Walter Hicks wrote:
<<
I went to school a very long time ago -- but not
much of any of these subjects were taught. Although
science is more important nowadays, one can teach biology and all
manner of subjects without getting
into areas which are potentially offensive.
>>
Educators in the K-12 have for the most part have
basically done that. At any rate, most of
the subject material of high school biology
class would be devoted to learning the various
cell processes that go on, classification etc.
In principle, these can be taught as isolated
entities. I would comment that in a auto shop
class, it is easier to understand the structure
and function of the suspension system, steering
system, and the engine by giving students a short
history lesson about how these particular subsystems
"evolved" than to present them with a modern day
car with all of its fancy gizmos. Likewise it is
_at least useful_ to use a similar "artiface" (if
you will) to teach students cell structure/function
and methods of classification that help support this.
For a college course, this becomes a bit more
problematical. It might be arguable that
evolution is "R rated" (under 17 not admitted
in theater parlance), but they will be exposed
to these ideas one way or another, and at least
from the view of an educator, we do have an
obligation to introduce our students to methods
of critical thinking (which would also help
high school children when confronted with
drugs, sex, cults, peer pressure etc.).
Theology courses can be disappointing when you
find that the gospel of John may not even have
been written by John, but theology students still
find a way to believe in God after these "let downs".
In that sense, scholars who finally insist that John
was written by THE John usually realize the problems
and limitations of their particular view. In a
similar view, evolution is most certainly one way
we can discuss origins, and as a model it certainly
has merit. If students after this introduction still
chose to believe in a YEC view, they are at least
aware that this is not strongly supported by most
of the scientific community, nor is it supported by
all seriously religions folk in the world (including
Christians).
<<
One can be absolutely certain that there are
humanists who love to push evolution into students
as a means,not to teach science, but as "sneaky" way
to push atheism. I am not being paranoid here
because it is their openly stated goal to eliminate
religion and parental influence over children. One
need only read the "Humanist Manifestos".
>>
I think this hits more at the heart of the problem.
Despite Michael Topper's point that most of the
people who contributed to science in the first
half of the 1800s were devout Christians who had
no problem with an ancient earth, we are regularly
presented with the science/religion conflict thesis.
Some of the extremists types even insist that YEC
is akin to a disease rather than a reaction to their
own narrow minded thinking.
Moreover, noise makers in the secular humanist
crowd habitually pull the evolution card as some
sort of "proof" that there is no God. It has even
come as a shock to some when my own response is
"I don't give a [explitive deleted] about it".
Wouldn't it be more useful to put the matter into
the hands of educators who have given a lot more
thought to the big picture to help pull these
extremist views to some middle ground? It is
just as important for an educator to shoot down
the "evolution == no God" mentality as bunk as
it does to shoot down the "YEC is fact" crowd.
Just as the book of John is not soiled if it was
not written by THE John, it does not follow that
there is no God because science says their is
evolution.
Perhaps then, this really is a matter of how
we recruit and promote our educators in the US
(at least). The educator does have the responsibility
to encourage students to think, and lopsided and
narrow minded views should be challenged in the open
forum of a university education. Hence, whereas
YEC receives no special favors, neither should the
extreme views of the secular humanists. If they still
walk away _insisting_ on their views, at least they
have been warned.
<<
If one must teach evolution, there is no need
whatsoever to present a theory of how it comes
about. There appears to be a great emphasis on
Darwinian evolution when it is a theory which Gould
disputed. One can present facts without presenting
an underlying theory --- especially a controversial
one.
>>
I'm not sure I follow exactly what you are saying
here. I do think that as educators, we should not
teach OUR PERSONAL ideology (especially to the dispargement of ALL
other views). Our goals and
responsibilities are to encourage reflective thinking.
Hence, placing a heavy slant on a particular
metaphysical interpretation of the scientific data
is I suspect unethical for those given the role
of teachers.
by Grace we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 11:49:23 EDT