colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (10/10/85)
> I say, let them keep their kids out. If creationism is so obviously wrong, > they'll realize this in college (or wherever they run into evolution as > adults). For the most part, it doesn't matter anyway. If not knowing > evolution is so advantageous, people will begin to realize this and will > back away from hardline creationism. > > And if it isn't, then, maybe it isn't all that important to teach it in > school. Of course it's not. What difference does it make to kids whether they're descended from Eve and Adam or Java Man? Will this "knowledge" help them get jobs as surgeons or stevedores? Will they feel better believing that their great-grandparents a thousand times removed were simians or sinners? Will they hang their parlor walls with pictures of a naked couple or an orangutan? Schools don't teach what's actual or important, they just teach what they can.
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/15/85)
> [colonel@sunybcs] > /* ---------- "Re: creation or evolution in school" ---------- */ > > I say, let them keep their kids out. If creationism is so obviously wrong, > > they'll realize this in college (or wherever they run into evolution as > > adults). For the most part, it doesn't matter anyway. If not knowing > > evolution is so advantageous, people will begin to realize this and will > > back away from hardline creationism. > > > > And if it isn't, then, maybe it isn't all that important to teach it in > > school. > > Of course it's not. What difference does it make to kids whether > they're descended from Eve and Adam or Java Man? Will this "knowledge" > help them get jobs as surgeons or stevedores? Will they feel better > believing that their great-grandparents a thousand times removed were > simians or sinners? Will they hang their parlor walls with pictures > of a naked couple or an orangutan? > > Schools don't teach what's actual or important, they just teach what > they can. I cannot think of anything *more* important to know. In one of Heine's poems, a "fool", alone on a beach, is asking the waves : "What is Man ? Where does he come from ? Where does he go ? And who lives up there in the stars ? " The waves, naturally enough, are silent, and the fool keeps waiting for the answer. At long last, after millennia of waiting, and soon after Heine's time, science has found a half-answer to *one* of the "accursed questions"; and there's some faint hope for the other three. And *that* is unimportant ? What is - knowing who won the World Series ? Or how to fill tax forms ? What output do you expect from your school system - a citizen of the Universe or a blind worm ? Do you want education to *reverse* evolution ? "Scientific Creationism" cannot be taught honestly; but I'd rather have even the biblical myth taught in class than nothing at all on this all-important topic. At least, it might arouse in- terest. Jan Wasilewsky
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/15/85)
>> I say, let them keep their kids out. If creationism is so obviously wrong, >> they'll realize this in college (or wherever they run into evolution as >> adults). For the most part, it doesn't matter anyway. If not knowing >> evolution is so advantageous, people will begin to realize this and will >> back away from hardline creationism. >> >> And if it isn't, then, maybe it isn't all that important to teach it in >> school. > >Of course it's not. What difference does it make to kids whether >they're descended from Eve and Adam or Java Man? Will this "knowledge" >help them get jobs as surgeons or stevedores? Will they feel better >believing that their great-grandparents a thousand times removed were >simians or sinners? Will they hang their parlor walls with pictures >of a naked couple or an orangutan? > >Schools don't teach what's actual or important, they just teach what >they can. -- Col. Sicherman First, creation does not necessarily contradict evolution. Only those misguided religionists who insist on placing their dogma into scientific texts are at fault. If they do that, we must also include Shiva, Baal.. Science is knowledge derived by analysis of the hard physical evidence, not teleological explanations or interpretations, and is consequently sharable by those of all religious traditions. For that matter, a balanced presentation of all the planet's religious and spiritual traditions (not in science class, of course) might go a long way towards understanding of other cultures. As to the value of teaching evolution: If more people realized the huge amount of time it took nature took to make us, they might be less reluctant to increase the technology of destruction that threatens not only ourselves and our brothers and sisters, but our `mother' (nature) as well. If the human race cannot save itself from its own technology, then we SHOULD leave this planet fit for those superior species that survive us. Any future intelligence to take our place would surely see the moving lesson behind an intelligence that, though unable to control its suicidal compulsion, at least loved life enough to protect the innocents. khronos ouketi estai -michael
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/16/85)
In article <2363@sunybcs.UUCP> colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes: >> I say, let them keep their kids out. If creationism is so obviously wrong, >> they'll realize this in college (or wherever they run into evolution as >> adults). For the most part, it doesn't matter anyway. If not knowing >> evolution is so advantageous, people will begin to realize this and will >> back away from hardline creationism. >> >> And if it isn't, then, maybe it isn't all that important to teach it in >> school. > >Of course it's not. What difference does it make to kids whether >they're descended from Eve and Adam or Java Man? Will this "knowledge" >help them get jobs as surgeons or stevedores? Will they feel better >believing that their great-grandparents a thousand times removed were >simians or sinners? Will they hang their parlor walls with pictures >of a naked couple or an orangutan? > >Schools don't teach what's actual or important, they just teach what >they can. Re: they'll realize this in college. How marvelous an idea. Lets teach children things that are not true (such as creationism is science) and let them figure it out for themselves if they ever need to. Does something sound wrong in this argument? But supposing that to be a valid view, take into consideration the fact that only about 33% of the population has attended college (only 20% graduate with a four year degree). Of those that attend college how many will take a biology class where evolution is taught? Under this type of shortsighted policy we could very well wind up with over 90% of the population believing that creationism is part of science. That is a repugnant thought. Re: Importance of teaching evolution and/or creationism Teaching evolution is not as important as not teaching creationism as science. Every science class I had in high school and jr. high (6 years worth) started by explaining what the scientific method is and how it works. Concepts such as observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and validation were taught as the bases of science. Where does creationism fit into this? Teaching an article of faith, such as creationism as science debases science and gives a student a very warped view of what scientific inquiry really is. Not teaching evolution is a mistake. By avoiding a scientific theory because it is controversial we are teaching our children that there is good science and bad science and that the demarcation criterion is whether or not politicians and preachers feel threatened by it. Do we really want to teach this sort of hogwash? Do we really want religionists to determine what questions science can ask? Do we really want to teach our children that certain answers to scientific questions are taboo?
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/18/85)
>> "Scientific Creationism" cannot be taught honestly; but I'd
Just in case anyone notices this : I meant "intellectual honesty",
not intending at all to impugn sincerity or personal integrity of
those who believe in it. --Jan Wasilewskyfriesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/21/85)
In article <2363@sunybcs.UUCP> Col. G. L. Sicherman writes > >Of course it's not. What difference does it make to kids whether >they're descended from Eve and Adam or Java Man? Will this "knowledge" >help them get jobs as surgeons or stevedores? Will they feel better >believing that their great-grandparents a thousand times removed were >simians or sinners? Will they hang their parlor walls with pictures >of a naked couple or an orangutan? > >Schools don't teach what's actual or important, they just teach what >they can. This applies only if you think education has the *sole* purpose of preparing a person for a job. If this is the case then why even bother teaching science except to those who intend to make a career of it? But perhaps education might have some other purposes. like teaching people to *think*, or providing some general understanding of the nature of the world we all live in. In that model there is a place for science in general education, and if science is to be taught it should be taught as accurately as possible. Evolutionary theory is central to much of modern biology, to leave it out is to emasculate the whole science. What I would hope would come out of teaching biology as a part of a general education would be a greater understanding of our natural world and of our close connection with it. As unique as we are we are *still* animals and subject to the same natural "laws" as other animals. By understanding that the animals are our brothers we might get to a place were we can live on this planet without destroying it. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (10/22/85)
> > >> "Scientific Creationism" cannot be taught honestly; but I'd > > Just in case anyone notices this : I meant "intellectual honesty", > not intending at all to impugn sincerity or personal integrity of > those who believe in it. --Jan Wasilewsky OK, if you say you do not intend to impugn sincerity or personal integrity, I'll have to take your word for it. But in that case, what do you mean by "intellectual honesty"? Gary Samuelson