Science in Public Schools

In my opinion, the greatest benefit that I ever got from studying the notion of how many marine fossils from the Cambrian appear to have strikingly modern forms is simply this: the ocean has been providing a very comparably stable environment for hundreds of millions of years. The reasons that these forms appear modern is because modern forms never had to change much to maintain survivability in such a stable habitat.I have always felt this supported evolution much more than it could ever be used as an argument against it.

---

"When in argument, those who call upon authority use not their intellevt, but rather their memory."-----Leonardo daVinci

I have always held that classes in public schools should expose students to a wide variety of ideas and let the kids explore them and argue them as much as they want. Of course, when I say argue I mean debate intelligently.Evolutionists should have no problem with the mention of various creationist ideas, just as creationists should welcome the inclusion of evolutionary theories into curriculum. Excluding either is a reduction of available data which under any circumstance can only be construed as an attempt to coerce students to believe only what the authority would have them believe.

---

"When in argument, those who call upon authority use not their intellevt, but rather their memory."-----Leonardo daVinci

sure....just please note that I did not expressly define that all curriculum be involved in any one particular class.

I suppose I should reply further.First, I am a devout proponent of evolutionary theory over creationism. I tend to believe that those who have insisted that evolutionary theories be banned from public classrooms are indeed trying to coerce one way of thinking upon the students, just as the opposite would hold true for anyone who insisted that creationist views could not exist as part of any public classroom information.One classroom subject that this may relate to better is history. It is pretty much always taught from only one point of view: ours. The way we look at a historical event may be very different from the way it is viewed in another country. To a great degree, this is unavoidable. But by deliberately leaving out or altering information, it becomes more accurately described as propaganda rather than history. And what is propaganda if not material designed to influence your life by restricting your understanding of the facts?This is what I mean by my statement:

quote:

---

Excluding [..any information..] is a reduction of available data which under any circumstance can only be construed as an attempt to coerce students to believe only what the authority would have them believe.

---

You know what is funny? I agree with Yaro too. I never said anything to mean that I did not agree with Yaro on those points. I especially agree that it is not in the same ballpark as science and does not compare to it even as an alternative view.I will try to reiterate my point one more time...I tend to be against the practice of schools taking sides in this issue. The idea is to make the information available and then leave it at that. It is the children and their families' decisions when it comes to which way they go with it.When you start to introduce legislature that forces either of these, or indeed any doctrine, to be limited in the scope in which it may be presented, then you start to lean towards making it propaganda and not science nor philosophy.Please, please, please note that I am not saying science should be taught in a philosophy class or religion in a science class. You keep arguing these semantics with me and missing my intended point.

---

"When in argument, those who call upon authority use not their intellect, but rather their memory."-----Leonardo daVinci

Now, that last post of mine makes me think that I might sound too much like I condone teaching religion in public schools, which I do not. I do not mean to sound so contrary to my earlier arguments, but I feel that if parents want religion to be a part of their child's curriculum, then they have plenty of church groups and private schools that they can have them attend.The reason for this, is that once you begin to allow any religious practice such as group prayer, or display religious icons such as a cross or a star, then you begin to show favoritism. Even if there is only one muslim or hindu in the entire school, it is hard to justify excluding their religious observances. The only fair way is to leave it to the parents and the churches. I need to look here and see if there are any good threads that include some of the letters by Thomas Jefferson on this subject. That guy had the right of it, and people today forget much of what he said.That being said, I still have no objections to a comparative discussion of religions and philosophies. The obvious difference is that one may be promotional of a religion or certain religious practices, whereas the other is purely intended for unbiased educational purposes.I hope I am still making sense. Sometimes I talk myself into circles.This message has been edited by SuperDave, 05-07-2005 09:04 PM

---

"When in argument, those who call upon authority use not their intellect, but rather their memory."-----Leonardo daVinci