The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
Teaching ID in Science class is no different from teaching Spanish in English class. Even if learning ID ultimately helps the child in his or her studies (and in the format being insisted upon, that's a big if) it comes down to the point that science class simply isn't any more appropriate a spot for a kid to learn a creationist theory than English class is for a kid to learn Spanish.
I disagree that the analogy isn't relevant. The point he made to me is that English belonged to the US.
Well, like I said, your brother was wrong on a number of levels.
Quote:
Now, I have had perfectly lovely conversations about racism in Spanish class, and economy in history class, and come to think of it, about homophobia in English class. None of these were 'taught', but adressed when they came up by means of a class discussion and interchange of ideas.
In bold, we have the material difference. Discussion that arises from education has a tendency to
evolve, if you will pardon the use of the term. Not too long ago, I was in an English Lit class that spent 15 minutes giving a history lesson on the Rodney King trial. Why? Because we were reading a book called
Native Speaker that dealt occasionally with interracial relations between the African and Korean communities, and inquiry was made about the cause of some of those tensions, which lead to, among other things, the fact that one of the groups most devastated by the riots that followed the Rodney King trial were Korean-American business owners. So yes, discussions evolve, and that's because the point of education, first and foremost--ESPECIALLY IN SCIENCE CLASSS--is not to teach kids
stuff but to teach them how to
inquire. If, in the course of a biology class that was touching upon evolution, some kid raised his or her hand and said, "Well, what about the idea that God created, or at least guided the creation of, the world?" it would then be perfectly appropriate for the instructor to take a moment to say, "Well, there are people who have theories about that, but we don't address them in this class because ultimately it's an issue based upon faith rather than science, but if you are so inclined, you can research it for yourself, talk to me after class and I can give you the name of some books to look for." That would be a perfectly organic "evolution" of an educational discussion. Anyone who has a problem with a teacher answering a student's question honestly would need to have his or her head examined.
But the problem is, this statement that students in a SCIENCE class are being compelled to hear unless their parents pull them out of the class does not evolve from the course of discussion within the class. It's an interjection, really apropos of nothing, which is basically the equivalent of the religious element sticking it's head in the door of the science class and yelling, "See, we're still here! See?! See?!" It's an interruption to the flow of education, like a speed bump, not an evolution thereof.
The only thing it can honestly hope to accomplish is to remind the children of the "believers" who are in the class and already learned about creationism in Sunday School that they aren't supposed to take what is being taught in the classroom so seriously that they "forget" the beliefs their parents would have them embrace. The other side of the coin is that it might get the children of "unbelievers" to question their parents' beliefs and therefore may have some evangelical value.
Quote:
Again, the letter states that ID wasn't taught to the class. They were simply made aware of its existence.
I know, but that begs the question of WHY do these ID proponents want kids "simply made aware of its existence." I can't see a purpose for it other than to "remind" kids who are already being taught creationism elsewhere of what their "true" beliefs are supposed to be, or to make a half-hearted evangelical grab at kids who haven't been taught creationism. Either of those is, in fact, a violation of the concept of separation between church and state when dealing with a public school. But more importantly, it's the forced interjection of a non-scientific dialogue into a class that is supposed to be about science, and is therefore out of place.
I really think the best solution to the issue is to create an
elective course that kids can sign up for with their parents' permission, much like a Comparative Religions course, that deals with different theories on the origins of being, and make it a philosophy course, not a scientific one.
Edited, Mon Oct 17 18:47:49 2005 by Ambrya