there be?

Problem: They couldn't possibly learn about every other religion.
Response: Students are taught neither every country's history nor every perspective of each history. Shall we abandon that field as well?

Problem: It forces religion down their throats.
Response: It forces knowledge down their throats, not religion. Let's not confuse teaching with indoctrinating.

Problem: Bias would be present.
Response: Bias is present in most classes of the liberal arts, whether it be in the textbooks or the teachers. Even if it were more of a problem in the case of religion, I can't imagine that anyone would get away with actually promoting one religion above the others.

Problem: My religion is true OR No religions are true, so learning about religion is pointless/harmful.
Response: Shall the parents read every textbook and interview every teacher, then, to see if their children might be taught something they don't believe in another subject? These conclusions are to be made by the student, not the parents.

As much as I would like to propose mandatory classes on ethics and basic philosophy as well, teaching such classes would require much more caution in both the choice of material and its delivery. Unfortunately, such courses were not even required at my university, so I can't imagine it will happen in high schools in the near future. (Besides, the students might even start to question what they're taught in other classes, and we can't have anything disrupting the important structure of K-12 education!)


History happened.
2319 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / where the grass i...
Offline
Posted 1/2/09
in public schools? no. public schools are for general people

just curious guys, is there a species that exist today where a scientist empirically proved it evolves from a simple organism?
4559 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Bermuda Triangle
Offline
Posted 1/2/09
i bet no one's reading my post. Bring on the debate! I can support either side or both at the same time!
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 1/2/09 , edited 1/2/09

the_glob wrote:


Regulus133 wrote:
Problem: They couldn't possibly learn about every other religion.
Response: Students are taught neither every country's history nor every perspective of each history. Shall we abandon that field as well?


Is history mandatory in all countries? What particular mandatory history is learnt each country? Reason for choice? Cross reference with quoted statement.


That is the point. We are required to learn only certain perspectives of certain histories in the United States, so we should abandon the study of history if we are forbidden from learning religion simply because we can't know everything about each kind.



Regulus133 wrote:
Problem: My religion is true OR No religions are true, so learning about religion is pointless/harmful.
Response: Shall the parents read every textbook and interview every teacher, then, to see if their children might be taught something they don't believe in another subject? These conclusions are to be made by the student, not the parents.


Then said parents should abandon all responsibilities to said child. Responsibility of said child is then handed over to the government.


Nice all-or-nothing mentality. It doesn't have to be that way. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that, past the 8th grade, Amish students could not be required to attend school. Of course, this implies that they can be required to attend through the 8th grade, by which point it was thought at the time of the decision that the student had received a sufficient foundation for continuing his life and being a productive member of society. It is not a great leap to extend the compulsory education to 12th grade, nor is it absurd to think that a class on theology could be incorporated into the curriculum before 9th grade.

I'm not proposing handing all responsibility for children to the government at all--just urging a more unified and complete education that benefits the students. As much as we love to parade our "freedoms" about, I just don't see the benefit in withholding this kind of information. Even if I were religious, I would want my child to be aware of the world around him and eventually make his own choices. Perhaps not everyone agrees, but I imagine parents would find all sorts of things they don't like in other subjects that are taught. If we are to forget theology because it offends certain people, we should forget all education because it's bound to offend someone.

Then again, homeschooling is an option. Just because a class is mandatory in public schools doesn't mean children must attend them. If you don't like it, don't send your child to learn it--but take the responsibility of homeschooling your child. Can't do it and can't afford a private religious school? Too bad. We can't have everything we want.


dmitsuki wrote:

History happened.


This objection, if that's what it is, is addressed in the second response. It is not belief in religion that would be taught, but what those beliefs are. Besides, we read all sorts of fiction and speculation in other classes. There is an educational benefit to all of this, to providing information about what other people think even if the student doesn't believe it himself.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 1/2/09

Regulus133 wrote:

I might even take it a step further: make the course mandatory, not optional. If we are to learn history and politics, why not religion? Whether we accept it or not, knowledge of it would surely enhance our understanding of other people.

What objections might there be?

Problem: They couldn't possibly learn about every other religion.
Response: Students are taught neither every country's history nor every perspective of each history. Shall we abandon that field as well?

Problem: It forces religion down their throats.
Response: It forces knowledge down their throats, not religion. Let's not confuse teaching with indoctrinating.

Problem: Bias would be present.
Response: Bias is present in most classes of the liberal arts, whether it be in the textbooks or the teachers. Even if it were more of a problem in the case of religion, I can't imagine that anyone would get away with actually promoting one religion above the others.

Problem: My religion is true OR No religions are true, so learning about religion is pointless/harmful.
Response: Shall the parents read every textbook and interview every teacher, then, to see if their children might be taught something they don't believe in another subject? These conclusions are to be made by the student, not the parents.

As much as I would like to propose mandatory classes on ethics and basic philosophy as well, teaching such classes would require much more caution in both the choice of material and its delivery. Unfortunately, such courses were not even required at my university, so I can't imagine it will happen in high schools in the near future. (Besides, the students might even start to question what they're taught in other classes, and we can't have anything disrupting the important structure of K-12 education!)


Well, that’s a very interesting opinion. Personally, I’d prefer the theology class to remain optional. Teachers have personal agendas and it’s impossible to moderate those on large scale. There are subtle ways of biasing a student body without breaking the rules.

One example would be my freshman world history class. We were reading our text book and came across a line reading, “Certain historical finds disagree with some details of biblical accounts.” The teacher paused to note that the text book was actually supporting biblical accounts.

My science teacher said “Desperate to reaffirm their faith Christians have begun to change their interpretations of Genesis. Now that science has proven it wrong they read it as a metaphor.”

I guess it’s not an effective argument. I mean, I wouldn’t have history or science as electives just because some teachers have hidden agendas. Still, as a person I think I’d be more comfortable if theology remained an elective. That way I could personally observe the teacher before deciding rather or not I trust him/her to teach the topic from an unbiased standpoint.

I parallel this line of thought with my consideration of gun rights. Sure, I acknowledge that more guns in the hands of more people means that there will be more firearm related accidents. But, I also know that if I were attacked I would really want a gun…

Essentially I’m just nervous about forcing things on people that I wouldn’t want forced on me. Then again, I’m pro-life so you might as well tattoo the word “hypocrite,” across my forehead…
15506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M
Offline
Posted 1/2/09
I am a firm believer in the Big Bang, Evolution, the existence of God and the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Why can't the Christian faith just accept Science and the Bible? Maybe they aren't out to get us, but the other way around? And while were at it, they need to start putting emphasis on love and joy, not intolernace and religious law. Jesus came to break those boundaries. It just get me mad.
1231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M
Offline
Posted 1/3/09

Regulus133 wrote:
That is the point. We are required to learn only certain perspectives of certain histories in the United States, so we should abandon the study of history if we are forbidden from learning religion simply because we can't know everything about each kind.


You failed to understand what i was pointing out while thinking your pont was too complex to comprehend (it isn't by far)



Regulus133 wrote:
Nice all-or-nothing mentality. It doesn't have to be that way. In Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that, past the 8th grade, Amish students could not be required to attend school. Of course, this implies that they can be required to attend through the 8th grade, by which point it was thought at the time of the decision that the student had received a sufficient foundation for continuing his life and being a productive member of society. It is not a great leap to extend the compulsory education to 12th grade, nor is it absurd to think that a class on theology could be incorporated into the curriculum before 9th grade.

I'm not proposing handing all responsibility for children to the government at all--just urging a more unified and complete education that benefits the students. As much as we love to parade our "freedoms" about, I just don't see the benefit in withholding this kind of information. Even if I were religious, I would want my child to be aware of the world around him and eventually make his own choices. Perhaps not everyone agrees, but I imagine parents would find all sorts of things they don't like in other subjects that are taught. If we are to forget theology because it offends certain people, we should forget all education because it's bound to offend someone.

Then again, homeschooling is an option. Just because a class is mandatory in public schools doesn't mean children must attend them. If you don't like it, don't send your child to learn it--but take the responsibility of homeschooling your child. Can't do it and can't afford a private religious school? Too bad. We can't have everything we want.


What is the role of the education system? Who pays for the education system? What factors is used to determine a ciriculum? What is a responsibility? Under what conditions is a responsibility discharged?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.