Should Creationism be Taught in Schools?
I don't really know why I was drawn to this debate, but for some reason, I was browsing a site I recently discovered: http://wiki.idebate.org
I kinda found a topic dedicated to debating Creationism and whether it should be taught in schools. My initial thoughts turned to that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and how that it was a good satirical point of view to the whole thinly guised God debate.
But I guess I still find this debate annoying and insulting as to whether it should be taught in schools. A quick browse through the whole length of argument brought me to a quick stop as I stumbled across some of the proponent's arguments. Namely that Creationism is scientifically testable, and that Creationism must be taught because otherwise it violates the freedom of religion.
Maybe I got this wrong, but I think those arguments are mutually exclusive. One cannot with a sane mind argue using both lines in a single debate. Religion, as I've come to understand it, has to do with faith. I have been told that God does not prove his existence, because otherwise there is no faith, only knowledge. To ascribe the title 'religion' to Creationism is akin to saying that we have faith in it, and require no further proof. And yet there seems to be this contradicting need for it to be scientifically testable. Should we then scientifically test if God does exist?
But what amused me most about this entire argument is that Richard Dawkins has drawn the similarities between teaching Creationism in schools to child abuse.
The notion seems very laughable in the first place, and yes, I do find his books more of a diatribe of preaching to the choir, and that he lets his disdain ring out louder than his points of argument. But then again, how is teaching Creationism like child abuse?
My friend related a story to me about his professor. His professor was an eccentric man with a son. He apparently taught his son certain oddities that we would normally furrow our brow in confusion if we were to ever hear of it. For example, an escalator going up would be called an escalator. While an escalator going down, would be called a descalator.
This professor of his also went on to teach his son a weird habit. Every time the entire family would eat a cantaloupe, he would quip, "If you cantaloupe, you must get married." Or some weird variant of the phrase. When this child of his was happily eating cantaloupes in class one day, he suddenly remarked that out loud, much to the amazement of his teacher. This professor was promptly summoned to a parent-teacher meeting.
I guess it is one think to make jokes or pull pranks especially on an innocent child, but then to intentionally teach flawed and unsound ideas to him?
I don't know about you guys, but that somehow feels to me, a lot like child abuse.
I kinda found a topic dedicated to debating Creationism and whether it should be taught in schools. My initial thoughts turned to that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and how that it was a good satirical point of view to the whole thinly guised God debate.
But I guess I still find this debate annoying and insulting as to whether it should be taught in schools. A quick browse through the whole length of argument brought me to a quick stop as I stumbled across some of the proponent's arguments. Namely that Creationism is scientifically testable, and that Creationism must be taught because otherwise it violates the freedom of religion.
Maybe I got this wrong, but I think those arguments are mutually exclusive. One cannot with a sane mind argue using both lines in a single debate. Religion, as I've come to understand it, has to do with faith. I have been told that God does not prove his existence, because otherwise there is no faith, only knowledge. To ascribe the title 'religion' to Creationism is akin to saying that we have faith in it, and require no further proof. And yet there seems to be this contradicting need for it to be scientifically testable. Should we then scientifically test if God does exist?
But what amused me most about this entire argument is that Richard Dawkins has drawn the similarities between teaching Creationism in schools to child abuse.
The notion seems very laughable in the first place, and yes, I do find his books more of a diatribe of preaching to the choir, and that he lets his disdain ring out louder than his points of argument. But then again, how is teaching Creationism like child abuse?
My friend related a story to me about his professor. His professor was an eccentric man with a son. He apparently taught his son certain oddities that we would normally furrow our brow in confusion if we were to ever hear of it. For example, an escalator going up would be called an escalator. While an escalator going down, would be called a descalator.
This professor of his also went on to teach his son a weird habit. Every time the entire family would eat a cantaloupe, he would quip, "If you cantaloupe, you must get married." Or some weird variant of the phrase. When this child of his was happily eating cantaloupes in class one day, he suddenly remarked that out loud, much to the amazement of his teacher. This professor was promptly summoned to a parent-teacher meeting.
I guess it is one think to make jokes or pull pranks especially on an innocent child, but then to intentionally teach flawed and unsound ideas to him?
I don't know about you guys, but that somehow feels to me, a lot like child abuse.
