STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

kenzie · Chanel

RE: Article of the Day: A Web of Faith, Law and Science in Evolution Suit

nunzi182 · Kate Spade

NylaBelle wrote:

You wouldn't teach Chaucer in a science class, nor would you teach WWII, so why should you teach creationism in a science classroom? Again, I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be taught. It absolutely should be, just not in science class.
I would be curious as to a teacher's pov. Where's halleybird? -- Edited by NylaBelle at 10:45, 2005-09-27

Like I said in my first post, I believe that when discussing how people and creatures got here and lenghty and complex discussion needs to be enlisted. Whether you are teaching evolution or creationism, both are complex arguments. My thought is that evolution should be taught as a possiblity and not so much as a definite thing. I think making the Chaucer comparison is stretching it a bit. IMO these two things go hand in hand when discussing the possibilty of how life was put on earth.

laken1 · Hermes

honey wrote:

i don't necessarily think that religious instruction is the best way to create more well-rounded students. i think the same goal can be accomplished through having a class/classes where students explore different cultures by studying their history (which could include religion to the extent that religious beliefs/religious events played a role in shaping that history), literature, music, politics, etc. as opposed to just studying religion.

I have to disagree to some extent, I think a class that brushes over it is somewhat helpful, but not enough. I went to Catholic school for 8 years, then to a public high school, then to college where a religion class was an elective & because of my religious teachings, I opted not to take it. But I was literally in my 20s before I even knew that other religions didn't believe in jesus. How ignorant was I? I mean, I am early 30s & I still have a VERY limited knowledge of other religions & am in the process of learning some on my own. But how well equipped I am to have a religious conversation with anyone but a christian? And this spills over into very many areas of my life, since many things you are taught in a sheltered environment are religiously based as opposed to factual. I really resent that other options were never presented to me as I feel that I am a pretty smart chick & would have liked to have the flip side presented to me & let me decide for myself what I believe. I realize a lot of the fault of this falls on my (non-religious) parents for sending me to catholic school for my early learning, but I don't recall having other religions presented to me as anything else but wrong, even in public school. That doesn't create a well rounded student who goes on to be a non-well rounded adult. I struggle with this ALL THE TIME. I don't know who's responsibility it should be since I believe it's a parent's responsibility to teach children what they want them to know, but as an adult you do have to deal with the rest of the world, and it creates intolerance as far as I'm concerned. I try to be open minded & am searching for a truth of my own, but many many people wouldn't question what they believe, and that breeds the intolerance for all other religions / views that I really don't like to see.

-- Edited by laken1 at 10:56, 2005-09-27

honey · Gucci

laken1 wrote:

I have to disagree to some extent, I think a class that brushes over it is somewhat helpful, but not enough. I went to Catholic school for 8 years, then to a public high school, then to college where a religion class was an elective & because of my religious teachings, I opted not to take it. But I was literally in my 20s before I even knew that other religions didn't believe in jesus. How ignorant was I? I mean, I am early 30s & I still have a VERY limited knowledge of other religions & am in the process of learning some on my own. But how well equipped I am to have a religious conversation with anyone but a christian? And this spills over into very many areas of my life, since many things you are taught in a sheltered environment are religiously based as opposed to factual. I really resent that other options were never presented to me as I feel that I am a pretty smart chick & would have liked to have the flip side presented to me & let me decide for myself what I believe. I realize a lot of the fault of this falls on my (non-religious) parents for sending me to catholic school for my early learning, but I don't recall having other religions presented to me as anything else but wrong, even in public school. That doesn't create a well rounded student who goes on to be a non-well rounded adult. I struggle with this ALL THE TIME. I don't know who's responsibility it should be since I believe it's a parent's responsibility to teach children what they want them to know, but as an adult you do have to deal with the rest of the world, and it creates intolerance as far as I'm concerned. I try to be open minded & am searching for a truth of my own, but many many people wouldn't question what they believe, and that breeds the intolerance for all other religions / views that I really don't like to see. -- Edited by laken1 at 10:56, 2005-09-27

i totally understand where you're coming from, but i still can't wrap my head around the idea that schools should teach religion (of any sort) to students as part of the mandatory curriculum.

i agree with you 100% on the idea that if you believe something you should know why you believe it, but i also think that's a personal responsibility, not something that should fall upon schools. imo religious beliefs (especially the choice to believe in organized religion instead of nothing) are opinions, and while schools should equip you with the tools to make the best decision for you (i.e. analytical skills, the ability to decipher fact from opinion) i don't really think they have a responsibility to walk you through that decision making process.

cc · Marc Jacobs

honey wrote:

cc wrote:
(i just polled my co-workers before i responded b/c my history knowledge is a little rusty -- it's amazing the ways i find to waste time at work). i guess it's an issue of interpretation. i learned about the reformation (couldn't remember if it was in parochial or regular school, hence the poll) and of course the founding of america (i'm not familiar with the great schism) during history class because they are huge events. however i don't necessarily think learning about those events is akin to learning about christianity. when we learned about them it was from a secular standpoint, and didn't really delve into the ideological importance of these events. ...i think the same goal can be accomplished through having a class/classes where students explore different cultures by studying their history (which could include religion to the extent that religious beliefs/religious events played a role in shaping that history), literature, music, politics, etc. as opposed to just studying religion.

honey - I didn't mean that studying the founding of American etc. is akin to studying Christianity it's just that different religious issues will come up when studying history (e.g. when learning about the Reformation there will obviously be discusion of how Luther disagreed with certain thing that were going on with the Catholic Church and his teachings became the foundation for Lutheranism. With American history several of the original colonies were founded by people of different denominations of Catholicism - the Puritans in Mass. Bay, Catholics in Maryland, etc. So I was just trying to point out that there is already a lot of mention of different Christian religions in history class so why shouldn't there be more in-depth discussion of other religions to balance things out.

I do think it could be done in a history or sociolgy sort of setting but as I said earlier I just thought it might be easier for students and teachers if it was separated so that it wasn't something that had to be crammed in to a 1 year world history survey class or something.

laken explained some personal reasons for wanting to learn about other religions just for general awareness and understanding but I also think it's something that's just important as a supplement to what is coming up in history, current events, literature etc. Maybe I'm overestimating the school system but I just think it would give students a better understanding of lots of important things which they are already learning about.

I realize this does also come back to the issue of parents having a choice of where they send their children so I guess in my case if I felt like the discussion of world religions was important and public schools aren't doing it I would try to send my child to private school.

-- Edited by cc at 11:31, 2005-09-27

honey · Gucci

cc-- valid points. i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree

kenzie · Chanel

nunzi182 wrote:

NylaBelle wrote: You wouldn't teach Chaucer in a science class, nor would you teach WWII, so why should you teach creationism in a science classroom? Again, I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be taught. It absolutely should be, just not in science class. I would be curious as to a teacher's pov. Where's halleybird? -- Edited by NylaBelle at 10:45, 2005-09-27 Like I said in my first post, I believe that when discussing how people and creatures got here and lenghty and complex discussion needs to be enlisted. Whether you are teaching evolution or creationism, both are complex arguments. My thought is that evolution should be taught as a possiblity and not so much as a definite thing. I think making the Chaucer comparison is stretching it a bit. IMO these two things go hand in hand when discussing the possibilty of how life was put on earth.

I was simply making a comparison that Chaucer is an unrelated topic to a science class. The point I was making was that, unless it is an inter-disciplinary class (such as Western Civ/Humanities, which many colleges require), than an unrelated topic has no place in a science classroom. I wasn't comparing intelligent design to Chaucer in that they are similar subjects in content. Rather, I was drawing a comparison between the two stating that they are both separate subjects from evolution and that's why they are similar.

As much as I believe in creationism, the fact of the matter is that it isn't based (at the heart of its concepts) in science. It is based on faith. Faith is religion. Simply because it is an opposing veiwpoint to evolution doesn't mean that (in a public school system) it should make its way into a science class. That's the fact of the matter. Creationism's essence is faith. Evolution's essence is science. That is my point. Not that Chaucer and Creationism are similar.

-- Edited by NylaBelle at 11:38, 2005-09-27

ILoveChoo · Hermes

honey- I agree that it would need to encompass other areas of culture as well- especially since religion and cutlure affect each other tremendously. In the class that I had in High School we didn't ignore other aspects of culture- we would spend a few weeks on the basics of the religous beliefs and then towards the end of the section we would spend a few days on other aspects of culture in the areas of the world where that religion was heavily practiced. We would discuss both how religous beliefs had an impact on cultural things and how the culture may have effected the way the religion is practiced.

nunzi182 · Kate Spade

NylaBelle wrote:

: I was simply making a comparison that Chaucer is an unrelated topic to a science class. The point I was making was that, unless it is an inter-disciplinary class (such as Western Civ/Humanities, which many colleges require), than an unrelated topic has no place in a science classroom. I wasn't comparing intelligent design to Chaucer in that they are similar subjects in content. Rather, I was drawing a comparison between the two stating that they are both separate subjects from evolution and that's why they are similar.
As much as I believe in creationism, the fact of the matter is that it isn't based (at the heart of its concepts) in science. It is based on faith. Faith is religion. Simply because it is an opposing veiwpoint to evolution doesn't mean that (in a public school system) it should make its way into a science class. That's the fact of the matter. Creationism's essence is faith. Evolution's essence is science. That is my point. Not that Chaucer and Creationism are similar. -- Edited by NylaBelle at 11:38, 2005-09-27

My point was that they are in fact interrelated for the simple fact that they are both explanations for the same thing. Like cc and honey I think we must agree to disagree.

kenzie · Chanel

nunzi182 wrote:

My point was that they are in fact interrelated for the simple fact that they are both explanations for the same thing. Like cc and honey I think we must agree to disagree.

I do agree that they are related b/c they are explanations for the same thing, or journeys to the same destination, if you will. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the 'journey' or, more importantly, the starting off point is the same. The problem with this lies that the starting off points are fairly opposing, faith vs science, and that's where the uproar has come from.

Irene · Dooney & Bourke

Professor Testifies in Evolution Debate By MARTHA RAFFAELE, Associated Press Writer

The concept of "intelligent design" is a form of creationism and is not based on scientific method, a professor testified Wednesday in a trial over whether the idea should be taught in public schools.

Robert T. Pennock, a professor of science and philosophy at Michigan State University, testified on behalf of families who sued the Dover Area School District. He said supporters of intelligent design don't offer evidence to support their idea.

"As scientists go about their business, they follow a method," Pennock said. "Intelligent design wants to reject that and so it doesn't really fall within the purview of science."

Pennock said intelligent design does not belong in a science class, but added that it could possibly be addressed in other types of courses.

In October 2004, the Dover school board voted 6-3 to require teachers to read a brief statement about intelligent design to students before classes on evolution. The statement says Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.

Eight families are trying to have intelligent design removed from the curriculum, arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. They say it promotes the Bible's view of creation.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.