Should Evolution be taught in Sunday School?

[Fatmop]

Most of us are of the sensible opinion that religion and science need to keep out of each others' way. For those who wish to push the dogmatic "Intelligent Design" on the scientific community, would you be willing to force preachers and Sunday School teachers to "teach the controversy?" It seems only fair, after all, that if science curricula are to be subverted, Sunday School ought not be exempt.

If you don't want your kids going to church every Sunday and hearing about theories of human origins other than the Biblical interpretation, why would you want unfounded and debunked criticism of evolution in a science classroom?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Very good points.

Terry
_________________________


Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[Green Gaia]

Well there's a problem with that. What a church does or does not teach is not open to public opinion or force, public school curriculum is. Would a church teach physics? Biology? Why would they need to teach evolution? Even us religious liberals will teach our children about creation stories of different faiths and cultures, while relaying the message that the world is natural in origin. But we don't teach evolution theory. Leave that to science class. For us we're more concerned about humanity here and now then explaining where we came from.

Most of us are of the sensible opinion that religion and science need to keep out of each others' way.

Maybe I'm not sensible, but I see no reason for that. Of course I see no conflict with my faith and science.

 

[jonny]

I also see little conflict between religion and science, and I don't think that evolution should be taught in Sunday School - just like creationism has no place in a Science class. How they are related and could both be accurate would make for an interesting discussion between the students in Sunday School though.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you don't want your kids going to church every Sunday and hearing about theories of human origins other than the Biblical interpretation, why would you want unfounded and debunked criticism of evolution in a science classroom?

Actually, I don't think that I'd want loaded questions like this taking up time in either place.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parenthetically, see, for example, The epic of creation.

 

[Mike182]

we, ultimatley, if im in a science lesson, at the end of the year i have a science exam to pass, not a theology exam

but in sunday school, i think its better to teach the genesis story as you can use pretty pictures and make the story really simple

putting it into context though, at school, big bang theories are tought to ages of about 12+, so it may be a bit too advanced for sunday school

i see the argument made, and i agre that if both should be tought in school, shouldn't the different churches also teach both

but quite simply, government run schools have an obligation to teach a wide curriculum, the church has no such legal or binding obligation.

C_P

 

[Sunstone]

While I don't think it's practical to teach evolution in Sunday school, I wonder whether if evolution were widely taught in Sunday schools would that help to clear up many common misconceptions about evolution, or would it simply mean that unqualified teachers were propogating those misconceptions?

 

[michel]

While I don't think it's practical to teach evolution in Sunday school, I wonder whether if evolution were widely taught in Sunday schools would that help to clear up many common misconceptions about evolution, or would it simply mean that unqualified teachers were propogating those misconceptions?

Well, this is an unusual one ! - a 180 degree turn on the usual question. It doesn't 'sound' like a good idea for the resons you have given.

 

[Fatmop]

I admit that I meant this thread to be somewhat troll-ish. I mean, to see this thread right next to "Should Evolution be taught in a Science Classroom?" just seemed funny.

To Maize: What public schools are designed to teach is truth, or methods to seek the truth. Truth is not achieved by consensus - so if you're saying that public school curriculum is "open to public opinion or force," are you endorsing allowing Intelligent Design taught alongside evolution? ID is little more than a "Goddidit" claim attacking evolution, and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. However, in the case of Delaware and Kentucky, we seem to be allowing "public opinion or force" to rule what gets placed in science classrooms. I totally disagree that that should be the case - scientists should determine what is on the curriculum, not relatively uneducated voters.

Deut: Sorry, but I'm having trouble interpreting your posts. Are they criticism of my overall ideas, criticism of my logic, or what?

Corrupt_Priest: You're right. Schools have an obligation to teach a wide variety of things, including perhaps theories on the origin of mankind. However, those theories do not belong next to evolution in a biology classroom - they belong in comparative religion and culture classes.

Sunstone: I can't see churches really wanting to pay to bring scientists in every Sunday to teach evolution - so of course it would be taught (for the most part) by people with only a slight background in the subject. I'd go with 'unqualified teachers.'

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut: Sorry, but I'm having trouble interpreting your posts. Are they criticism of my overall ideas, criticism of my logic, or what?

You wrote:

If you don't want our clearly correct ideas taught in your dens of stupidity, why should be allow you to spew your garbage in our ivory towers?​

.. or something similar. It never occured to me that the question constituted logic.

 

[Mike182]

To Maize: What public schools are designed to teach is truth, or methods to seek the truth. Truth is not achieved by consensus - so if you're saying that public school curriculum is "open to public opinion or force," are you endorsing allowing Intelligent Design taught alongside evolution? ID is little more than a "Goddidit" claim attacking evolution, and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. However, in the case of Delaware and Kentucky, we seem to be allowing "public opinion or force" to rule what gets placed in science classrooms. I totally disagree that that should be the case - scientists should determine what is on the curriculum, not relatively uneducated voters.

agreed

id definatley rather have my curriculum decided on by qualified professionals as appose to parents

Deut: Sorry, but I'm having trouble interpreting your posts. Are they criticism of my overall ideas, criticism of my logic, or what?

you can but ask ......... if you get a straight answer be sure to let me know ok :sarcastic

Corrupt_Priest: You're right. Schools have an obligation to teach a wide variety of things, including perhaps theories on the origin of mankind. However, those theories do not belong next to evolution in a biology classroom - they belong in comparative religion and culture classes.

the main point i really want illustrated is the fact that the big bang theory is just that - a theory, it is often presented as fact, but it is still just a theory

Sunstone: I can't see churches really wanting to pay to bring scientists in every Sunday to teach evolution - so of course it would be taught (for the most part) by people with only a slight background in the subject. I'd go with 'unqualified teachers.'

so long as the person puts in some research effort, i see no problem with this at all

C_P

 

[Lindsey-Loo]

Evolution is sometimes taught in our Sunday school. It is proper for our children to have both sides of the story, so that they can learn, and eventually make a desicion for themselves.

 

[Mike182]

the main point i really want illustrated is the fact that the big bang theory is just that - a theory, it is often presented as fact, but it is still just a theory

sorry but i forgot to mention this aswell

i think that in school, if you are able to cahllenge an oppinion or a theory, you are not wasting any time at all

the big bang theory can only trace origins back to the point of the big bang itself - when questioned, this is often changed into the multiple universe theory (that the universe cycles round and round, imploding and then exploding again, presumabley an infinate number of times)

but then to question the origins of this, most science teachers go "ah, well, ermmm, thats not needed for the exam"

but in truth, science has no answer to this fundamental question - einsteins laws of motion! so using science i can criticise the big bang in the same way i can from a religious position - im simply pointing out the flaws in big bang theory

take for example, the snake eating its own tail - their was a snake, and it ate its own tail - creating a circle - if we see the universe like this (multiple universe theory) then logically it must have started somewhere - so to question the origins of this should be an important part of the course - but it isnt included - it is presented as fact

im not saying that science teachers need to teach religious explanations for the origins of the universe, they simply need to teach the fundamental criticisms of the theory!

C_P

 

[Fatmop]

Deut: Yes, I see your point. It was a loaded question.

im not saying that science teachers need to teach religious explanations for the origins of the universe, they simply need to teach the fundamental criticisms of the theory!

Right. And fundamental criticisms of evoution come in the form of...?
I agree that science does not have an explanation for what happened before the Big Bang. Science does have an explanation for every creationist attempt to derail evolution theory - else evolutionary theory would need to be seriously reworked. It doesn't have nearly as large a 'fundamental problem' as does Big Bang theory - though supporters of abiogenesis have quite a bit more explaining to do, that's not necessarily part of the theory of evolution.

 

[painted wolf]

what of fundimental criticisms of religious theory?

wa:do

 

[Fatmop]

Evolution is sometimes taught in our Sunday school. It is proper for our children to have both sides of the story, so that they can learn, and eventually make a desicion for themselves.

You've got me intrigued! How is evolution taught in your Sunday school - under what context, with refutations, etc?

 

[lilithu]

To Maize: What public schools are designed to teach is truth, or methods to seek the truth. Truth is not achieved by consensus - so if you're saying that public school curriculum is "open to public opinion or force," are you endorsing allowing Intelligent Design taught alongside evolution? ID is little more than a "Goddidit" claim attacking evolution, and doesn't hold up under scrutiny. However, in the case of Delaware and Kentucky, we seem to be allowing "public opinion or force" to rule what gets placed in science classrooms. I totally disagree that that should be the case - scientists should determine what is on the curriculum, not relatively uneducated voters.

Public schools are not designed to teach "the truth." I love how we use noble but nebulous words like that without thought as to what they mean. Teaching the truth" sounds good to everyone but no one can agree on what it is.

Public schools are designed to teach the skills necessary for its constituency to be able both take care of themselves and serve the needs of society. Towards that end, the public does indeed have a say as to what should be taught in the schools that their tax dollars support.

Public schools teach "reading, riting, and rythmatic" so that kids can learn how to gather information, communicate with others, and manage their finances. Public schools also teach the humanities and social sciences because we believe that an appreciation for these things produces more well-rounded citizens who can better understand their relation to society and contribute to it. And public schools teach science so that people better understand our relation to nature/the cosmos, under the same belief that it produces citizens who are better able to relate to and contribute to something bigger than themselves.

The most important reason for teaching science in public schools is not so that kids know various factoids that constitute "the truth." That is the biggest misconception out there, and the reason why both sides are fighting unnecessarily over the issue of teaching evolution in schools. The most important reason for teaching science in public schools, the reason why it should be right up there with the three R's in importance, is that teaching the scientific method provides people with the skills to problem solve, to think ciritcally, to pursue the best approximation of the truth on their own without having to blindly rely on the judgements of others.

And I'm talking about the judgements on both sides here. The issue here is not the "truth" of evolution versus creationism/intelligent design. The issue here is that introducing "God" as the answer does not allow for method of problem solving that has been so beneficial to our society. It nips the question right in the bud. For example, many people must have asked in the past, "what causes lightening?" And many must have answered, "God causes it." That may or may not be true (remember, I am a theist), but such an answer leaves no room for further inquiry. Someone had to ask, "Leaving God asside, what are other explanations for lightening?" And only when they asked that question did we discover that lightening is a form of electrical energy. Only then did we (Ben Franklin, that is) understand ways to channel that energy and protect us from it. If we had left the answer only at "God did it," most of the technological advances that we enjoy would never have been discovered. The theory of evolution is not a statement against the existence of God. It is an attempt explain our origins in terms of this physical world. It is not "the truth." It is the best explanation that we have in terms of explanatory power and parsimony with the available data. If someone is dissatisfied with this explanation they are free to pursue alternatives. That is the strength of science. But first they have to understand the theory if they are to come up with a better one.

 

[Green Gaia]

To Maize: What public schools are designed to teach is truth, or methods to seek the truth. Truth is not achieved by consensus - so if you're saying that public school curriculum is "open to public opinion or force," are you endorsing allowing Intelligent Design taught alongside evolution?

Of course not, it's not science. Teach them science! But being a public school does allow the public (or at the very least, the parents) the right to voice an opinion about what should and should not be taught. This is not limited to the Evoluation/ID debate. For example, if my son's school decided to cut their music program you'd better believe I'd be the first one at the next PTA meeting demanding it be back in the curriculum. :149:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The most important reason for teaching science in public schools is not so that kids know various factoids that constitute "the truth." That is the biggest misconception out there, and the reason why both sides are fighting unnecessarily over the issue of teaching evolution in schools.

No. There is no equivalency between these two sides.

Those pushing Creationism reject the findings of science and, thereby, repudiate the efficacy of its method. They fight against Evolution for the same reason that they fought against Plate Tektonics and the Heliocentric Solar System, because they find the approximate truths of science a threat to their fundamentalism. They are absolutely correct. Every advance in science diminishes the creedibility and explanatory value of their increasingly impoversished God.

Let them persist in this fight in their homes and places of worship. But there is nothing unnecessary about the fight against efforts to masquerade superstitious dogma as science in our schools. What is socially unnecessary is the willful ignorance of Creationism.