Should Evolution be taught in State Schools?

[Dyakovo]

When people say "creationism", they're usually talking about the Genesis story. Regardless of whether or not evolution is true (it is), if you're going to teach creationism, you should teach the creation stories of every religion. My favourite is the Ancient Egyptian one, where a god was masturbating into a river and his spunk turned into life.

And, of course, it should not be taught in science class...

[Mavorpen]

How much time have you worked in the sphere of education that you are so sure how it works?

None. But it's not that difficult considering I actually talked to my teachers. Not to mention Kat is a teacher. So, explain how creationism belongs in a scientific classroom. Because, it doesn't.

[Absurd Ramblings]

No, I don't agree with that. Like I said, it is the study of the bible. And you clearly misunderstand what I'm saying, so let me make it clear: Children in science classes should not be taught that the bible is *fact*. Children in science classes should - among other topics - deal with *claims* and attempt to prove or disprove them and thus learn to apply the scientific method. As such, I believe theological claims are as fit to be tested with the scientific method as biological ones. You're right, it has nothing to do with viewpoints - science is science, although I must point out that science is NOT limited to natural science.

Except the Abrahamic creation myth isn't the only "claim", and it would take months to get through all of them. What would be the point in wasting time disproving theories that are completely unscientific, using the scientific method? There are plenty of more appropriate ways to teach it.

Who says only religious claims would be scientifically investigated? Who says all of them would have to be? The point would obviously be learning to apply the scientific method to any and all claims.

So you'd have no problem with a school that teaches children that gravity isn't real and that it's actually lots of invisible elastic strings? You can't see that ever becoming a problem, when people start graduating from that school and going into jobs? I wonder how well a guy with a physics degree from a private school would do in a research position if he didn't understand how gravity worked.

I would certainly have a problem with that. Your apparent assumption that a given curriculum would be so idiotic is a borderline strawman and cannot be taken seriously. (Unless a bunch of idiots were in fact advocating for such a curriculum.)

Funny, I could have sworn you wrote

Meaning here is where I would start flaming you it was allowed.

Which as far as I am concerned is a perfectly acceptable moral reaction to being subjected to inane assumptions and generalisations.

So, in other words, you don't understand either of them. Abiogenesis deals with how life first came into being. Evolution simply explains how life diversifies and changes over time. The theory of evolution by natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of that life. How are they the same?

In other words, I personally don't give two shits about the dividing line between two occurrences that, while I can see the difference, are part of the same general occurence; developement of life. But thank you for expanding my vocabulary.

[Turan Federasyonu]

How much time have you worked in the sphere of education that you are so sure how it works?

You don't have to work in the sphere of education to know how it works. As someone who's been educated, I know how it works.

aa, believe me if you base your "knowledge" just on having gone to school, you dont know anything about how this mechanism works

[Rothvaris]

When people say "creationism", they're usually talking about the Genesis story. Regardless of whether or not evolution is true (it is), if you're going to teach creationism, you should teach the creation stories of every religion. My favourite is the Ancient Egyptian one, where a god was masturbating into a river and his spunk turned into life.

And, of course, it should not be taught in science class...

Naturally. I should have stated that.

[Individuality-ness]

But that's the exact opposite of what he's saying, UNOTE is saying that you shouldn't be allowed to interact with any.

For the last time, creationism does not belong in educational institutions, it belongs in places of worship.

getting frustrated?
how about this... you force your students to learn about evolution in biology class and i'll allow them to research it in a public library on their own time~thanks so much!

How about this: we stick to teaching students about fact so that they have a general idea on how the world works, and if they want to learn more, they can research on their own time.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

You don't have to work in the sphere of education to know how it works. As someone who's been educated, I know how it works.

aa, believe me if you base your "knowledge" just on having gone to school, you dont know anything about how this mechanism works

Then how does it work, Captain "Aah, you see, I know how this education thing works"? Because at the minute, you're just claiming that no-one else knows how it works without telling us, oh Wise One, how it actually does work.

[Turan Federasyonu]

How much time have you worked in the sphere of education that you are so sure how it works?

None. But it's not that difficult considering I actually talked to my teachers. Not to mention Kat is a teacher. So, explain how creationism belongs in a scientific classroom. Because, it doesn't.

I havent seen this kat, I dont know him

[Vault 1]

No, a government's job is to protect our rights. It cannot disregard the population's welfare because that's what gives government its power -- the desire of the people.

Exactly. People desire welfare. Doesn't matter if they lose ten times more than they gain - you just need to frame it right. Blame the economy/the ZOG/the last president/the weather when things get worse overall.

Also, source for your second point?

This.

Oh, no, electoral democracies NEED intelligent people. It may not seem that way because of the media, but it is the debate that helps determine what direction the government needs to go -- popular opinion.

The government's survival goal is to stay in power. Try to apply the theory of evolution to governments - and you'll quickly see that caring about its people is not the optimal way of achieving it.

[Dyakovo]

And, of course, it should not be taught in science class...

Naturally. I should have stated that.

It was implied... Anyone with any sense would realize that. Considering the thread topic, I felt it was necessary to point it out to some.

[Threlizdun]

You don't have to work in the sphere of education to know how it works. As someone who's been educated, I know how it works.

aa, believe me if you base your "knowledge" just on having gone to school, you dont know anything about how this mechanism works

I don't see how one's experiances in public education facilities is pertanent to a debate on whether we should allow science to be taught in science class, but I'll bite. What are your experiances with this? Please enlighten us on how teaching students where they came from is a bad thing.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

None. But it's not that difficult considering I actually talked to my teachers. Not to mention Kat is a teacher. So, explain how creationism belongs in a scientific classroom. Because, it doesn't.

I havent seen this kat, I dont know him

The Katganistan (who's a her, I believe), who's already commented in this thread. You could always TG her and ask her how it works.

[Turan Federasyonu]

I support this opinion, everybody has the right to interact with all theories(not only about the origin of the life, but in general) and to believe in what he wants. noone cannot be made by force to believe in something

You have the right to refuse to believe science if you wish. However, you do not have the right to force nonense into the public schooling system because it is what you believe.

When 95-96% of any nation believe in something, the education system will conform with them in some way. Because you cant employ all teachers and clerks from the rest 4%

[The United Nations of the Earth]

getting frustrated?
how about this... you force your students to learn about evolution in biology class and i'll allow them to research it in a public library on their own time~thanks so much!

How about this: we stick to teaching students about fact so that they have a general idea on how the world works, and if they want to learn more, they can research on their own time.

how sensible! that is pretty much what i am saying, except i say we simply don't teach even the basics. just not at all. no one can be happy with everything, but this way christians aren't angry about no christianity and atheists aren't angry about christianity being forced down their throats. the only complaint is that the subject of origins is not discussed in school and even though that may be a problem for some people it is not a problem that would create religious tension as much.

[Individuality-ness]

No, a government's job is to protect our rights. It cannot disregard the population's welfare because that's what gives government its power -- the desire of the people.

Exactly. People desire welfare. Doesn't matter if they lose ten times more than they gain - you just need to frame it right. Blame the economy/the ZOG/the last president/the weather when things get worse overall.

Also, source for your second point?

This.

Oh, no, electoral democracies NEED intelligent people. It may not seem that way because of the media, but it is the debate that helps determine what direction the government needs to go -- popular opinion.

The government's survival goal is to stay in power. Try to apply the theory of evolution to governments - and you'll quickly see that caring about its people is not the optimal way of achieving it.

And that's why we need to teach critical thinking. If you don't want the people to elect who you consider undesirable, educate!

But like I said earlier, we're threadjacking.

[Dyakovo]

I havent seen this kat, I dont know him

The Katganistan (who's a her, I believe), who's already commented in this thread. You could always TG her and ask her how it works.

Yes, Kat's a chickie-poo...

[Threlizdun]

You have the right to refuse to believe science if you wish. However, you do not have the right to force nonense into the public schooling system because it is what you believe.

When 95-96% of any nation believe in something, the education system will conform with them in some way. Because you cant employ all teachers and clerks from the rest 4%

As a secular nation, we are strictly forbidden from doing this. Even if this was not an issue, you are not given the right to teach falsehoods to students just because your myths are more popular than science.

[Individuality-ness]

How about this: we stick to teaching students about fact so that they have a general idea on how the world works, and if they want to learn more, they can research on their own time.

how sensible! that is pretty much what i am saying, except i say we simply don't teach even the basics. just not at all. no one can be happy with everything, but this way christians aren't angry about no christianity and atheists aren't angry about christianity being forced down their throats. the only complaint is that the subject of origins is not discussed in school and even though that may be a problem for some people it is not a problem that would create religious tension as much.

Oh no, then that's censorship. I should have clarified: teach students the controversial as well as the established, and allow them to research it on their own time. Teach them evolution, and allow them to make their own conclusions.

[Turan Federasyonu]

When 95-96% of any nation believe in something, the education system will conform with them in some way. Because you cant employ all teachers and clerks from the rest 4%

As a secular nation, we are strictly forbidden from doing this. Even if this was not an issue, you are not given the right to teach falsehoods to students just because your myths are more popular than science.

Which is this nation?

[The United Nations of the Earth]

how sensible! that is pretty much what i am saying, except i say we simply don't teach even the basics. just not at all. no one can be happy with everything, but this way christians aren't angry about no christianity and atheists aren't angry about christianity being forced down their throats. the only complaint is that the subject of origins is not discussed in school and even though that may be a problem for some people it is not a problem that would create religious tension as much.

Oh no, then that's censorship. I should have clarified: teach students the controversial as well as the established, and allow them to research it on their own time. Teach them evolution, and allow them to make their own conclusions.

i don't know if it is considered censorship if it is available in a public library. i am merely saying that it should not be taught in public schools.

[Individuality-ness]

As a secular nation, we are strictly forbidden from doing this. Even if this was not an issue, you are not given the right to teach falsehoods to students just because your myths are more popular than science.

Which is this nation?

Secular nations like the United States. First Amendment, anyone?

[Terruana]

Except the Abrahamic creation myth isn't the only "claim", and it would take months to get through all of them. What would be the point in wasting time disproving theories that are completely unscientific, using the scientific method? There are plenty of more appropriate ways to teach it.

Who says only religious claims would be scientifically investigated? Who says all of them would have to be? The point would obviously be learning to apply the scientific method to any and all claims.

Ok. Still don't see why you'd want to make creationism required, but whatever.

So you'd have no problem with a school that teaches children that gravity isn't real and that it's actually lots of invisible elastic strings? You can't see that ever becoming a problem, when people start graduating from that school and going into jobs? I wonder how well a guy with a physics degree from a private school would do in a research position if he didn't understand how gravity worked.

I would certainly have a problem with that. Your apparent assumption that a given curriculum would be so idiotic is a borderline strawman and cannot be taken seriously. (Unless a bunch of idiots were in fact advocating for such a curriculum.)

Really? Because gravity is no more proven than evolution is. So how are you okay with letting them teach creationism as an alternative to evolution, but you're not okay with teaching undetectable elastic strings as an alternative to gravity?

Funny, I could have sworn you wrote "Meaning here is where I would start flaming you it was allowed."

Which as far as I am concerned is a perfectly acceptable moral reaction to being subjected to inane assumptions and generalisations.

Yes, from someone who is incapable of arguing without resorting to insults. Since you claim not to be such a person, I wonder why you're also claiming that you do resort to insults.

In other words, I personally don't give two shits about the dividing line between two occurrences that, while I can see the difference, are part of the same general occurence; developement of life. But thank you for expanding my vocabulary.

Well, then I assume you also understand the how that difference makes it clear that evolution and creationism are not "alternative viewpoints" about the same phenomenon. Creationism, like abiogenesis, is about the creation of life. Evolution is not.

[Mavorpen]

Which is this nation?

Secular nations like the United States. First Amendment, anyone?

Amendments are just guidelines. *nods*

[Individuality-ness]

Oh no, then that's censorship. I should have clarified: teach students the controversial as well as the established, and allow them to research it on their own time. Teach them evolution, and allow them to make their own conclusions.

i don't know if it is considered censorship if it is available in a public library. i am merely saying that it should not be taught in public schools.

Oh, but you're censoring teachers from teaching evolution. It's a controversial topic PRECISELY because there are some religious people who cannot stand the idea that their children are being taught to question the Bible out of all things.

[Turan Federasyonu]

Which is this nation?

Secular nations like the United States. First Amendment, anyone?

a ok Im not from this nation so ok.
Nevertheless, the state schools cannot prefer one theory over another- neither the evolution, nor the creationism