the Kansas court will be debating whether creationism, evolution, or a combination of the two should be taught in Kansas classrooms -- with the majority of people present being in the pro-creationism camp.
What I don't understand is, since evolution is the accepted "secular" explanation, why can't parents just say "Tommy, mommmy and daddy don't believe in evolution, we believe in creationism." As I'm sure most parents do when secular vs. religious comes up.
It's what secular parents do for their kids! "Mommy and Daddy don't believe in God, but many other people do." We're (meaning, those without religion) not demanding that schools denounce religion -- why would religious folk demand as much?
posted
I can understand not wanting your kid taught "God didn't create man, because we've proven that it happened through evolution," which is how evolution is portrayed all too often.
But it is impossible to be an educated adult without understanding the theory of evolution. Even if they aren't taught that evolution is "true", students still should be taught what it is.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes I wonder why people think science teachers are qualified to teach creationism over ministers. What are their pastors teaching them, anyway?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fine with people mentioning creationism and intelligent design in schools -- just not in science classrooms. They're modern religious movements, and should be taught about in appropriate contexts.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can understand not wanting your kid taught "God didn't create man, because we've proven that it happened through evolution," which is how evolution is portrayed all too often.
I don't ever remember evolution being portrayed this way in school. It was only outside class that the debate over creationism vs. evolution began.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw it portrayed that way in class many, many times. And I lived in Virginia Beach, home of Pat Robertson.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, I went through VB schools and never heard it like that. Perhaps it has to do with the different eras Dag and I were in school?
I did have one former hippy science teacher who taught both. Mostly to make sure we questioned assumptions, not to actually show how the rest of the teachers we had were wrong.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was also taught that way. I had a teacher who actually said condescendingly, "Does anyone actually believe the story in the Bible of how the earth was created?" One person raised their hand, and it was not me. This teacher really gave him a hard time about his belief. I was bothered by this at the time, and even more so now.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I had a teacher who actually said condescendingly, "Does anyone actually believe the story in the Bible of how the earth was created?" One person raised their hand, and it was not me. This teacher really gave him a hard time about his belief.
This is as much a violation of the separation of Church and State as many other things that people cry foul about.
If you can't teach that a certain religion is true, you shouldn't be able to teach that it is false, either.
posted
In my bible-belt high school, my biology teacher (who was admittedly, a little off-kilter) explained that he would not discuss either, since he 1) refused to engage in a protracted battle with the uber-conservative Baptist parents in order to teach the theory of evolution, and 2) refused to teach creationism on the basis that it didn't belong in a biology class.
The loud-and-rowdy uber-conservatives in the class (who were ALWAYS explaining to me, in GREAT DETAIL, why I was going to hell) IMMEDIATELY responded by DEMANDING to know what he personally believed. He informed them that it was none of their business, though they continued to press the issue for quite some time. In retrospect, I wish he would've gone ahead and taught the theory, though, in spite of the crap he would've had to take from students (forget the parents; in my school, it was the kids who were the problem).
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is as much a violation of the separation of Church and State as many other things that people cry foul about.
It is, in fact, a violation on two counts. It's an establishment clause violation, because it's giving official imprimatur to a particular religious belief. And it's a free exercise violation, because it's a government official penalizing someone for their religious beliefs.
It wasn't personally directed towards anyone, but the unwritten sensibilities of a teacher in the 40's would be different from a teacher in the 00's.
If you wanted a less extreme example, how about a teacher in the 70's and a teacher in the 00's?
Someone teaching in the 70's was molded, academically, in the atmosphere of an earlier period.
Someone teaching in the 00's was molded possibly in the same time period, but more likely influenced in a later period where academia was possibly not as rigid or regimented.
posted
The only time I ever recall evolution being discussed directly in school was in a social studies class (called World Civilizations). The teacher was 100 years old, give or take, and had a handful of set rants that he would give each year. One of his rants was about evolution, and how ridiculous it was. He talked about the insanity of believing a woodpecker could evolve from an alligator, and gleefully pointed to such hoaxes as Piltdown Man, and even harped on the arthritic Neanderthal skeleton.
At the time, we all just let him rant, because we knew what he was like. It never occurred to wonder why we were discussing evolution for an entire session of class when it had nothing to do with the ostensible topic of the course, neither did it occur to me to question his rabid and unreasoning personal biases against evolution. It wasn't something I was that interested in becoming embroiled in as a fifteen-year-old.
This same nut had an annual lesson about the disgusting things that are put in many of the tasty foods teenagers like to eat, another about his days working in a mental intitution, and one more about proving that even at his advanced age he could hurdle his desk with a typewriter sitting on top of it.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you can't teach that a certain religion is true, you shouldn't be able to teach that it is false, either.
I agree with this in principle, but since so much of religion is based on articles of unsubstantiated faith, you will eventually teach something that invalidates an article of faith in someone's religion.
EDIT: Sorry. I dropped off part of my post and will ineloquently summarize
This isn't specifically denying someone else's faith on a whole, but that doesn't seem to be the driving force of the creationism argument.
quote:so much of religion is based on articles of unsubstantiated faith, you will eventually teach something that invalidates an article of faith in someone's religion.
There's a big difference between saying "the geologic evidence indicates that the earth is millions of years old" and saying "because of science we know that the earth is millions of years old, so if you believe otherwise, you are wrong."
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There's a big difference between saying "the geologic evidence indicates that the earth is millions of years old" and saying "because of science we know that the earth is millions of years old, so if you believe otherwise, you are wrong."
If someones religion teaches that squares are circles, and triangles are squares, how could they be taught a subject like Algebra without being corrected to the scientifically excepted norm?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm really glad that for the most part we can talk about this without getting ticked off at each other.
I agree with many here that it's not right that one should be taught when the other isn't.
As a side note, i never had the problem with teachers talking about how evolution is either stupid or the truth in class, but then again, i never had the fanatical teachers.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or that religion is Correct to the exclusion of science.
Agreed, so in the confrontation of the two, acknowledge both. I'm totally on board with teaching the science, just teach it as science and not as unassailable truth.
posted
Probably just one of those random things. I had awesome science teachers, but my math teachers...ugh.
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree with many here that it's not right that one should be taught when the other isn't.
I personally believe that creationism, not being scientific in the slightest, has no place in a science classroom.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Agreed, so in the confrontation of the two, acknowledge both. I'm totally on board with teaching the science, just teach it as science and not as unassailable truth
Well..there are OTHER creation myths/stories subscribed to by other religions. So if we go down this road we should make sure that we teach ALL of them. After all..Christianity isn't the only religion practiced in this country.
Posts: 512 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone actually believe that creationism needs to be taught? What I mean is, the people who care already know it. The rest of the people get nothing out of it. People are fighting to get it into schools as a way of marking their territory, not because they think people are lacking the information.
On another tack, say you're on the admissions staff of like MIT. Kansas already ranks around the lowest of sceince educations in the nation. If they pull things like this, can you even take their students science grades without a huge grain of salt?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If evolution is being taught correctly, then it will always be subject to scientific inquiry. The fact that evolution is not 100% confirmed (although you'd think 99.99% would be enough) does not invalidate it or substantiate creationism.
EDIT: Adam, you beat me to it. Evolution is science. Always subject to the scientific method.
quote:People are fighting to get it into schools as a way of marking their territory, not because they think people are lacking the information.
While I believe they are misguided, I can understand why they feel the need to do this. They feel under assault by the general culture (which they are), and are doing everything they can to keep the advancing hordes at bay.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Squicky finally points out exactly why I think it's stupid for Kansas to have this "debate."
I'm not quite sure they will be able to make a permanent change to curriculum. Back in 1999, they tried, and the people of Kansas voted several of the board members off in the next election. Sadly, the board has tipped in favor of religious conservatives with an Intelligent Design agenda yet again.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Actually, I think it's more an overreaction to the anti-religious sentiment of the last couple of decades
Seriously?
Anyway. I think evolution should be mentioned in biology class, it was in mine. But it wasn't an overwhelming influence, I think we spent maybe one or two days on it, it was a small three page blip on my AP science book (which is the same text I used in college by the way). We went over it, and that was it. There wasn't emphasis on it, no one said that it was the best, or that creationism was crap, though we did have a devout Christian in the class that said evolution was crap.
But we moved on and it wasn't mentioned again afterwards. Likewise, I've learned the bible in both history and literature classes in high school. I think we read a little bit of the torah and the hadith too.
We went over what it was, but never said that it wasn't true, or that it was true, just looked at it from a literary and historical point of view.
I think that is best. Everything gets covered, nothing gets emphasized, nothing is discredited.
The only unknown element there is the teacher actually teaching it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does anyone actually believe that creationism needs to be taught? What I mean is, the people who care already know it. The rest of the people get nothing out of it. People are fighting to get it into schools as a way of marking their territory, not because they think people are lacking the information.
Yes, sadly enough, but not on this thread. Well let me back-track, and say I'm talking specifically about biology class, beyond a "many people believe that... [insert 20 seconds]" I don't think anywhere here wants biology to be about the Bible.
quote:On another tack, say you're on the admissions staff of like MIT. Kansas already ranks around the lowest of sceince educations in the nation. If they pull things like this, can you even take their students science grades without a huge grain of salt?
Well their biology scores anyways, but then grades are much more a symbol of the students effort and dedication than what they learned anyways.
quote:And that's what bothers me about this entire argument. Science should NEVER be taught as unassilable truth, because it isn't. Science changes as we discover more about the universe.
Totally agree.
quote:If evolution is being taught correctly, then it will always be subject to scientific inquiry. The fact that evolution is not 100% confirmed (although you'd think 99.99% would be enough) does not invalidate it or substantiate creationism.
Yes it will be, but I'm confused, are you saying that you feel evolution is 99.99% confirmed?
quote:"If students... do not understand the weaknesses of evolutionary theory as well as the strengths, a grave injustice is being done to them," Abrams said.
I think this quote from the article says it well enough, as have several other here.
I'm not against the popular theory of evolution being explained in a science classroom, as long as -- as others have said -- it isn't portrayed as the "ONLY" allowable explanation, and no respect is given to those who voice their opinion that they believe otherwise.
I'm not fully in favor of "creationism" being taught at the schools -- because the teachers may not be believers in intelligent design - so they would have difficulty teaching it. In fact, some of you will agree that even among religious peoples, there is some disagreements on exactly how the creation took place (those who take it literally as opposed to those who see it metaphorically).
It comes down to respect -- respect the rights of the Christian kids to say they don't believe in the evolutionary theory as the origin of all life.
I think this whole debate only came about because some teachers/professors felt it their "mission" to "convert" some children away from their beliefs by making them feel inferior for not embracing the entire evolutionary theory.
My kids were taught evolution in school, and creationism at home. Worked out okay for them. But in their schools (at least on the high school level, but not on the college level) both views were treated with respect.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
How old do you think we are?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
