jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (12 posts)

To Teach Evolution or Grand Design Theories To Children

  1. Topaz profile image61
    Topazposted 8 years ago

    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.

  2. protjack profile image61
    protjackposted 8 years ago

    There is no such dilemma.

  3. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 8 years ago

    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?

  4. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago

    I am pretty sure no one can fully explain either of them but I know which one I fall on the side of. smile

  5. Thom Carnes profile image61
    Thom Carnesposted 8 years ago

    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.

    1. protjack profile image61
      protjackposted 8 years ago in reply to this


  6. Hovalis profile image89
    Hovalisposted 8 years ago

    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.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

      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.

      1. Hovalis profile image89
        Hovalisposted 8 years ago in reply to this

        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.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 8 years ago in reply to this

          That's an extremely great idea - have it organized by Monday latest big_smile

  7. Thom Carnes profile image61
    Thom Carnesposted 8 years ago

    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.

  8. The Indexer profile image79
    The Indexerposted 8 years ago

    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.