Here in this dilemma lays the full concept of the descriptive meaning of two little words,
They are not nouns, but they should be," How or Who."
Lets start with the "How" this goes all the way back to which came first the hen or the egg.
The big bang theory leaves a lot to wonder about. Have the scientist decided which came first
the dinosaurs or the fertile soil that grew those huge plants to feed all the giant animals that
came to be. And why were the animals so huge, and well adapted to their environment. They
developed over millions of years I understand that. I don't claim to be a expert, but I do
wonder where the first seed came from. I personally don't think it evolved out of salt water. If
there was no plants to turn into mulch and make soil then where and how do all the scientists
make their theory pieces of the puzzle fit together.
Who owned the first set of snowshoes? The answer will suprise you.
What worm is responsible for African landscape? The answer will suprise you.
How about you explain both, as some believe this and some believe that, and let them consider each one for themselves,
or is that giving them too much credit, and water seeks its own level?
I am pretty sure no one can fully explain either of them but I know which one I fall on the side of.
There is no problem teaching children about Creationism/ Intelligent Design - provided it is done as part of the "Religion" syllabus rather than the "Science" syllabus.
No evidence = no science.
It depends...if you are an atheist or agnostic then "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" or whatever you want to call it, isn't a valid theory anyway. It predisposes the need for a God. Just saying. It's the same with the opposing religious camp which takes the Bible as literal and therefore The Truth, making Intelligent Design a valid theory in their eyes.
If you wish to give a balanced view then teach both theories, then you need to explain why there are two opposing camps and try as best as you can to remain neutral.
Not sure it makes sense to me to teach this as equally true from both perspectives. You cannot remain neutral on this issue.
It certainly makes sense to teach what people believe, but there is only one theory of evolution, and there are many, many theories of creationism.
Yeah I do agree with you there, Mark. There are as many versions as there are cultures. There's an Aboriginal version which is pretty cool, about the world coming from the Rainbow Snake IIRC. I like that one. I suppose I was thinking more of the Intelligent Design "theory" which is being bandied around now. Which I believe is a religious belief rather than a scientific theory.
That said, I do think that something needs to be said about the opposing arguments, if that's at all possible. And as neutrally as possible. But, then, it's not an ideal world.
Maybe what's needed is a World Myths and Religion class which can explain a selection of native beliefs into how life began on Earth. That's not such a bad idea, actually.
I have no problem with teaching children Religion - provided it's done from a historical rather than an ideological perspective, and that it includes ALL the major world religions.
In fact, I'd say this was *essential*, if only to avoid the ideological stand-offs which crop up with such unfailing regularity today.
I think we can teach children the artistic, architectural and literary value of some (most? all?) religious traditions without committing to the supernatural beliefs that usually go along with them.
From a purely literary point of view, the King James Bible is certainly one of the most beautiful books in the English language. It would be a pity if children were denied access to it (which most of them are today) because of a decision taken on ideological grounds.
What worries me about this debate is the word "teach". I would like to think that the proponents of one side or the other are using it in the sense of "teach about", namely presenting the arguments and allowing their pupils/students to make reasoned judgments based on those presentations and their own researches.
However, my fear is that for "teach" you can substitute "indoctrinate". I do not want young minds to be told what they must believe, or even to be given presentations that are biased one way or the other. Religious indoctrination is the worst sort there is, based on "believe this or be condemned to Hell when you die". That is wrong if it is done by Christians, Muslims, or anyone else (Buddhists have more sense, so I'll leave them out of this!).
As far as the evolution debate goes, once the principles of the theory are fully understood, it answers so many questions about origins that any rational person will have no trouble with it. The argument "we can't understand it, so it must have been God who did it" just won't wash. This is known in the trade as the "God of the gaps" argument, and those gaps have got progressively smaller down the centuries.
by Capable Woman8 years ago
My question is what's actually wrong with the Intelligent Design theory? I find many aspects of it quite forward thinking and interesting.I know it was roundly disparaged in the media as almost some kind of joke...but...
by marinealways247 years ago
Is Evolution an Intelligent or Ignorant Design?
by Ron Karn6 years ago
If all life forms evolved from a single organism, where did the first organism originate from? It seems to me that to classify the science of evolution as scientific fact that they would need to establish a basis...
by mathsciguy6 years ago
I pondered a while trying to decide where to put this topic, but I think this is an appropriate forum for it. I had noticed in researching for myself a little bit about the ID movement that most of the articles...
by MrMaranatha5 years ago
I'm sick to death of listening to people bash religion with this line of thinking... "Where is my freedom from your religion?" Well... Where is MY freedom from YOURS? Yours is being taught in...
by kirstenblog7 months ago
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure,...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.