Kentucky Commissioner of Education: Evolution a fact? Not in MY schools.

[Kilgore Trout]

I think we should really be teaching both sides. The side of the science of evolution, and the side that ID and creationism are non-scientific dogma pushed by politicized religion. Our kids should be exposed to both sides of the issue.

[Photonic]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

I think we should really be teaching both sides. The side of the science of evolution, and the side that ID and creationism are non-scientific dogma pushed by politicized religion. Our kids should be exposed to both sides of the issue.

I think I agree, that way they can see how non-scientific the other side truly is.

[Skwim]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

I think we should really be teaching both sides. The side of the science of evolution, and the side that ID and creationism are non-scientific dogma pushed by politicized religion. Our kids should be exposed to both sides of the issue.

Creationism doesn't deserve the publicity. Besides, it would take up valuable class time better spent on real science.

[InformedIgnorance]

Since creationism is religion based it should be taught as part of religious classes, along with other religious creation explanations and perhaps in social studies classes they might teach the creation explanation of other cultures (either the non religious ones or those religious ones that the religion class doesn't adequately cover)

Perhaps at best, the science, religion and social studies classes might hold their class(es) on the subject during a similar study period, so that they can be more closely compared by those who take part in them.

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by InformedIgnorance

Since creationism is religion based it should be taught as part of religious classes, along with other religious creation explanations and perhaps in social studies classes they might teach the creation explanation of other cultures (either the non religious ones or those religious ones that the religion class doesn't adequately cover)

Perhaps at best, the science, religion and social studies classes might hold their class(es) on the subject during a similar study period, so that they can be more closely compared by those who take part in them.

Sounds great, however, legally there is (here in US) separation of church and state. If a student and their parents want a religious course, then attend a school, ie private school, that will cater to that curriculum.

[Jainarayan]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

Sounds great, however, legally there is (here in US) separation of church and state. If a student and their parents want a religious course, then attend a school, ie private school, that will cater to that curriculum.

Schools and colleges, public and private, offer religion and philosophy courses, usually as electives. I took a half semester public high school elective class on eastern religions. There's no violation of the First Amendment because these religions are not being endorsed or proselytized by the schools.

[painted wolf]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

Sounds great, however, legally there is (here in US) separation of church and state. If a student and their parents want a religious course, then attend a school, ie private school, that will cater to that curriculum.

Actually a comparative religion course is permissible as a social studies option. So long as there is no preaching that one religion is better than another or push for students to be religious.

wa:do

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Skwim

Creationism doesn't deserve the publicity. Besides, it would take up valuable class time better spent on real science.

I think exposing kids to critical thinking skills, and how some peoples' dogma is more important to them than facts and reality, are excellent things for kids to be learning.

[Skwim]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

I think exposing kids to critical thinking skills, and how some peoples' dogma is more important to them than facts and reality, are excellent things for kids to be learning.

I agree that teaching critical thinking skills is important, but to use creationism as an example of poor thinking would be singling out a specific religion's beliefs, which I doubt would sit well with many of the parents. Far safer to use secular examples.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Skwim

I agree that teaching critical thinking skills is important, but to use creationism as an example of poor thinking would be singling out a specific religion's beliefs, which I doubt would sit well with many of the parents. Far safer to use secular examples.

Then limit it to ID. ID is clearly not religious, as stated by the religious people pushing it.