Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
LucidElement

Creationism Vs Evolution

1,319 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

GlitterRose
1 minute ago, questionmark said:

So?, if you know how chemistry works, or how physics work you can put everything together that you might not have learned in chemistry or physics...should you ever have the need to.  And that applies to any arm of science.

You give a finger, and before you know it...the whole school year will be gone, and you've wasted it all on debunking crap. 

Just like when they're teaching about dinosaurs, they shouldn't spend the whole amount of time trying to debunk Nessie...they shouldn't spend the time they have to teach evolution debunking creationism. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
6 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Agreed that I'd rather be teaching dendrochronology.  If you first teach reasoning, then apply that reasoning to the world, your students will be equipped to handle any wild claims anyone makes, including creationism, or whether a given brand really is "98% fat free" or whether there's a heaven somewhere closer than 10 billion light years.

Don't worry about a science class getting "infiltrated."  Teach reasoning first.  Then teach about biology.  Your students will carry the fight for you.

Doug

Again...biology class isn't about teaching debate skills. It's about teaching biology. You certainly can teach how to do research, but that doesn't need to include debunking non-research. 

Edited by ChaosRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Nothing works better on kids than saying "Because I said so." ;)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 minute ago, Michelle said:

Nothing works better on kids than saying "Because I said so." ;)

Yeah, no one in religion ever does that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

let-there-be-evolution.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
Just now, ChaosRose said:

Yeah, no one in religion ever does that.

So you want teachers to mimic that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

Teach the science and what we have to back up the science...and teach why the scientific method works. Don't spend endless hours debunking ridiculous claims. That is a win for creationists. They have managed to decrease the amount of time that actual science was taught. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Just now, ChaosRose said:

You give a finger, and before you know it...the whole school year will be gone, and you've wasted it all on debunking crap. 

Just like when they're teaching about dinosaurs, they shouldn't spend the whole amount of time trying to debunk Nessie...they shouldn't spend the time they have to teach evolution debunking creationism. 

If your students have learned to reason, as Dough seez, you don't need to debunk anything. They will have a hearty laugh when somebody comes with something that does not add up. Another thing that is very prevalent in the Jesuit teaching method (and that is among others why they are considered to be so good), the padre will just burst out with something outrageous and expects the pupils to refute him. The longer you are in school the less outrageous and more verosimile those things will get.

If you just teach to memorize you will have lost all those who are exposed to creationism (because they will choose between two memorized "truths"at some point). People who are accustomed to reason facts will not so easily be swayed. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
1 minute ago, Michelle said:

So you want teachers to mimic that?

I want science teachers to teach science. If kids ask why it should be believed, they should show them what we have to back it up. They shouldn't spend their time debunking non-science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
2 minutes ago, questionmark said:

If your students have learned to reason, as Dough seez, you don't need to debunk anything. They will have a hearty laugh when somebody comes with something that does not add up. Another thing that is very prevalent in the Jesuit teaching method (and that is among others why they are considered to be so good), the padre will just burst out with something outrageous and expects the pupils to refute him. The longer you are in school the less outrageous and more verosimile those things will get.

If you just teach to memorize you will have lost all those who are exposed to creationism (because they will choose between two memorized "truths"at some point). People who are accustomed to reason facts will not so easily be swayed. 

Why do you keep bringing up the Jesuit teaching method? We're talking about public school. 

Who said anything about memorizing? All I said was teach actual science. Don't spend your class school year debating Carrie, whose Mother locks her in the closet. 

Edited by ChaosRose
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle
2 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

I want science teachers to teach science. If kids ask why it should be believed, they should show them what we have to back it up. They shouldn't spend their time debunking non-science.

When you are teaching something that contradicts what they have been taught elsewhere you have to expect questions. Any good teacher knows this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Just now, ChaosRose said:

Why do you keep bringing up the Jesuit teaching method? We're talking about public school. 

Who said anything about memorizing. All I said was teach actual science. Don't spend your class school year debating Carrie, whose Mother locks her in the closet. 

Because right after the Summerhill method it is the best that exists. The worst is to have a teacher having kids memorize stuff. And I understand that many people have a problem with inherent anarchy of the Summerhill method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

Besides....evolution didnt suddenly STOP....its all around us, in every species, specially Humans

WE are still evolving, as are many other forms of life...

I dont know what we will look like in a 1000 years, or 2000..... but we WILL be different somehow

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Just wondering, how many here are science teachers? Just curious. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, questionmark said:

Because right after the Summerhill method it is the best that exists. The worst is to have a teacher having kids memorize stuff. And I understand that many people have a problem with inherent anarchy of the Summerhill method.

Again...I never said anything about rote memorization, and I never said that no one should ever explain why the science should be believed. But you can't spend your whole school year refuting every non-fact that one kid's Mom keeps sending them in with. It's their way of infiltrating the public schools. It's basically them trolling science class. 

My Mama says that alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

I'm not a science teacher, but I've certainly been in science classes where people have tried to derail them and talk creationism. Even in a university setting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
7 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

Again...I never said anything about rote memorization, and I never said that no one should ever explain why the science should be believed. But you can't spend your whole school year refuting every non-fact that one kid's Mom keeps sending them in with. It's their way of infiltrating the public schools. It's basically them trolling science class. 

My Mama says that alligators are ornery because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush.

Then, if you don't teach them the mechanisms and reasoning them I wonder how you would do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
Just now, questionmark said:

Then, if you don't teach them the mechanisms and reasoning them I wonder how you would do it.

You can teach reasoning without making your class about debunking crap. And don't get me wrong...I'm all for classes like science vs. pseudoscience (which I've taken, and which is a great way to compare methods)...but that isn't a biology class. A biology class should teach biology. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Just now, ChaosRose said:

You can teach reasoning without making your class about debunking crap. And don't get me wrong...I'm all for classes like science vs. pseudoscience (which I've taken, and which is a great way to compare methods)...but that isn't a biology class. A biology class should teach biology. 

Nobody said that you had to start by debunking crap ('cause unless kids changed a lot an 8 year old will not chew your ear off with creationism), but by teaching them to reason (of which -- though limited to its knowledge) an 8 year old is perfectly capable of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

Teach'em reasoning and logic. If nothing else teach'em to question everything. Then let them draw their own conclusions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

all this talk about teaching is meandering..... just teach the FACTS. Full stop. End of.

Like the FACT that evolution is REAL....

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

Reasoning should be its own class, then. But science is for learning science. Religion isn't science, it's religion. Religion doesn't belong in the science classroom any more than philosophy does, or economics, or any other subject. Teaching a wide range of subjects is good, and should be a thing. Mixing religion with science is a waste of everyone's time.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
6 minutes ago, questionmark said:

Nobody said that you had to start by debunking crap ('cause unless kids changed a lot an 8 year old will not chew your ear off with creationism), but by teaching them to reason (of which -- though limited to its knowledge) an 8 year old is perfectly capable of.

So why don't we just make everything a "reasoning class" then? No need to be teaching any actual information beyond that, eh? 

Definitely along the way, someone should be teaching critical thinking skills...but again...that's not biology. In science class, you would teach the scientific method, why it is a reliable method, the information science has afforded us, and what we have to back it up.

There are going to be people who will reject science, regardless, especially if it is rejected by their parents.

Edited by ChaosRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose
2 minutes ago, Podo said:

Reasoning should be its own class, then. But science is for learning science. Religion isn't science, it's religion. Religion doesn't belong in the science classroom any more than philosophy does, or economics, or any other subject. Teaching a wide range of subjects is good, and should be a thing. Mixing religion with science is a waste of everyone's time.

EXACTLY.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
Just now, ChaosRose said:

So why don't we just make everything a "reasoning class" then? No need to be teaching any actual information beyond that, eh? 

Definitely along the way, someone should be teaching critical thinking skills...but again...that's not biology. In science class, you would teach the scientific method, why it is a reliable method, the information science has afforded us, and what we have to back it up.

There are going to be people who will reject science, regardless, especially if it is rejected by their parents.

You can teach science or even religion and assess with that how well you pupil learned to reason (again the Jesuit method).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.