NationStates Jolt Archive

Honestly, how could anyone, regardless of religion, refuse to teach their children evolution? You can't keep children from having their own opinions! If you have a problem with evolution you can force your views on your children after school hours, but the purpose of school is education!

Honestly, how could anyone, regardless of religion, refuse to teach their children evolution? You can't keep children from having their own opinions! If you have a problem with evolution you can force your views on your children after school hours, but the purpose of school is education!
Oh god no...

**sigh**
http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=296525

apparently the idea behind school is indoctrination

Honestly, how could anyone, regardless of religion, refuse to teach their children evolution? You can't keep children from having their own opinions! If you have a problem with evolution you can force your views on your children after school hours, but the purpose of school is education!

I agree to ur opinion as long as school teaches that it's one of the THEORY. I'm not bias or anything, but it hasn't been 100% proven yet. So I don't want the schoolboard to risk it...

I agree to ur opinion as long as school teaches that it's one of the THEORY. I'm not bias(grammar nazi adds an ed) or anything, but it hasn't been 100% proven yet. So I don't want the schoolboard to risk it...
Yeah, I'll go with that.

How many poll threads can one person start? It's starting to get really old.

How many poll threads can one person start? It's starting to get really old.
I know. :D

I agree to ur opinion as long as school teaches that it's one of the THEORY. I'm not bias or anything, but it hasn't been 100% proven yet. So I don't want the schoolboard to risk it...

Evolution is a solid theory. No real scientist on the field of biology will doubt the fundamental basics of evolution, but they might discuss certain specific problems and theories built on the basics of evolution.

In Germany where you still have Religious Education at a public school, Creationism is tought in R.E. and Evolution in Biology - works fine with me!

"Ah am of-ended, offended, I say at the crazy heathen filth that the schools are forcing down my little Jezahdiah's throat these days. My religion, which is the only kinda christian that's truly christian, if yer askin'-does not believe in this athiestic pagan conspiracy that is the number zero. Says right here in my well worn and annotated bible, right here it says, "God is everywhere and all things." If God ol' Mighty is everywhere and all things then there can't be no things. Or nothing. Therefore zero does not exist, and I'll not have my children indoctronated into the heathenistic athiesm that comes with teaching that flawed and so obviously wrong concept of 'zero'"

And our kids fall further and further behind....

If you want to be a flat-earther thats on you, but why do you insist on holding up the rest of the train?

They should teach both. Evolution as the prominent, scientific explanation of how we got here, and Creationism as a religious/philosophical example how people tried to understand origins before science was developed.

I think that only SCIENTIFIC theory's should be taught in a SCIENCE class

But I selected both because creationism is just fine in a theology course

I assumed he meant in a science class upward.
Yah, it is a theory. Just like gravity.

How many poll threads can one person start? It's starting to get really old.
I think I hold the record for highest daily production of threads.

I assumed he meant in a science class upward.
Yah, it is a theory. Just like gravity.
Thats what he gets for being non specific about the class :) I am all for keeping science in the science classroom :D

I would be for religious theories being taught in a RE class, but not in science. Science in science class, theology in theology class- sounds logical to me.

I would be for religious theories being taught in a RE class, but not in science. Science in science class, theology in theology class- sounds logical to me.
Exactly

Honestly, how could anyone, regardless of religion, refuse to teach their children evolution? You can't keep children from having their own opinions! If you have a problem with evolution you can force your views on your children after school hours, but the purpose of school is education!

Nobody teaches creationism in the classroom...

Exactly
I thought it was talking about allowing both in science class though so I voted thusly.

I agree to ur opinion as long as school teaches that it's one of the THEORY. I'm not bias or anything, but it hasn't been 100% proven yet. So I don't want the schoolboard to risk it...

Gravity also hasn't been 100% proven. Nothing in science ever is. You can have a massive preponderance of evidence in support of something at which point it is virtually, for all practical intents and purposes proven--at which point it is called a law--but no respectable scientist will ever tell you that you can prove anything.

All too often people seem to confuse the secular meaning of the word theory (an idea) with the scientific meaning (a formulated hypothesis that has the backing of a preponderance of evidence and is on its way to being considered true, but it not there yet and may never reach that point). So yes, evolution is a theory--but that doesn't mean that there isn't a crapload of evidence behind it.

I thought it was talking about allowing both in science class though so I voted thusly.
Yeah I was confused too

only evolution in classroom and both in school ... that would be how I vote lol

Nobody teaches creationism in the classroom...

Incorrect. No one teaches creationism it in a science classroom (or shouldn't, there are some places that are still in the age of the Inquisition) because its NOT a science. Evolution is.

And everyone gets all in a huff that students are learning about the major scientific theories of this age. Bear in mind that just teaching that this is what the theory of evolution says and here is the evidence behind it is NOT the same thing as saying "This is the truth." If for no other reason than that you want your child to have all options availble to him/her you should want them to learn about evolution!

Gravity also hasn't been 100% proven. Nothing in science ever is. You can have a massive preponderance of evidence in support of something at which point it is virtually, for all practical intents and purposes proven--at which point it is called a law--but no respectable scientist will ever tell you that you can prove anything.

All too often people seem to confuse the secular meaning of the word theory (an idea) with the scientific meaning (a formulated hypothesis that has the backing of a preponderance of evidence and is on its way to being considered true, but it not there yet and may never reach that point). So yes, evolution is a theory--but that doesn't mean that there isn't a crapload of evidence behind it.

Right on.

Keep science in schools, keep religion out. If you want to be spiritual or religious, why not choose the church of your choice? Not the church of the government's choice. Which, unless nobody has been paying attention for the past 100 years, is a frightening prospect might I add.

Evolution is the dominant scientific theory, and as such, should be taught in science classes. If there are other theories, and I don't count creationism because that is not a SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED theory, then they should be taught as well.

Creationism should be taught in religion classes. Frankly, kids should take religion classes, not as a means of indoctrinating them but as a means of exposing them to other religious views. Creationism can be taught as part of that. To teach creationism as a science is absurd; it has no scientific backing.

Gravity also hasn't been 100% proven. Nothing in science ever is.
Actually, gravity is one of a handful of laws which have been proven. There's only a couple of them. You're right though, in that most stuff stays in the theory stage because it can not be proven utterly and completely. As long as there's a possibility (however slim) of it being wrong, it can't become law.

Keep science in science class and religion in religion class, basically what's being said.

Actually, gravity is one of a handful of laws which have been proven. There's only a couple of them. You're right though, in that most stuff stays in the theory stage because it can not be proven utterly and completely. As long as there's a possibility (however slim) of it being wrong, it can't become law.

Keep science in science class and religion in religion class, basically what's being said.

While we agree totally (so I'm not arguing the evolution point here, sorry for the tangent) at exactly what point was gravity considered to be proven--cause they are sure as heck still using it in science classrooms at universities when they talk about how even laws aren't really proven. This is really just my curiousity, cause I will need to get a new example if something has changed.

While we agree totally (so I'm not arguing the evolution point here, sorry for the tangent) at exactly what point was gravity considered to be proven--cause they are sure as heck still using it in science classrooms at universities when they talk about how even laws aren't really proven. This is really just my curiousity, cause I will need to get a new example if something has changed.
I just remember it always being referred to as the "law of gravity", even when I learned in science about theories and laws (and how laws are proven). That's just some deep-seeded memory, so I can't provide sources.

I searched a little bit and found it referred to as the law of gravity, but didn't find any definitive information one way or the other.

Incorrect. No one teaches creationism it in a science classroom (or shouldn't, there are some places that are still in the age of the Inquisition) because its NOT a science. Evolution is.

And everyone gets all in a huff that students are learning about the major scientific theories of this age. Bear in mind that just teaching that this is what the theory of evolution says and here is the evidence behind it is NOT the same thing as saying "This is the truth." If for no other reason than that you want your child to have all options availble to him/her you should want them to learn about evolution!

Ah, ok...I thought he meant "teaching creationism instead of evolution". Though, I think that with more and more non-christian students in schools. The religion should be up to the parents in my opinion, and not schools.

Evolution should be taught as the predominant theory. It should also be taught that evolution wasn't automatically assumed to be true the second Darwin (and the previous folks) stated it, but has scientific evidence backing it up by virtue of people who've spent their entire lives finding it.

And, thus, Creationism should be only be briefly explained as a competing theory...that currently has a flimsy base, but may have a base developed in the future.

Evolution should be taught as the predominant theory. It should also be taught that evolution wasn't automatically assumed to be true the second Darwin (and the previous folks) stated it, but has scientific evidence backing it up by virtue of people who've spent their entire lives finding it.

And, thus, Creationism should be only be briefly explained as a competing theory...that currently has a flimsy base, but may have a base developed in the future.
But creationism is NOT a scientific theory so it cant be a competing one in a science class

I just remember it always being referred to as the "law of gravity", even when I learned in science about theories and laws (and how laws are proven). That's just some deep-seeded memory, so I can't provide sources.

I searched a little bit and found it referred to as the law of gravity, but didn't find any definitive information one way or the other.

it depends on how much philosophy of science a particular science teacher knows. basically, laws and theories aren't, and can't be, proven because they make universal claims - claims about future events and events on the other side of the universe and events in the past that no one saw. there is really only one consistent way i know of for using the term 'law' differently from the word 'theory'. a law is a description of a relation between things, usually expressed mathematically. a theory is a broader explanatory framework, often containing a mathematical law or two.

the one describes, the other describes and attempts to explain why and how that description works. thus netwon's inverse square law tells us about the gravitational relation between object, but has nothing to say about why this relation exists. general relativity theory, on the other hand, explains the action of gravity in terms of the curvature of space-time and such.

I just remember it always being referred to as the "law of gravity", even when I learned in science about theories and laws (and how laws are proven). That's just some deep-seeded memory, so I can't provide sources.

I searched a little bit and found it referred to as the law of gravity, but didn't find any definitive information one way or the other.


Even the most iron clad of law (or what we call a law) can be disproven. Just look at Newton's Laws of Motion--which weren't so concrete when we found out they don't work in all situations, resulting in our having to have additional laws and hypotheses to cover those new situations <shrugs>. This part is semantics--though sometimes that can be very important.

Evolution should be taught as the predominant theory. It should also be taught that evolution wasn't automatically assumed to be true the second Darwin (and the previous folks) stated it, but has scientific evidence backing it up by virtue of people who've spent their entire lives finding it.

And, thus, Creationism should be only be briefly explained as a competing theory...that currently has a flimsy base, but may have a base developed in the future.


Creationism, in the realm of science, is NOT a theory. A theory implies an ability to test and measure to either support (not prove) or disprove. By its very nature, Creationism denies the power to be disproven because an omnipotent deity could manipulate the outcome of your experiments, thus making the results untrue. By its very nature, Creationism is NOT scientific. That's not to say that science automatically degrades religion (some of the best scientists were extremely religious) but it does mean that we cannot take it into account in our research and that it should not be taught in a science class.

it depends on how much philosophy of science a particular science teacher knows. basically, laws and theories aren't, and can't be, proven because they make universal claims - claims about future events and events on the other side of the universe and events in the past that no one saw. there is really only one consistent way i know of for using the term 'law' differently from the word 'theory'. a law is a description of a relation between things, usually expressed mathematically. a theory is a broader explanatory framework, often containing a mathematical law or two.

the one describes, the other describes and attempts to explain why and how that description works. thus netwon's inverse square law tells us about the gravitational relation between object, but has nothing to say about why this relation exists. general relativity theory, on the other hand, explains the action of gravity in terms of the curvature of space-time and such.


What he said :)

I agree to ur opinion as long as school teaches that it's one of the THEORY. I'm not bias or anything, but it hasn't been 100% proven yet. So I don't want the schoolboard to risk it...

Nothing in science is 100% proven and is all theory. This is something any science teacher worth her wieght must tell the students (not that it's always the teacher's fault that the students juts don't get it).

Nothing in science is 100% proven and is all theory. This is something any science teacher worth her wieght must tell the students (not that it's always the teacher's fault that the students juts don't get it).


Generally, I think its the parents who don't get it--or don't want to get it.

Actually, gravity is one of a handful of laws which have been proven. There's only a couple of them. You're right though, in that most stuff stays in the theory stage because it can not be proven utterly and completely. As long as there's a possibility (however slim) of it being wrong, it can't become law.

Keep science in science class and religion in religion class, basically what's being said.

Wrong. The scientific method can never *prove* anything - it can only disprove. If we found evidence tomorrow that the theory of gravity was wrong, it would have to be changed.

I think that only SCIENTIFIC theory's should be taught in a SCIENCE class

But I selected both because creationism is just fine in a theology course

Creationism itself generally involves the twisting of science to try and *prove* the Bible, so I really don't think it should be taught at all.

However, if they would like to teach many different religion's creation stories in a comparative religions course or some such, I think that would be fine.

Even the most iron clad of law (or what we call a law) can be disproven. Just look at Newton's Laws of Motion--which weren't so concrete when we found out they don't work in all situations, resulting in our having to have additional laws and hypotheses to cover those new situations <shrugs>. This part is semantics--though sometimes that can be very important.

In this case, it is basically that people were so sure of these things that they started referring to them as laws. These days, no one will call anything a law, because we've already seen how even something the scientific community is absolutely positive about may be wrong when our ability to measure increases.

Generally, I think its the parents who don't get it--or don't want to get it.

I've talked to more than one person that yells and screams about how the teachers teach evolution as fact and use their own experience as proof. In general, I think such people are either poor students in general or poor science students because they went in convinced from the start that someone was going to try and indoctrinate them (usually due to their parents).

Look at this board though. How many ex-students keep trying to say that certain scientific theories are "proven", while others are "just theories".

I've talked to more than one person that yells and screams about how the teachers teach evolution as fact and use their own experience as proof. In general, I think such people are either poor students in general or poor science students because they went in convinced from the start that someone was going to try and indoctrinate them (usually due to their parents).

Look at this board though. How many ex-students keep trying to say that certain scientific theories are "proven", while others are "just theories".

In their defense though, I'm not sure that high school science teachers really do spend enough time on the philsophy of science. I wasn't exposed to the idea that science can prove nothing until I was in my freshman year of undergrad--and I went to a pretty good school and took AP courses. I think that in the rush to get all of the Phyla and Newtonian laws and other "fluff" of science, we often forget to teach the core. That isn't surprising because to a person who has spent their life dedicated to science, it is the fluff--the idea of answering questions--that is exciting, that's where the action is. We forget that to get to that point, you have to have the basics--and so we skip over it in our school curiccula in that attempt to get to the good stuff.

And on a sidenote Dem--we don't always agree but I always enjoy reading your posts as they are sure to stimulate my thoughts. Thank you for that.

In their defense though, I'm not sure that high school science teachers really do spend enough time on the philsophy of science. I wasn't exposed to the idea that science can prove nothing until I was in my freshman year of undergrad--and I went to a pretty good school and took AP courses. I think that in the rush to get all of the Phyla and Newtonian laws and other "fluff" of science, we often forget to teach the core. That isn't surprising because to a person who has spent their life dedicated to science, it is the fluff--the idea of answering questions--that is exciting, that's where the action is. We forget that to get to that point, you have to have the basics--and so we skip over it in our school curiccula in that attempt to get to the good stuff.

Maybe I always focus too much on the first chapter of the textbook. Most teachers do kind of skim over it, rather than going in depth (although often because they may believe you got all that already), but I haven't seen a teacher that skipped it altogether. I definitely haven't seen a high school textbook that didn't contain the scientific method and the explanation of how something becomes a theory in the first chapter. You are correct, however, that many teachers spend very little time on it.

And on a sidenote Dem--we don't always agree but I always enjoy reading your posts as they are sure to stimulate my thoughts. Thank you for that.

Thank you. I enjoy reading yours as well, and can't think of anything I would say we absolutely disagree on - at least not right off the top of my head. =)

In their defense though, I'm not sure that high school science teachers really do spend enough time on the philsophy of science. I wasn't exposed to the idea that science can prove nothing until I was in my freshman year of undergrad--and I went to a pretty good school and took AP courses. I think that in the rush to get all of the Phyla and Newtonian laws and other "fluff" of science, we often forget to teach the core. That isn't surprising because to a person who has spent their life dedicated to science, it is the fluff--the idea of answering questions--that is exciting, that's where the action is. We forget that to get to that point, you have to have the basics--and so we skip over it in our school curiccula in that attempt to get to the good stuff.


It doesn't help that most science teachers in the U.S. aren't science majors, but education majors in college. . .and not to knock the education colleges or to say that my experience is authoritative, but education majors I've met haven't exactly been the creme de la creme of the American intellectual elite, and they certainly aren't schooled in the philosophical background of their subject material.

It doesn't help that most science teachers in the U.S. aren't science majors, but education majors in college. . .and not to knock the education colleges or to say that my experience is authoritative, but education majors I've met haven't exactly been the creme de la creme of the American intellectual elite, and they certainly aren't schooled in the philosophical background of their subject material.

Most elementary school science teachers don't have a science background, but I am fairly certain that most high school science teachers do. Most of those who do undergrad degrees in education end up teaching young children,a nd teach all subjects rather than just one. High school teachers generally either hve a bachelors in a given science and a teaching certificate, or a bachelors in a science and a masters in teaching.