Crosswords0 min ago
Creationism in education.
28 Answers
Is it really all that wrong to teach creationism in schools to susteptible young minds? Does it really cause any harm?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by styley. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I admire your faith, I really do. That's a genuine sentiment - don't read anything into it.
I just happen to disagree with you.
Now, back to the question at hand. We seem to agree that time in school should be given over to creationist theory, but would you have it in religious studies or presented as scientific fact?
I just happen to disagree with you.
Now, back to the question at hand. We seem to agree that time in school should be given over to creationist theory, but would you have it in religious studies or presented as scientific fact?
The ability to be purposefully creative presupposes the existence of an entity with a brain and the sensory organs required to observe, learn and think with as well as a universe in which such an entity can evolve and learn in by observing and understanding the principles by which it operates. The creation of an abstract idea such as creationism is itself dependent upon the existence of such a being along with the potential to get it wrong by not seeking or ignoring the evidence that makes such a distinction possible. Creationism is an attempt to circumvent or completely disregard these preconditions by ignoring the sequence of cause and effect thereby putting the cart before the horse. Does the cart push the horse and point the horse in the direction it wishes to go or is the cart destined to follow wherever the horse might lead it?
In the absence of teachers possessing an ability to practice critical thinking skills, let alone teach them, relying on them to point out the fallacy of creationism is just one more bad idea.
In the absence of teachers possessing an ability to practice critical thinking skills, let alone teach them, relying on them to point out the fallacy of creationism is just one more bad idea.
mibn - that's just the point. To some, creationism isn't a fallacy, it's a cold hard fact. The question is to what extent this is taught in schools. If not at all, are we in danger of ignoring a primary belief that's shared by a large % of the population? Just because I don't believe it, does that make them wrong to want their kids educated in this way?
Mibs talks about cause and effect.
The universe is an effect, where is the cause?
for me it is God.
God simply, "IS," His own cause and effect.
If we could understand Him, He wouldn't be God!
As regards teaching, then rather than present so called, "facts," I would prefer to see the various theories taught, and I have to agree with Mibs, that the skill of critical thinking should also be taught, and then kids can have the tools necessary to make up their own minds.
The universe is an effect, where is the cause?
for me it is God.
God simply, "IS," His own cause and effect.
If we could understand Him, He wouldn't be God!
As regards teaching, then rather than present so called, "facts," I would prefer to see the various theories taught, and I have to agree with Mibs, that the skill of critical thinking should also be taught, and then kids can have the tools necessary to make up their own minds.
Theland, you have been on a thousand and one threads on this website where you and other Creationists have been taken to task for implying that 'theory' when used in the context of gravity or evolution means 'not proven'. You know very well that it has a specific meaning when used by scentists in such contexts, namely:
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or 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 falsified through empirical observation.
Your continued repetition of your bogus mischaracterisation of what is meant by the word is so deliberate that it is nothing less than an active and knowing lie. I thought Christians didn't lie?
If schools want to mention Creationism in religious eductation classes, then it is acceptable. What is entirely unacceptable is teaching creationism as though it were science, since it manifestly is not science - it is not falsifiable. 'Falsifiable', as you again, well know, means that it can be tested, and is a bed rock of the scientific method. Creationism has failed every attempt to falsify it.
It matters not a jot whether you like it; this is how science is done.
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or 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 falsified through empirical observation.
Your continued repetition of your bogus mischaracterisation of what is meant by the word is so deliberate that it is nothing less than an active and knowing lie. I thought Christians didn't lie?
If schools want to mention Creationism in religious eductation classes, then it is acceptable. What is entirely unacceptable is teaching creationism as though it were science, since it manifestly is not science - it is not falsifiable. 'Falsifiable', as you again, well know, means that it can be tested, and is a bed rock of the scientific method. Creationism has failed every attempt to falsify it.
It matters not a jot whether you like it; this is how science is done.
Whickerman, Are you implying that facts are whatever one chooses to believe they are?
or
That because some people believe something (whatever the percentile) that that gives them the right to have it purveyed in the guise of knowledge to children of parents who recognize the harm in equating proven knowledge with random beliefs by what's left of the teachers who would quite the honourable profession before teaching lies?
In any compromise between knowledge, "half truths" or downright lies, guess which wins out, everytime?
The fate of nations rests on the quality of the knowledge we present to our most precious resource, the developing minds of our children.
or
That because some people believe something (whatever the percentile) that that gives them the right to have it purveyed in the guise of knowledge to children of parents who recognize the harm in equating proven knowledge with random beliefs by what's left of the teachers who would quite the honourable profession before teaching lies?
In any compromise between knowledge, "half truths" or downright lies, guess which wins out, everytime?
The fate of nations rests on the quality of the knowledge we present to our most precious resource, the developing minds of our children.
Theland, I am confident that what I am about to tell you will not change your mind on this issue, and in not having presented the justification for my belief, nor should it. Nevertheless, I have taken the time and gone to the trouble to understand "Him" and in doing so it has provided me with the certainty that the obfuscation you call "God" can not and does not exist in any form other than the delusion harboured in the minds of those who choose to believe for no other reason than because they want to. Having chosen to adopt your belief on that basis, presenting my case against the existence of "God" as you have thus far defined "Him" would be futile, albeit in its present form it has no less merit than your own.
You claim to be satisfied with your belief in who or what created the universe based solely on your act of faith. I have never sought nor would I be comfortable with harboring such a belief on that basis simply for the sake of pretending to have an answer to a question I honestly can not answer fully with the available knowledge I now possess. Such honesty is the hallmark of a mind that insists on answers that are in compliance with the quality of what knowledge it does possess, the value of which I know would be and should never be sacrificed on the alter of self-delusion.
cont . . .
You claim to be satisfied with your belief in who or what created the universe based solely on your act of faith. I have never sought nor would I be comfortable with harboring such a belief on that basis simply for the sake of pretending to have an answer to a question I honestly can not answer fully with the available knowledge I now possess. Such honesty is the hallmark of a mind that insists on answers that are in compliance with the quality of what knowledge it does possess, the value of which I know would be and should never be sacrificed on the alter of self-delusion.
cont . . .
I have far too much respect for the value of the uniquely human potential ability to learn about the nature of and to experience the best that reality has to offer. I have reaped to many of the rewards from an honest appraisal of what I do and do not know to trade it all in on a attempt to experience a feeling that can not be made real through wishful thinking alone. This is my choice and having made it and benefited from it I would not deny anyone the option of sharing a similar regard for the beauty and wonder that is revealed through an honest effort to learn to distinguish between what is real and what is no more than an illusion, no matter how many or few share it with me. By having a respect for reality and my minds ability to grasp it I have been able to make reality my faithful friend.
If I should die before completing this sentence I would die knowing that I have lived and that it was an experience I would not trade for anything that could be dreamed of or imagined to be in heaven. Such is the fulfillment of my choice, an option that to deny anyone by presenting a false representation of knowledge is an act of treason against life, reason and the heroic struggle of humanity to discover, know and experience truth.
If I should die before completing this sentence I would die knowing that I have lived and that it was an experience I would not trade for anything that could be dreamed of or imagined to be in heaven. Such is the fulfillment of my choice, an option that to deny anyone by presenting a false representation of knowledge is an act of treason against life, reason and the heroic struggle of humanity to discover, know and experience truth.
All this to and fro is pointless.
The simple fact is that we should teach in schools the prevailing scientific viewpoint in any science.
It should be taught along with the evidence such as the fossil record, DNA and examples of evolutionary change and missing pieces of evidence.
For example it's important to teach that despite a lot of effort it's not proved possible to fully explain the origin of the first self replicating molecules.
Other ideas should be mentioned but if they don't have a strong scientific basis there no justification for teaching them in science lessons.
The simple fact is that we should teach in schools the prevailing scientific viewpoint in any science.
It should be taught along with the evidence such as the fossil record, DNA and examples of evolutionary change and missing pieces of evidence.
For example it's important to teach that despite a lot of effort it's not proved possible to fully explain the origin of the first self replicating molecules.
Other ideas should be mentioned but if they don't have a strong scientific basis there no justification for teaching them in science lessons.
I think that school children should be taught that belief in creationism and evolution both exist in the world and our society, and then allowed to think for themselves. There is a spiritual element and a scientific element, which can be both gopod for the expansion of the mind and contemplation of the soul.
In the study of religious education, all forms of belief of 'why we are here' should be openly explored.
Saying that all teachers are incapable of teaching critical thinking is narrow minded and offensive, and probably evident of the type of schooling you seem to have received and now profess.
In the study of religious education, all forms of belief of 'why we are here' should be openly explored.
Saying that all teachers are incapable of teaching critical thinking is narrow minded and offensive, and probably evident of the type of schooling you seem to have received and now profess.
Octavius, by all means teach children both, but not in science classes. Science should teach fact (that is, scientific theories that have so far not been refuted, for which there is masses of evidence and for which there are no rivals ) such as evolution.
Religious classes are then free to teach about beliefs for which there is no evidence but which depend on faith only. That way the child will learn to tell the difference.
Religious classes are then free to teach about beliefs for which there is no evidence but which depend on faith only. That way the child will learn to tell the difference.
I thought the best thing to teach would be to tell the pupils not to follow our ancestors� or our footsteps and ideas but to find what they were looking for and go look for it themselves. Seek and ye shall find.
If you plant the ideas as indisputable fact, than are you not just repeating the methods of our ancestors who for their time (hundreds, thousands of years ago) knew no better way of explaining the meaning of things than we do now?
If you plant the ideas as indisputable fact, than are you not just repeating the methods of our ancestors who for their time (hundreds, thousands of years ago) knew no better way of explaining the meaning of things than we do now?
We can't ignore a huge chunk of scientific text books! Children arn't stupid, give them all the theories and allow them to decide what is fact. They have minds of their own albeit a developing one, otherwise your making them choose another belief that suits religion.... Doesn't that contradict itself?
So why don't we insist on presenting the flat earth society's view of the world as possibly right?
How about Astrology?
Creationalism does not warrent mentioning outside of RE there's nothing to decide.
You present only scientific explanations in science classes - yes you highlight any areas in which they are weak if only because they are the most interesting.
But you don't teach religion in science classes!
How about Astrology?
Creationalism does not warrent mentioning outside of RE there's nothing to decide.
You present only scientific explanations in science classes - yes you highlight any areas in which they are weak if only because they are the most interesting.
But you don't teach religion in science classes!
Whickerman: Part of the challenge we face as educators is in presentation. Sadly, this is where we so often fail our children. I�ve always felt it was essential for us to combine education with inspiration. Too often we fail to inspire our children (and we fail to encourage them as well) to �think� outside the proverbial box. In fact, as so many people may know, there are educators and their institutions who deny the child the right to think on their own, forcing them with increasingly bizarre methodologies, to remain within the �box.�
I believe, as a balanced element of R.E., that children should understand the concept of Creationism and should be encouraged (and inspired) to search for themselves. But personally, I do not feel it should be part of the essential core of a balanced national curriculum.
Our nation is diverse and multi-cultural. If we are to celebrate that uniqueness, then it�s important to recognise that the teaching of one faith should not be the foundation of truth upon which we lead our children. My personal belief is that this would actually inhibit the child from their own spiritual development.
Buy no means is this to discount faith-based schools, nor is it to suggest that familial beliefs be cast aside. It merely provides children with truth-based education that helps them at an early age; understand our nation�s diversity and the building blocks upon which our society was founded.
Thank you for your thoughtful contributions. I have been meaning to thank you for several weeks. I realise that you and I are diverse in our own beliefs. However, I wish there were more like you about who listen to and accept the diversity that exists within this site.
Be Well
Fr Bill
I believe, as a balanced element of R.E., that children should understand the concept of Creationism and should be encouraged (and inspired) to search for themselves. But personally, I do not feel it should be part of the essential core of a balanced national curriculum.
Our nation is diverse and multi-cultural. If we are to celebrate that uniqueness, then it�s important to recognise that the teaching of one faith should not be the foundation of truth upon which we lead our children. My personal belief is that this would actually inhibit the child from their own spiritual development.
Buy no means is this to discount faith-based schools, nor is it to suggest that familial beliefs be cast aside. It merely provides children with truth-based education that helps them at an early age; understand our nation�s diversity and the building blocks upon which our society was founded.
Thank you for your thoughtful contributions. I have been meaning to thank you for several weeks. I realise that you and I are diverse in our own beliefs. However, I wish there were more like you about who listen to and accept the diversity that exists within this site.
Be Well
Fr Bill
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Religion & Spirituality - What...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
News5 mins ago
