What's in a name?

[alextemplet]

There are no religious lessons in public schools, and also ID proponents want their ideas to be considered true science.

[mcar]

And so there was the term, "scientific creationism"?

[genovese]

There are no religious lessons in public schools, and also ID proponents want their ideas to be considered true science.

I see the problem. In that case all that a science teacher has to do is to teach the accepted standard scientific version of evolution with references and then outline how the ID version of evolution differs giving the bible as reference and to clearly state that examination marks are given on the understanding and presentation of the standard theory of evolution.

[Draco]

I didn't understand any of that. Can you explain more clearly?

[mcar]

"a science teacher has to do is to teach the accepted standard scientific version of evolution with references and then outline how the ID version of evolution differs giving the bible as reference and to clearly state that examination marks are given on the understanding and presentation of the standard theory of evolution".-genovese

However, that's not happening most of the time, the own beliefs of the teacher may go along with his explanations regarding concepts on evolution. It is sometimes forgotten why concepts in evolution is needed to be taught and why bio students need to incorporate it in their curriculum and these makes them confused and even what stands in their beliefs versus evolution sometimes makes them knocked-off.

I agree that evolutionary concepts are indeed important to give is enlightenment about our natural history.

[genovese]

I didn't understand any of that. Can you explain more clearly?

Apology for not making myself clear. Here is another go:

A teacher has to give the necessary information for the student to do well in his examinations. I don't know how it works in the US, but presumably the examination standards are set by either a State or the Federal government? I suspect that those that hold to the "Creationist" ideas have not yet exerted power over the people who decide how the exams are to be marked and assessed. They may hold power over local schools and are probably able to insist that "Creationist Evolution" is to be taught in those schools. Fine! But the students being taught "creationist ideas" as science need to be warned that those ideas are not going to get them many marks when it comes to answering exams papers on the subject of evolution. It won't prevent them from being muddled however until they are mature enough to think for themselves, since the two theories are diagrammatically opposite to each other.

[mcar]

alextemplet wrote:I wonder if there will ever come a day when the evolution debate will be settled here in the US; probably not, considering how polarized this country is becoming.
I wonder if there will ever come a day when the evolution debate will be settled here in the US; probably not, considering how polarized this country is becoming.

Genovese wrote: ...to insist that "Creationist Evolution" is to be taught in those schools. Fine! But the students being taught "creationist ideas" as science need to be warned that those ideas are not going to get them many marks when it comes to answering exams papers on the subject of evolution. It won't prevent them from being muddled however until they are mature enough to think for themselves, since the two theories are diagrammatically opposite to each other.

I see that there's no essence at all that they insist it to be taught but afterall won't give many credits when it comes to answering tests. It's totally absurdity. Very confusing.

I read one material where in US, a treaty or a bill has been signed regarding the treatment on these two opposing ideas, specifically on creationism and evolutionary sciences.

It sounds that they teach the ideas but behind their backs there's an anxiety that these creationists will "haunt" them.
Or it will appear to these creationists that when they see the results of the exams of these students and the scores/rating would be low, arguments at least are less likely to be invoked and so as vice-versa.

What must be the good role of the state/federal government here? It seems absurdity to me. But how come that in this just simple question of how things were made, and just to enlighten us from wondering we did everything to know scientific facts. I do not know much of the background of the kind of government there but, a government could be a strong body--but in this case, how does it properly neutralizes this kind of situation? (Through the setting of their standards in marking papers?) If until today, the argument has not yet been settled in your area and where in some countries evolution is not controversial too much, what good must it have been doing now?

[alextemplet]

I personally don't think that ID has any place in a science classroom. However, I also think that public schools should have some sort of a religious curriculum. I went to a private school where we took courses in world religions as a required part of the curriculum, and this helped me greatly to broaden my understanding of different faiths. I think public schools would be better off if they offered similar courses.

[Draco]

I didn't understand any of that. Can you explain more clearly?

Apology for not making myself clear. Here is another go:

A teacher has to give the necessary information for the student to do well in his examinations. I don't know how it works in the US, but presumably the examination standards are set by either a State or the Federal government? I suspect that those that hold to the "Creationist" ideas have not yet exerted power over the people who decide how the exams are to be marked and assessed. They may hold power over local schools and are probably able to insist that "Creationist Evolution" is to be taught in those schools. Fine! But the students being taught "creationist ideas" as science need to be warned that those ideas are not going to get them many marks when it comes to answering exams papers on the subject of evolution. It won't prevent them from being muddled however until they are mature enough to think for themselves, since the two theories are diagrammatically opposite to each other.

Now I see, The "creationist evolution" may be taught in schools but will not get any marks due to the answers the exam board will allow.

[mcar]

alextemplet wrote:
I personally don't think that ID has any place in a science classroom. However, I also think that public schools should have some sort of a religious curriculum. I went to a private school where we took courses in world religions as a required part of the curriculum, and this helped me greatly to broaden my understanding of different faiths. I think public schools would be better off if they offered similar courses.

I agree with that. Subjectivity will be less likely prevented. Though here comes cultural sensitivity. If a classroom is heterozygous or its students are of great diversity,the inclusion of religious curriculum might be probably very conflict-ridden one.

[alextemplet]

I went to a Catholic school and our comparative religion classes really opened my eyes big-time to different belief systems; of course, the teacher and most of our students were Catholic, but I still learned a lot about what other faiths belief. A more heterozygous class can be better or worse, depending on whether the people invovled care more about proving themselves right or simply learning about other faiths.

[MrMistery]

I took religious studies in all the four years of high-school. It was a very interesting class, taught by one of the smartest people i have ever met. The teacher, with both a BS in engineering and a BS in religious studies had a course designed to teach us how religious beliefs can be integrated in modern society and how evolution and technological progress fits with religion. I can truly say that i am not sorry I had that class.

On the topic of ID in schools. I do not agree. The ideas of ID people are so popular nowadays, that saying nothing in biology class would be doing just what they want. They say "They don't tell students about us, they want to hide the truth". I would be comfortable with a class on refuting ID arguments, which can be easily done in a few minutes by any teacher. "Biology" by Raven and Johnson refutes the main ID arguments in one page, but it is enough to make everyone realize how illogical and unscientific those ideas are.