Should creationism be taught in schools?

[MadArchitect]

As far as I can tell, the ID objection to Darwinian models is really only directed at the words "random" and "unguided". Everything in the ID model can be said to function the same as in the mainstream evolutionary model, but ID takes the extra-scientific step of asserting a mechanism that science itself could never observe. Which could be rather easily addressed in a science class, and in less than a single class period, only, that to do so without instilling in the students a proper understanding of why it is not a claim made from scientific method requires that they understand that methodology. But I've made that point, and I now digress.Given that proper context, I think that you'd eventually see the proponents of ID steer away from their demands that it be taught in science classes. It wouldn't be of much benefit to them, provided that students understood its actual relationship to Darwinian theory. I don't think ID would subsequently disappear, but I think that you'd see it retreat to a forum more appropriate to its content, philosophy classes, for instance, or theology classes.

[Jeremy1952]

What agenda is behind the fact that the speed of light is 3x10^8 meters per second?A metaphor: nobody ever goes to listen to musicians play scales. A well-played scale, unlike a performance, has no emotional content. Does this mean a music class may not study scales? A science class is not a laboratory. It is a place to learn certain fundamentals. I stand by my statement; religion has no place in a science class. If you make yourself really small, you can externalize virtually everything. Daniel Dennett, 1984

[Dissident Heart]

Jeremy: What agenda is behind the fact that the speed of light is 3x10^8 meters per second?That is an excellent question, and is only answerable when the student is challenged with the proverbial "So what?" So what do we do with this fact that light travels at 3x10^8 meters per second? Then, all the shoulds, oughts, ideals, plans, agendas, and hopes come into play...and all of these are tied to political allegiences, social status, class interests, etc..Scientific facts are useless in themselves. They become potent social and cultural and individual forces of transformation when they are given contextual meaning.It is this process of determing what to do with these forces of transformation that I am trying to bring to the discussion; and I think Religion has a role in this conversation.

[GOD defiles Reason]

Quote:Chris: While surfing on another message board I came across an interesting discussion thread about this subject. The author posed the question and then identified himself as an atheist. His opinion is that teaching creationism, as a competing viewpoint on human origins, might help to expose its sillyness to children. The topic might stimulate discussion and get the kids asking tough questions.So what do you guys think? Obviously creationism wouldn't be taught as a science or even a philosophy. Jesus, what would it be then?How 'bout as a history? A very small part of history. I don't mean as an entire subject where Creationism takes up the whole class. And I'm not talking about it being in the science class either. But rather something like a short sub-topic in the context of religious history. A religious history class that teaches the history of all religions. And I mean all religions. Giving more emphasis on the religions that have made significant impacts on civilizations and societies throughout history. Compare what today's faith-based religions believe about Creationism with what the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Aztecs, etc., believed about their origins. But let's not just address origins in this class. This is a history class. Let's teach all aspects of religious history: -Perhaps a timeline showing the first known religions and their god/gods.-How these religions got started. How they evolved. How some religions mutated into other religions. Show how Christianity "borrowed" from Paganism for instance.-The mythology of each religion.-How did these religions impact their civilizations and societies? Emphasis on it's impact on intellectual thought. Let's cover Galileo's story for instance. And in the context of Galileo's story is when Creationism and Intelligent Design is talked about. Not to teach Creationism/Intelligent Design as a science. But rather show the relationship between religion's negative impacts on intellectual progress in the past with those of the present.-Break down religious beliefs and talk about each one's philosophies. What does theism, pantheism, deism, transcendentalism, atheism, agnosticism mean? (I don't mean to ignore Eastern religion. I just don't know much about 'em)Somewhere near the end of this class, I'd want to see it morph into the importance of ethics, humanity, fellowship, and peace of earth kinda stuff. I need help with how this could be done. But I invision well intentioned ideals of some of the important religious figures be explored. And somehow introduce the philosophers who wrote or spoke about these principles whether they were religious or not. How 'bout introducing some of the more important/pivotal thinkers of each religious philosophy?And let the students focus on science in the damn science class.Does anyone else think this would be a good idea? If you disagree, I'd like to hear why. If you agree, how would you improve and expand on this "Religious History" class? What would be your ideal model for this class? Edited by: GOD defiles Reason at: 8/29/05 6:22 pm

[Mr. P]

I wonder if those who want creationism taught in science class would be ok with teaching science in religion class, and pointing out how science tore down previously held views of the world as proposed by religions...and how religion had to modify itself based on scientific findings...and how religious belief is not the only way to live a moral life.I doubt it.Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[RickU]

Religion taught as History is fine. The past is the past. We did those things. Religion taught (public) in school is wrong outside of anything but a world religion's or philosophy class. Any other tie-in would be inappropriate.The reason's are simple. Religion is a learned attribute and is dictated by the teacher. The child is a living being and should be allowed to make it's own decision regarding religion (likely going down the parents path but...meh)Public education should have nothing to do with this. If it does, it's in violation of American freedoms...plain and simple In Vino Veritas

[Dissident Heart]

Public School (imho) is an attempt to educate citizens to thrive in the Public Arena as informed critical thinkers, able to engage substantive issues and solve meaningful problems within diverse democratic structures.This requires, among other things, a constant exploration of the meaning and value of knowledge and skills obtained in the classroom. The student must be engaged in constant dialogue with fellow students, teachers, family, community, the fields of study, the history of the field...the student must be always asking "Why is this important...how should I use this....what is it worth?"As I see it, any education worth its salt will encourage and challenge students to find the beauty in what is being learned, identify what is good, and seek the truth of the matter at hand.Unless, you simply see Public Education as an assembly line process where information is poured into passive and empty vessels.

[Mr. P]

Rick! Nice to see you around again!Mr. P. The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

[MadArchitect]

If part of the agenda of public education is to equip the student with the knowledge and skills necessary for interacting in the world, then it seems to me like a course in comparative religion ought to be more than welcome in the public education system. Religious belief is still a majority phenomenon, and if religious belief plays a part in the interaction of individuals, nations and cultures -- apart from whether or not it ought to do that -- then it is to the educated person's advantage to have some sense of what the major traditions, at least, involve. But careful attention should be paid in order to make sure that such classes are not exercises in the indoctrination of a particular tradition.At either rate, I'm not sure that creationism would make it into a comparative religion class either. Creationism is a comparatively recent development. As far as I can tell, it developed in response to certain developments within evolutionary theory and is not, as a full fledged doctrine, an integrated part of the Christian faith. If it made it into a public school class on comparative religion at all, it probably shouldn't take up more than single day's worth of consideration, and then only as an offshoot of orthodox protestant tradition.

[Dissident Heart]

MA: But careful attention should be paid in order to make sure that such classes are not exercises in the indoctrination of a particular tradition.I'm interested in the boundaries between experimentation and indoctrination in classes that explore religious experiences. As I see it, meaningful knowledge is transmitted when personal transformation is experienced. By personal transformation, I mean personal values, identity, relationships are challenged and changed; either reinforced and supported with even greater meaning and worth; or they are shaken and forced to take new shape and form.If personal values are neither shaken or reinforced, then it is meaningless information; trivial, tedious, monotonous, just filling time- but not education.Personal values should be shaken and confronted: whether the result be reinforcement or revaluation, or some combination thereof.Thus, I can't imagine a course that explored Religion that didn't challenge students to experiment with varieties of forms of Prayers, Hymns, Meditation, and Worship Services. What kind of meaningful learning about a Religion wouldn't challenge Students to explore a variety of issues from within a particular tradition? For instance, an instructor might organize the Class into five groups: Mahayana Buddhist; Catholic Franciscan; Sufi Muslim; Southern Baptist; Unitarian Universalist. Each group is asked to present to the Class how their tradition would respond to a contemporary crisis: i.e., Encourage an adolescent to not commit Suicide; Help a returning Combat Soldier transition to peacetime; Journey with a terminally ill Cancer Patient to their death; Provide support to a Convict in Prison; Assist a Homeless Client in finding shelter, food, psychological assistance....the options are endless.Students would be asked to perform the scenario, with each taking a role that required they act the part of the member of the tradition or the person receiving assistance. What ensues is an attempt to integrate the knowledge about the tradition with experience within the tradition. The point is to illuminate these real-world scenarios from within a particular Religious worldview, utilizing their particular Religious habits, practices, communities, skills, and visions to facilitate some sort of growth and healing.This, as I see it, would stimulate far more meaningful questions, challenges, insight and pertinent information toward things that matter to the Student, as well as the Teacher. Edited by: Dissident Heart at: 8/31/05 5:45 pm