Originally posted by FMF
I think in the case of creationism, if it is covered for these mysterious "3 minutes" that sh76 mentioned, the psychological role of the denial of science in cultism and the manipulation of people and groups should get "10 minutes". There are more valuable lessons about life in the latter.

How about we teach them both?

I've spent 10 years in the classroom (plus my time as a student obviously) and anyone who tells you that we don't have 13 minutes (or 130 minutes, for that matter) to spare for these issues is lying to you.

Originally posted by sh76
Okay; well I was going to say a,c and d and not sure about b; but fine, let's say all of them.

So, when teaching evolution, which does not exclude the possibility of deism or God existing, what would be so terrible about telling the children one theory exists that God created the Universe and caused evolution? Don't we present alternative interpretations of historical events in school curricula all the time?

Because god isn't science, evolution is. If those alternative hypotheses (religion doesn't come close to being a theory in the scientific sense) become scientific - i.e. they become falsifiable, they have testable hypotheses, etc. - then ok, start teaching the science behind them. What is the science behind the earth being 6000 years old? NONE.

Do we present holocaust denial as an alternative interpretation of historical events? Why not? Because it's not valid history. The evidence doesn't point at all to that. We present alternative interpretations of historical events when there is actual evidence that those alternate historical events are possible due to the evidence that we have.

The thing is, science can't prove or disprove god because god is inherrently supernatural. So it's not relevant in a science class to posit an alternate supernatural theory since science doesn't deal in the supernatural since the supernatural isn't testable.

Now, you can think that the earth is 5 minutes old and that's fine - your religion is your religion. It doesn't become science or legitimate to be presented as a valid theory in a science class until it becomes science and not religion.

Originally posted by sh76
How about we teach them both?

I've spent 10 years in the classroom (plus my time as a student obviously) and anyone who tells you that we don't have 13 minutes (or 130 minutes, for that matter) to spare for these issues is lying to you.

Why should be teach non-science in science class?

Should we teach spanish as a valid alternative language in english class?

Originally posted by sh76
So, do you have a problem if I, as biology teacher, get up on front of my 10th grade biology class, and say:

"Okay, ladies and gentlemen, today we're going to learn about evolution and the origin of life. We're going to focus on what the investigations conducted on the basis of the scientific method that humans have developed has indicated. We will learn abo ...[text shortened]... Either way, we will be focusing on what can be verified by scientific investigation."

?

How is your mention of god even relevant? If kids believe in god then they will continue to believe.

How about just saying that science is about finding naturalistic explanations for what we observe in the world around us.

Also, this isn't "teaching both" .. this is just mentioning that some people believe in god - which would be naive to think that the kids don't already know.

The problem is teaching kids creationism and evolution on an equivalent scientific basis where there is no scientific equivalence.

Originally posted by sh76
So, do you have a problem if I, as biology teacher, get up on front of my 10th grade biology class, and say:

"Okay, ladies and gentlemen, today we're going to learn about evolution and the origin of life. We're going to focus on what the investigations conducted on the basis of the scientific method that humans have developed has indicated. We will learn abo ...[text shortened]... Either way, we will be focusing on what can be verified by scientific investigation."

?

Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life. Nor does it concern itself with the origin of the raw materials used in the process. They are both taken as givens. Evolution concerns itself solely with the evolution of life.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
How is your mention of god even relevant? If kids believe in god then they will continue to believe.

How about just saying that science is about finding naturalistic explanations for what we observe in the world around us.

Also, this isn't "teaching both" .. this is just mentioning that some people believe in god - which would be naive to think th sm and evolution on an equivalent scientific basis where there is no scientific equivalence.

Why should parents have to have their children's teachers tell (or strongly imply) to their children that everything they've taught them about God is not true? We know that science has not disproven the possibility of the existence of God. We know that the origin of the Universe has not been completely answered by science. We know that God is one possible answer. The origin of the Universe is a scientific issue. Most people on Earth believe in that answer. Why people are so desperate to keep that discussion out of the classroom is beyond me.

And, I don't buy this "science class" vs. other classes argument. There's no black line distinction between what children are taught in one class vs. another. If you want to call this discussion social studies or whatever, go ahead. Call it whatever you like.

Originally posted by rwingett
Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life. Nor does it concern itself with the origin of the raw materials used in the process. They are both taken as givens. Evolution concerns itself solely with the evolution of life.

Fine.

Do you not think that the origin of those raw materials is another legitimate discussion point for students?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
Because god isn't science, evolution is. If those alternative hypotheses (religion doesn't come close to being a theory in the scientific sense) become scientific - i.e. they become falsifiable, they have testable hypotheses, etc. - then ok, start teaching the science behind them. What is the science behind the earth being 6000 years old? NONE.

Do we ...[text shortened]... sented as a valid theory in a science class until it becomes science and not religion.

I never said anything about teaching the Earth's age as 6,000 years. Even many religious people at this point are coming off that idea.

I'm talking about presenting God as one alternative theory as to the origin of the Universe.

Originally posted by sh76
Fine.

Do you not think that the origin of those raw materials is another legitimate discussion point for students?

Cosmology is a legitimate subject. Various god theories might be given a few minutes there, I suppose.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
because he is not a christian nor a patriot

so he is not a patriot and yet he made all that effort to become the president.

do you think Obama became president only to destroy his own country?

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Why? Because from Obamas statements i can figure out he does not like this country or christianity?

Obama may have some policies that are damaging to the country in some ways, but saying he doesn't like the country is a big stretch.

Originally posted by sh76
So, do you have a problem if I, as biology teacher, get up on front of my 10th grade biology class, and say:

"Okay, ladies and gentlemen, today we're going to learn about evolution and the origin of life. We're going to focus on what the investigations conducted on the basis of the scientific method that humans have developed has indicated. We will learn abo ...[text shortened]... Either way, we will be focusing on what can be verified by scientific investigation."

?

I have a problem in general with evolution-doubters teaching biology, but I guess such a restriction would leave many kids without a teacher in the US.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I have a problem in general with evolution-doubters teaching biology, but I guess such a restriction would leave many kids without a teacher in the US.

you obviously can't a creationist teaching evolution, for obvious reasons.

Just like it would be inappropiate to have an atheist teaching religious education.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I have a problem in general with evolution-doubters teaching biology, but I guess such a restriction would leave many kids without a teacher in the US.

Do you recognize that there's a difference between a theist and an evolution doubter, or do you lump them all into one category?

Originally posted by generalissimo
you obviously can't a creationist teaching evolution, for obvious reasons.

Just like it would be inappropiate to have an atheist teaching religious education.

Once more, with feeling this time:

You can be a creationist AND believe in evolution.

How do I know?

Because I am and I do.