|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 16, 2013 1:43:01 GMT 5
It still could be hard for them to decide who is right, the teachers or their parents. I think most would take the latter option, if they are quite young.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 16, 2013 16:11:13 GMT 5
Better than seeing the teachers just agree with some ridiculous opinion their parents indoctrinated them with.
While schools, at least were I live, often fail to do so, their purpose it to teach people. This means it should at least be tried to educate them on such subjects, not let people get their own bullshit tought at school because of "religion" being used as an excuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 22, 2015 19:19:07 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Sept 23, 2015 0:31:55 GMT 5
Teach creationism in schools as a fact and you'd be shoving your (likewise unsubstantiated) beliefs down the throats of numerous students and potentially causing controversy between the students and/or teachers. We don't need that kind of laughable, nonsensical hullabaloo.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 23, 2015 2:11:22 GMT 5
To be fair, it is often done a lot more subtly than teaching creationism as a fact. They learned from their failures in front of court. Creationists are usually trying to teach evolution and creationism, but they do their best to depict evolution as some fringe theory ("theory" refers to the common usage of the term, not the scientific) that is not widely accepted in scientific circles and encourage the students to think critically of it (critical thinking is of course always good, but not if it is associated with an agenda). Basically, their strategy is not so much depicting creationism as a fact, but rather giving "irreducibly" complex structures and evolution-skeptic scientists unusually high attention. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy(Unsurprisingly, fundies use similar strategies when it comes to other things they don't like, such as global warming) |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Jun 7, 2017 1:10:03 GMT 5
The way I see it is that processes pertaining to "origin of life" on Earth imply creation and evolution takes precedence afterwards. In this manner, both notions may complement each other rather than being at odds with each other and the "versus" argument can be addressed. Interesting read: www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-beganCreation may not be an abstract idea after-all. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 7, 2017 13:31:28 GMT 5
This argument does have a God of the gaps flavor. Of course they can complement each other and of course you can believe that, but I have a problem with teaching creation as a solution to unsolved problems in science. For this reason, I think (as Derdadort said) that it belongs to philosophy or religion classes where the compatibility with science can also be discussed.
Perhaps ironically, Darwin has shared your sentiment in some editions of Origin of Species:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 11, 2017 21:31:08 GMT 5
There is an argument frequently made by creationists against teaching evolution that needs to be addressed:
The argument is that it has no practical applications and teaching it in biology lessons hence wastes time that could be better spent on teaching parts of biology that do have practical applications (neuroscience, genetics, you get the point). It is often objected that evolution has applications in medicine and ecology, but creationists point out that these benefits only come from an understanding of microevolution, while teaching evolutionary history remains useless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 5, 2017 18:18:41 GMT 5
There is an argument frequently made by creationists against teaching evolution that needs to be addressed: The argument is that it has no practical applications and teaching it in biology lessons hence wastes time that could be better spent on teaching parts of biology that do have practical applications (neuroscience, genetics, you get the point). It is often objected that evolution has applications in medicine and ecology, but creationists point out that these benefits only come from an understanding of microevolution, while teaching evolutionary history remains useless. So, how do we counter this assertion? Surely understanding evolutionary history gives us insight into who we and everything else are. Is it also true that, for example, understanding how we humans have evolved may explain say, how/why we get certain ailments or other health issues (like why our spine is apparently a mess due to evolution)? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 5, 2017 21:58:35 GMT 5
Yeah. Taxonomy won't work without evolutionary history and taxonomy has some application in medicine. Why does the funnel-web spider's venom affect humans and primates, but noone else?
Of course, that can only be used as an argument once it's been established that evolution is true. Otherwise, the spine-thing will be blamed on Satan or the Fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by An Goldish Jade on Oct 13, 2017 15:28:26 GMT 5
Yeah. Taxonomy won't work without evolutionary history and taxonomy has some application in medicine. Why does the funnel-web spider's venom affect humans and primates, but noone else? Of course, that can only be used as an argument once it's been established that evolution is true. Otherwise, the spine-thing will be blamed on Satan or the Fall. Then how do they think the future of human medicine should go? Surely not teaching evolution->not learning taxonomy->not knowing about enought on medicine, so how should they "explain" that teaching pseudo science and creationism can have no impact on medicine research? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 13, 2017 21:19:53 GMT 5
Creationists will sometimes outright deny the existence of any flaws. They for example insists that "Junk DNA" is an evolutionist fraud and cite this as an example how evolutionary thinking harms medical progress.
|
|
