Have to vent....DD just told me this concerning Public School

[CookieGVB]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
That really wasn't what I was asking.

If one is a true believer in creationism (via blind faith) that must preclude them from believing in any form of evolution. But if evolution is taught (in a scientific method) in school to those that don't believe, then I don't see anything wrong teaching (in a non-religious way) creationism to those that don't believe.

But doesn't each religion handle man's creation differently? Whose would you choose to teach, and based on what criteria?

Religious education does not belong in public schools. Period.

The 9th grader just got an education in the ways of the world. Standing up for what you believe in by intentionally choosing a wrong answer is a fine idea, but just like any type of civil disobedience, you have to be prepared to pay the consequences. You can choose to lie on the sidewalks of the White House in protest of whatever cause, but you'd better be prepared to be arrested or fined because of it.

In this case, receiving a 90 out of 100 is hardly what I'd consider a crushing blow to the ego of a ninth grader. Imagine all the attention he's getting because of it, just from his family.

 

[RachelEllen]

Originally posted by treesinger
You missed a step. "Law" is the highest designation of scientific certainty. Like Kepler's "Laws of Motion", etc. "Theory", while having ample scientific support, is still not "Law". That means that uncertainty, no matter how small, still exists as to the extent of truth the theory states. That evolution exists and has been observed is without doubt. That evolution perfectly explains the origin of man is not so certain.

Maybe the question should be re-asked on the test as "God created evolution so that man would descend from primates." What's the right answer there?

Laws and theories are completely different.

Laws describe the 'what' of what's happening. Like you said, 'laws of motion.' Theories explain the 'why'

It's a common misconception. But one is not a higher level of knowledge. They are different.

That uncertainity exists and nothing is 100% known is the basis of science. IMO, that's what they should be getting accross on day 1 of science class. Yes, evolution is a 'theory.' I think it's a good theory. Perhaps, someone might want to argue it's a bad theory. But to say it's 'just a theory' as though that says something about what scientists think about it is incorrect.

Here's a web site that explains it in greater detail.
(I can't get the link to work, but cutting and pasting works fine.)

science.kennesaw.edu/~rmatson/Biol%203380/3380theory.html

This is one of the reasons I think it would be great if schools focused a lot more on what science is, rather than just what the 'facts' are. If you really had a good scientific education, you would come away knowing the theory of evolution. You would know that no theory or law is ever considered completely proven. You would come away knowing why people believe in it. And then you could decide if for some reason you disagreed.

 

[auntpolly]

I was thinking about this thread throughout the day and wondering what would happen if all religions insisted that everything they believed would be taught in schools.

What if Catholics insisted that along with the laws of matter, energy, and atoms, it was presented the idea of transubstantiation -- the host becoming the body and blood of Christ.

This probably sounds silly to most of you, but it's what I believe and yet I can't imagine asking a public school to add it to their science classes. This is a matter of faith. Part of the miracle of it is that it <i>defies</i> science. I would want people to believe in it through prayer and contemplation, education through religious leaders, not forced on them in a public situation.