Creation or evolution?

Why not let the kids decide what they want to learn?

Published on October 12, 2005 By Ziggystyles In Life Journals

This just occured to me out of nowhere tonight. I Havent paid too close attention to the blogs to notice if there has been any recent debate into this as far as creation vs evolution. But I had an idea...maybe its been said before too, not sure.

Why not let the kids, those who are being taught, choose what they want to learn?

This may sound silly, but I remember back a month or so ago, reading about a district where the super / principal had students take part in the interview process for the potential teachers. He wanted the students to be more in control of what they recieve in their education.

So tonight, I just had the idea...why cant the students themselves decide what they get to learn? Why cant they decide their education? All we hear is the parents saying this or that and the argument will go on and on forever.

The current issue is the debate over including the topic of creationism in schools. People are fighting tooth and nail. I can see both sides. Personally, I feel that science should teach the current major theories of how the world came into existance...not just one theory.

So...here are my ideas, and Ive spent a grand total of like...five minutes on them so bare with me. I think they should vote. They should be given a fair representation of BOTH sides of the issue along with rebuttals so they can make informed decisions. I also think that this should only apply to high schoolers as they are becoming adults and need to be able to get used to the experience of making informed decisions...etc.

1.) Vote as a student body for what is going to be taught. The overall side with most percentage points...wins. This can be done every year.
2.) Have a couple of different class options for the students to take for them to fulfill the science part of their program. One option could be just being taught the current regular way...evolution. Another class would include the MAJOR theories of how the world came to be. The classes should fulfull the same standards...workload...etc should be the same, only the material presented is different.

High Schoolers want to be independent and I think they should have the right to choose what they learn. They should be taught what they need to know....but at the same time...instead of their parents deciding for them...I think they should have the right to chose themselves what they learn.

I believe by doing this, they will gain a sense of pride about themselves...getting an education they want. They will be more active because they are part of it and will learn more because of that. They realize that they took control of their education...they chose what they wanted to learn.

What do you think?

I dont want to get this into a flame thread so please dont post replies saying why creationism or evolution should or should not be taught because that is not the main point of my article.

Comments (Page 3)

Dr Guy

on Oct 20, 2005

That's the whole point, you CAN'T fully prove a theory in science (as Zoomba stated above). The closest you get to a proven theory is a theory that is a very good fit.

Yes you can. It is difficult, but it is done all the time in mathematics, probably the purest form of science there is.

Toblerone

on Oct 20, 2005

Yes you can. It is difficult, but it is done all the time in mathematics, probably the purest form of science there is.

Agreed that is true with mathematics that some things can be conclusively proved. Interestingly though mathematics has also proven that some things are unprovable/uncalulatable because they would take an infinite amount of time to calculate. One is example is a type of number called an omega. I don't pretend to understand it though, I suck at math. That's why I studied biology and not astrophysics : )

Zoomba

on Oct 20, 2005

Typically things proven out absolutely through mathematics become scientific LAW.

Champas Socialist

on Oct 20, 2005

Whether evolution is tool of God is essentially irrelevent.

You're going to have to explain why. It is the main premise of ID I think. It may not be useful for making predictions about the world, but suggesting that religion is useless to people is silly.

It is simple incompatible.

How? If God creates evolution, then surely that is the whole point ID is making! That evolution is such a complex thing to happen that only an intelligent creator could have done it (I think that's a silly argument mind you, but why crush it?).

The point is in terms of science it is a non-viable theory

It's certainly not a scientific theory, but there's no reason that can't be made clear to the students.

Toblerone

on Oct 21, 2005

You're going to have to explain why. It is the main premise of ID I think. .

Why is it is relevant what started evolution if it results in the same thing? I mean assuming we can never tell if god exists the cause of it does not matter as long as we are fairly sure it exists. If people want to believe it is god fine, but that is a religious belief and it is their choice to believe that. Science doen't make a point of teaching that evolution ISN'T caused by god so why should they make a point of saying it MIGHT be. Besides it is just a part of the principle of keeping church seperate from the state and religious fundamentalists away from science.

It may not be useful for making predictions about the world, but suggesting that religion is useless to people is silly

I never said that religion was useless to people you are puting words in my mouth (figuratively speaking). They can get religion outside of science class, I'm NOT saying religion should not be taught. I'm not saying religion is useless to people in general but it is useless to scientists for making predictions. As I said before it is like forcing priests to read the Origin of Species along side Genesis.

It's certainly not a scientific theory, but there's no reason that can't be made clear to the students.

So why waste class time on it. It is like spending a whole class on teaching defunct sciences such as phrenology (feeling bumps on peoples head to determine things about their character). If we had to teach every hokey fundamentalist psuedo-scientific theory we'd never get through it all. Why should ID get a hearing just because it happens to have a good (yet deceptive/ignorant) set of publicists.

As I said it is fine to use these things as a comparison to show why the excepted theory is the accepted (are you happy now Champas?) theory. It is another to show the deceptive literature (and other media) created by a bunch of fundy Christians that want to brainwash kids with misguided crap (or get a few more dollars in the collection plate come Christmas time). The stuff they send schools is essentially advertising and just as well factually and ethically grounded.

There was a great story on the sort of materials these fundys send out on Catalyst last night.

Moderateman

on Oct 21, 2005

creationism=theory

evolution= theory

teach them both.

Champas Socialist

on Oct 24, 2005

creationism=theoryevolution= theoryteach them both.

That's simplistic and you know it. There are all sorts iof theories around but you don't teach them all.

excepted theory

I hate to nit-pick, but I'm a teacher...you mean "accepted".

Why is it is relevant what started evolution if it results in the same thing?

Because we live in a multicultural society which means a multi-religious society and many people arre offended by the way, as George Pell says, evolution is sometimes taught in an anti-God way. I'm sure you recall the times I used to laugh at naive fools who believed in God because I supposedly had some superior scientific explanation to justify my atheism. How arrogant and philosophically unsound. I'm not suggesting wads of time, just a brief outline. Sorry to hijack, but I've just posted an article proposing how to do this.

Zydor

on Jul 21, 2007

The UK went partly down this route - albeit not as far as total student driven choice. In effect the education systemn became dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, and the benefits or principles of academic rigour in its non zealot incarnation were lost. 30 years later we have the spectacle of employers now ignoring any Degree unless it comes from the hard core traditional University, and now by in large, depend on psychometric testing for initial filters and even a major in the second interviews

Theorise as much as you like, employers are not interested, they want and need a means of differentiating those who excell from those who dont. No amount of satisfying theory will ever get round that fact whatever you may think. Employers dont have the luxury of theorising, they have to face the reality of esoteric thinking - not just end up saying "opps got that wrong, oh well on to the next theory". Nor do the students caught up in it - they have leant a harsh lesson that grand Debating Society theory lays the groundwork, but much effort is always needed to make things practical, and sometimes you never will.

Communism is acknowledged to be the most perfect system ever devised - problem was it took no account of practical realities such as human aspiration and human greed, and became a horrible monstrosity that eventually, predictably, destroyed itself.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!