3 ms·
Although I'm an atheist, I find this to be somewhat disturbing. Creationism, regardless of its mythological background, still is part of Humanity and any concl
by dataker 11y ago
Although I'm an atheist, I find this to be somewhat disturbing.
Creationism, regardless of its mythological background, still is part of Humanity and any conclusions about it should be drawn by the individual, not the State or teachers.
They'd be better off spending more time with Critical Thinking, Scientific Method and Logic, powerful tools to genuinely understand Religion and not just take "facts" for granted.
- arethuza 11y agoAs I've noted in another comment below. Kids in Scotland can study Religious, Moral and Philosophical Studies if they want - which is, I believe, a far more appropriate context for religious beliefs than a science class.
- CyberDildonics 11y agoIt was banned from science classes, they didn't ban theology.
- mikeash 11y agoWould you say this about other subjects, or just the origins of life and the universe? Would you say that schools should not exclusively teach that 2+2=4, but give the students tools and allow them to draw their own conclusions? Should schools allow students to reach their own conclusions as to whether the Earth is flat, or whether the Sun is pulled across the sky by chariots? Schools should absolutely teach creationism, in the same classes where they teach Greek mythology, Hindu gods, Native American creation stories, etc. And that is exactly what happens here. To quote the article, "...creationism can be taught in religious and moral education...."
- dataker 11y agoGoing back to the Greeks(e.g Essentialism) all the way to Modern Evolution would foster a much stronger intellectual background and avoid most future indoctrination. Understanding fallacies in theories is better than just taking them for granted. But why be so picky on this matter? Unlike other concepts, Religion/Indoctrination can have a serious impact on one's life and true critical thinking is the only weapon against it.
- mikeash 11y agoI'm not sure I understand what you're proposing here or what your problem is with what's currently being done. Are you saying there should be a single class that teaches both Essentialism and evolution? It seems reasonable for the same school to teach both, but they belong in different classes. The former would be in a philosophy class, while the latter would be in a science class. Are you saying that facts shouldn't be taught at all, merely the history of thought? Or, again, is it just evolution? You say that religion is of particular importance here, but the whole point of this is that evolution is not religion. It's just science, like any other science, and belongs in school just as much as Newton's Laws or Maxwell's Equations. What's disturbing about a governing body saying that school science classes should only teach science and not religion?
- rndz 11y ago"Creationism Banned from Science Classes by Scottish Government" What's disturbing in this? It's not like they are going to hang everyone who mentions anything about creationism....
- kazinator 11y ago> still is part of Humanity It's not part of that sphere of humanity that we call science.