By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - On the origin of education: Evolution in British schools

Aj_habfan on 29 July 2009
FootballFan said:
Aj_habfan said:
Dodece said:
These scientists are prime examples of why this subject needs to be taught early. They are not even referring to the theory with proper language. Evolution is a misnomer, or a incorrect name used in place of a correct one. The theory is not Evolution. The theory is Natural Selection. The term Evolution is used in many sciences that are not even biological in nature. Darwin never coined the term, and frankly they should be correcting the misconception. Especially since Evolution is often confused with direction or intent.

As for the subject it is absolutely essential for young children to be familiarized with the theory. Not only is it the corner stone of many sciences, such as Biology, Immunology, Sanitation, Agriculture, Paleontology, Ecology, and Psychology. The laws governing natural selection can be applied to other scientific fields, and even fields such as History. The theory is nothing less then a entirely different perspective upon life. Denying it to a child is like depriving them of greater opportunities.

You might as well hold them down, and break one of their legs if your that intent on crippling them. To be afraid of a scientific theory is really to be afraid of opposition. That isn't about courage that is about cowardice. There is really no excuse to deprive children of what amounts to a Rosetta stone for natural science. The theory is rather simple, and its no more contradictory in the sense of religion then Uniformitarianism. How many educators aren't teaching that to kids in elementary schools.

Wow lol, calm down buddy. I don't think waiting till 12 to teach them a complex theory on the origins of life will "cripple" any children or deny them of great opportunities. I had a hard time understanding most of the things from Biology 11, I can't imagine what they would grasp from it besides maybe the basic concept of evolving.

Not that they SHOULDN'T teach them it at that young age, but I don't see major benefits like you seem to. The highest benefit is that it will possibly make children of creationists question their parents beliefs before they are completely brainwashed. But from an education point, I can't see this being essentiel at that young of an age.

If the parents are devout _insert religion here_ then they need a balanced argument. In my school we only learned about Islam and Christianity, i didnt even know what evolution was and if my parents had being extreame about their religion then i most likely would have being brainwashed. People need a choice, if not theres only going to be one option that they believe and it isn't likely to be the evidence driven one.

Just look at non Christian countries, all there offspring believe in the religion of the parents simply because the government refuse to teach evolution to the children in the schools. Whether the parents would allow them to believe in is another matter but at least give them to opotunity at a young age. Thats when the mind is most fragile and likely to believe in things. Never close of an option. Teach both and let the child decide. Its a shame other religions dont give peopole the opotunity.

 

Teaching evolution is not providing a case against religion like you may think it is. Quote from the article, "The great majority of people with a religious faith successfully combine it with an acceptance of evolution, as I do."



Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 29 July 2009

^That is true, many parents of a religious faith accept evolution as compatible with their faith. Heck, even the pope accepts it alongside his faith.

Source



FootballFan on 29 July 2009

Its very very contradictionary to believe both. Either people are missinfomared or they really just dont know the bible or evolution. Ill throw out a few quotes. There are about 30 different ones which i have spare though.

The Bible says that man was created as a special being—in the image of God, as opposed to the evolutionary view that has man is just another animal in the evolutionary process. (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7)

The Bible teaches that God created man by fiat, that is, by supernatural power, not by natural processes. (Genesis 2:7; Psalm 33:6,9; Psalm 148:5; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Hebrews 11:3)

The theory of evolution itself has continually changed over time. This is in contrast to biblical creationism, which has not changed over time.

Creationism and evolutionism begin from two radically different points. Creation: In the beginning there was God. Evolution: In the beginning there was a incident by chance.

And this is from some random faith website so consider most things to be bias. There are clear contradictions that people couldnt possibly believe in both.



Aj_habfan on 29 July 2009
FootballFan said:
Its very very contradictionary to believe both. Either people are missinfomared or they really just dont know the bible or evolution. Ill throw out a few quotes. There are about 30 different ones which i have spare though.

The Bible says that man was created as a special being—in the image of God, as opposed to the evolutionary view that has man is just another animal in the evolutionary process. (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7)

The Bible teaches that God created man by fiat, that is, by supernatural power, not by natural processes. (Genesis 2:7; Psalm 33:6,9; Psalm 148:5; 2 Corinthians 4:6; Hebrews 11:3)

The theory of evolution itself has continually changed over time. This is in contrast to biblical creationism, which has not changed over time.

Creationism and evolutionism begin from two radically different points. Creation: In the beginning there was God. Evolution: In the beginning there was a incident by chance.

And this is from some random faith website so consider most things to be bias. There are clear contradictions that people couldnt possibly believe in both.

Most of the scriptures are taken in an allegorical sense. (Refering to Genesis)



FootballFan on 29 July 2009

Does that word mean symbolic?

Anyway:

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Edward Gibbon



Around the Network
MrBubbles on 29 July 2009

i believe we are Gods creations...and that doesnt conflict with the possibility of evolution.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Aj_habfan on 29 July 2009
FootballFan said:
Does that word mean symbolic?

Anyway:

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Edward Gibbon

Pretty much, meaning it contains something that represents another thing, so it is not to be taken literally.

And that quote is just useless to this thread.



FootballFan on 29 July 2009
MrBubbles said:
i believe we are Gods creations...and that doesnt conflict with the possibility of evolution.

Its very hard to argue a point when Christians don't seem to believe the Bible anymore.


The Bible says that man was created as a special being—in the image of God, as opposed to the evolutionary view that has man is just another animal in the evolutionary process. (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7)



Aj_habfan on 29 July 2009
FootballFan said:
MrBubbles said:
i believe we are Gods creations...and that doesnt conflict with the possibility of evolution.

Its very hard to argue a point when Christians don't seem to believe the Bible anymore.


The Bible says that man was created as a special being—in the image of God, as opposed to the evolutionary view that has man is just another animal in the evolutionary process. (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7)

It's very hard to argue a point when someone wants an issue to be either black or white. What don't you understand about not taking the bible literally? It shouldn't be a new concept to you.

...and portions of the bible are always being debated about among christians - whether due to mistranslation over time, the open interpretation wording, etc.



FootballFan on 29 July 2009
Aj_habfan said:
FootballFan said:
MrBubbles said:
i believe we are Gods creations...and that doesnt conflict with the possibility of evolution.

Its very hard to argue a point when Christians don't seem to believe the Bible anymore.


The Bible says that man was created as a special being—in the image of God, as opposed to the evolutionary view that has man is just another animal in the evolutionary process. (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7)

It's very hard to argue a point when someone wants an issue to be either black or white. What don't you understand about not taking the bible literally? It shouldn't be a new concept to you.

...and portions of the bible are always being debated about among christians - whether due to mistranslation over time, the open interpretation wording, etc.


I understand that its not black and White. But, im not sure when the Bible turned from a literal meaning to a symbolic one.

Also OT: If 90% of Christians believe in Evolution then why hasn't it being taught a long time ago.

Im talking about the basics of it, not natural selection etc.