Does anyone else feel this way?

[The Good]

Does anyone else feel that instead of public schools teaching any sort of origin of life belief (Creation or Evolution), they should just leave that topic for the student's religion, or lack thereof (In this case, it would be other books or the internet), to explain how life came to be?

This would make public schools completely neutral on the matter. By them not teaching the origin of life, I'm also talking about science classes. If this were to happen, private schools should of course be able to teach whatever theory they want on the origin of life.

Just my two cents...seeing as there is a heavy debate on whether to allow both of these beliefs being taught, why not none, and let the student learn this from their religion's perspective, or by other means, such as free reading, or browsing the internet at home?

[Dayman]

Does anyone else feel that instead of public schools teaching any sort of origin of life belief (Creation or Evolution), they should just leave that topic for the student's religion, or lack thereof (In this case, it would be other books or the internet), to explain how life came to be?

Evolution doesn't explain how life came to be. Evolution is also not a belief. It happens regardless of what people think. (and before you turn this around on me, at least evolution has a shred of evidence for it). Religion is for church, not school.

This would make public schools completely neutral on the matter. By them not teaching the origin of life, I'm also talking about science classes. If this were to happen, private schools should of course be able to teach whatever theory they want on the origin of life.

Are schools are ****ty enough. Now you would suggest no longer teaching biology? By the way, remaining neutral on the subject would involve teaching science as it is, since science itself is not prejudiced or biased.

Just my two cents...seeing as there is a heavy debate on whether to allow both of these beliefs being taught, why not none, and let the student learn this from their religion's perspective, or by other means, such as free reading, or browsing the internet at home?

The schools should teach science. If they want to be creationists, that's their own choice, but the schools are secular. They are not to be used to spread religion. Their parents have the right to be offended, if they aren't happy with the free public education, then they should homeschool their children.

And any private school that receives public funding should at least be forced to follow a curriculum, I know the Catholic schools I went to did.

[Irishman]

Evolution is a major part of modern academics. How would one teach biology, psychology or anthropology if you didn't teach evolution?

All in all, no. Schools should teach science, not wishful thinking.

This would make public schools completely neutral on the matter. By them not teaching the origin of life, I'm also talking about science classes. If this were to happen, private schools should of course be able to teach whatever theory they want on the origin of

It would also leave students lacking a large amount of information. Evolution happens, and the sooner you admit this the better.

Just my two cents...seeing as there is a heavy debate on whether to allow both of these beliefs being taught

Just to be clear, the actual academic and legal debate (in schools) is over. There are simply a lot of fundamentalists who cannot accept that their religious doctrine is wrong.

and let the student learn this from their religion's perspective, or by other means, such as free reading, or browsing the internet at home?

First, students need to know evolution for many other subjects. Second, it would be very harmful to the students to deprive them of such knowledge.

[Blau&Gruen]

I would miss something when I have not had bio classes in evolution and sexual education.

[Dayman]

Just to be clear, the actual academic and legal debate (in schools) is over.

The case in Dover, P.A., I think settled the legal issues.

[Irishman]

Yeah, most courts wont even think about the issue after the judge declared that ID isn't science.

BTW Lucius, how many accounts is this now?

[Ummagumma]

How could you not teach evolution? You would have to try as hard as possible to not mention anything about reproduction for fear of the inference. I guess you could bring back the concept of storks carrying babies, but.. that's hardly scholarly.

[Mythos]

Does anyone else feel that instead of public schools teaching any sort of origin of life belief (Creation or Evolution), they should just leave that topic for the student's religion, or lack thereof (In this case, it would be other books or the internet), to explain how life came to be?

No, no, NO!

This would make public schools completely neutral on the matter. By them not teaching the origin of life, I'm also talking about science classes. If this were to happen, private schools should of course be able to teach whatever theory they want on the origin of life.

Why on earth would a school not teach a scientific fact, like evolution? Science is not biased. It does not have an agenda.

Just my two cents...seeing as there is a heavy debate on whether to allow both of these beliefs being taught, why not none,

Because evolution is based on evidence and creationism is religious mumbo jumbo. And this is enough.

[Kscott]

Does anyone else feel that instead of public schools teaching any sort of origin of life belief (Creation or Evolution), they should just leave that topic for the student's religion, or lack thereof (In this case, it would be other books or the internet), to explain how life came to be?

Evolution does not explain how life came to be. Darwin's book was the Origin of Species, i.e evolution is not about the origin of life, it is about how that life has diversified itself.

This would make public schools completely neutral on the matter. By them not teaching the origin of life, I'm also talking about science classes. If this were to happen, private schools should of course be able to teach whatever theory they want on the origin of life.

This is not being neutral on the matter at all. You are essentially saying let us not teach the basis of modern biology because some religion disagrees with it. Would it be neutral to not teach about the crusades in history class because they portray the church in a bad light?

Science class is to teach the students about science. Evolution is not seriously doubted by the scientific community and is in fact the very basis for modern biology. There really is no compromise. My school has a world religion class, you can learn various creation myths in there...

Just my two cents...seeing as there is a heavy debate on whether to allow both of these beliefs being taught, why not none, and let the student learn this from their religion's perspective, or by other means, such as free reading, or browsing the internet at home?

There is no serious debate in the scientific community and that is what matters. Frankly, whatever some religion says is completely irrelevant to what should be taught in a science classroom.

[Simetrical]

Evolution should be taught, and the evidence should be clearly spelled out. There's so much misconception about this issue that it would really be a good idea to spend a month or more just on this issue, explaining all the evidence and addressing all the objections. You do not need to maintain neutrality when one side is factually wrong.

By the way, remaining neutral on the subject would involve teaching science as it is, since science itself is not prejudiced or biased.

I wouldn't go that far. Some things that would conventionally be considered "science" are fairly flaky. Some of the social sciences are horribly influenced by what people want to believe. Evolution, it happens, is not encumbered my such biases, at least in my (not entirely qualified) judgment.

BTW Lucius, how many accounts is this now?

Same account, different name.

[Ramashan]

Personally I think the whole creationism vs evolution in the classroom points out a major educational issue that rarely gets a finger pointed at it and that's the parents role in educating their children.

Evolution and how organism adapt to their environments over time is science, creationism is theology. I believe in public education, although different theologies should be taught so that we are all aware that they exist, it is up to the parent to teacher their kids the dominant theology of the religion and culture taught in the house.

If parents would talk to their children and explain why they believe creationism is the answer for the origin of life over dinner or in the car or what not we wouldn't have this hubub where they are demanding it be taught in the schools.

So, I don't believe schools should stop teaching evolution.

[Irishman]

Same account, different name.

Well he has sebastiano, which is an alt. But I see that these are just re-named lucius.

[Bokks]

School is a SCIENTIFIC institution that teaches kids about the life they will tangibly live. Evolution is a scientific explanation (and observation, making the dynamics of evolution a theory, evolution itself a law) for the way that animals live and adapt all around us... plus as Boeing magnificantly and quite correctly said earlier, is not used to explain how all life came to pass... that is another and completely separate hypothesis of evolution.

For the origin of life, you can believe the hypothesis that life all evolved from a single celled organism, or that a Creator, be He named Yaweh, Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu or Caricardae, sneezed out the earth and all its mechanisms or crafted it from clay. Neither can be proven scientifically, making the hypothesis that life advanced from a single celled organism just as plausable as being born from Seth's semen or what-have-you (or vice-versa) but school, public school, is NOT a religious synagogue, mosque, monastary or likewise place of worship for any faith, it is a scientific institution, and should therefore teach scientific thought and process.

And if you don't like that... and I don't mean to be crass, but that's life... and that's taught in school too. Schools do not demand a certain belief be taught in any church, and I will not stomach any church to demand or even effect what is taught in schools.

[Ruin]

I think you hae your answer Lucius, no one but hard-core bible-belt Christians think this way. You may as well teach trephination(sp) as a valid alternative to psychology (together with the whole theory of demons causing mental illness). Or you can go further and have school's choose between following Democritus and saying that atoms cannot be split, and are held together by barbs, or actual scientific theory.

Where the superstitious drivel comes from is irrelevant. School's teach science. Evolution is one, Creationism (with the 6,000 year old theory) is not, it is ridiculous speculation from over two thousand years ago.

[The Sundance Kid]

Lucius/Sam Fisher/Donatus:

A) This is a stupid argument to post here, logic and experience should have taught you that NO ONE on this website will agree with you in the slightest.

B) Stop changing your ****ing name, pick one and deal with it. I keep thinking there's more than one religious zealot hovering about TWC.

C) Please, please, please actually return to your damn threads once you've created them; you make an opening post then **** off for a day or so, before returning to see 4 pages of fury from other members and you counter with a weak religious argument with no real backing.

In short, NO. OPPOSE THIS. IT IS SILLY.

[mongoose]

Just my two cents...seeing as there is a heavy debate on whether to allow both of these beliefs being taught, why not none, and let the student learn this from their religion's perspective, or by other means, such as free reading, or browsing the internet at home?

Aside from the other objections that about a dozen people already brought up, reading random websites on the internet is NOT a good way to learn things.

[Cliomhdubh]

both should be though and students should decide wether they belive science or fairy tales

[Bokks]

both should be though and students should decide wether they belive science or fairy tales

Personally I support faiths to be taught in school, however not in science class. Teaching them in history or a specifically denominated religious studies class is the only way to truly do it.

Speaking from an American perspective, I also feel strongly against any certain faith to be taught exclusively, especially in an evangelical manner, as that clearly butchers the first amendment that allows freedom of religion, and therefore stipulates that religion be removed from the state as much as the state removed from the religion. Personally I think that the possibility that the whole universe bloomed out of Vishnu's navel is as possible as it having been created by Allah, or any other creation story therein believed by anyone, and any faith that proposes their own belief then spits on another as sheer fantasy is hypocritical and wrong.

Science class holds something that no faith does; it is impartial. It can be wrong, and it freely admits that. Such is why no faith may ever be held against any science, because all faiths claim they are correct--they have to, or they simply die. You can rant and rave at science all you want, saying that you think it's the worst bullocks you've ever heard of, and that's fine. Science doesn't care. If you actually prove that it's wrong, then science easily shifts to maintain that what has been proven is truth, which is why in scientific enquiry no matter how logical and seemingly right any statement of why something is, the highest state that it can ever achieve is "theory". No faith can ever change simply because someone proves something new, just look at the climactic struggle between zealist groups and the theory of evolution, which largely don't even coincide with eachother and yet the faiths take offence.

It is by the very nature of these two things that one and only one can ever be fostered by a public school system in America and any other impartial country and state. Both must be allowed to survive, but only one has to the right to be taught by state funded institutions.

And that is a fact.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

both should be though and students should decide wether they belive science or fairy tales

Both are: one is just taught in religion and the other is taught in science.

[Gwendylyn]

Now that creationists know their material will not be taught beside evolution in the classroom, the new tactic is to ban evolution too.

Soooo transparent.