Are the school children in public school intelligent enough to decide between all the theories?

Question

Since we can not prove Evolution as the origin of the species, isn't it fair to the school children to teach them alternate theories. One of these is intelligent design. Some have proposed a flying spaghetti monster. Some have proposed Q.

Would it be ok for me to suggest that any theory that is essentially religious in nature not be taught in a public school science class, and we stick with those scientific theories that in fact are real science, those that have hypothesis that can be disproven through expiriments,

essenitally, Evolution is a scientific theory since it is based on premises that could be disproven. You could with the scientific equipment try and disprove that your DNA is 98% similar to a chimpanzee.

I don't think I can disprove that Q invented the universe, therefore its not real science, and should not be taught in a public science class. Do you agree?

Answer 1

Let's feed them bogus theories so they disown them and come up with better ones.



.... you know, if we just got somebody to mate with a chimpanzee we could run a wrecking ball through intelligent design and prove that we're the same species as apes. Apparently, it's been rumored that in the early 20th century this was done in a Florida University but they Euthanized the hybrid.

Answer 2

Making choices is not dependant on intelligence.
Religion is an individual personal choice which, for most, is not based on rational thought, anyway. A child will come to his own conclusions about God and religion; no matter what you tell him.

I'm confused about the: what should be taught in school's debate.
As far as I know, religion is not taught in public school science courses. And, it will not be.

We all know that the makeup of atomic particles suggests that they don't even exist. But for the purposes of education, we teach that atoms have mass; as an explanation of why a bat swung at your head does not pass through it. It's not the exact truth, but it's an essential perspective for understanding the world.
So it is with evolution. There is no doubt that there could be other explantions for the origin of life. Unless you weren't paying attention in class-and didn't read your text carefully-it was has always been made clear that, like the Big Bang, human evolution is our best guess. The gaps don't negate the truths. An understanding of evolution is crucial to the study of other biological sciences, such as diversity and ecology.

Answer 3

I'm not sure about your question. who are what is Q? The theory of evolution is already taught in public schools. And DNA is similar among mammals, the 98% is the norm the 2% is were the mankind part comes in. If you are so confident of what you presume real science to be, what exactly are you afraid of? Does religion scare you? Real Scientist aren't afraid of religion. The greatest Scientist the world has every know all prayed to Jesus. They weren't afraid. Why are you? Are school children's intelligence level and what they should be taught hopefully well be based on more than the class room.

Answer 4

Actually there's so much data in every field these days that I think we should stop trying to teach specific data and theories and roll the curiculum back a few hundred years to teach Rhetoric and modern data strategies as well. It's much more important to me that a public school graduate determine how to tell if something is valid, or truthful, or rational and explain that determination in a rational way that I can at least understand, whether I agree with it or not, than they memorize any list of facts whether religious or scientific.

Furthermore, science teachers would have us believe that the ways science has proceeded have been rational, passionless, detatched, unconcerned about results, and in general 'pure', but it just isn't so. When you really get into what actually happened, it becomes clear that science is just as much a religion as any other religion, using passion to produce results in order to make more money, having dogma-s, heretics, & the whole nine yards.

Answer 5

Keep your religion out of the schools I pay for. It is not okay to teach beliefs and evolution is NOT a belief it is supported by evidence.

Tell your kids "POOF! There it is" is how we came to be here if you like but you had better not let me catch you filling my kids head with that fairytale.

Kids believe in Santa and the tooth fairy too. It is not that they aren't smart enough it is that they are still naive enough to believe your lies.

I am sick to death of creationist crazy talk. Every time we try to explain it we are just ignored.

EDIT: Jim, now I see who wrote this thread...........you got me to give you a knee jerk reaction. I will not delete it because I wrote it and must suffer the embarrassment of misunderstanding the question due to the title.

Thank you, you slowed me down enough to start reading the whole question again before answering.

Answer 6

That depends on whether or not you accept historical discovery as a science. Papers and inks can be dated. Records and reports can be verified. In that sense, science can be used to prove/disprove whether or not a Biblical thesis of creationism is viable. If you are willing to accept historical discovery, something like the science of archeology, as a science, then more than one side can be presented. Otherwise, I would leave this to the parents. I would oppose any presentation of the Bible in school that did not present it strictly on verifiable discovery. It would otherwise be to the discretion of textbook editors and that would be far less than objective, wouldn't it? Unacceptable.

Answer 7

Maybe both should be taught, then the child can decide on their own, without outside influences, what they want to believe. I don't think a child should be forced to learn only one side of things.
It will probably never happen that creationism will be taught in schools. It would offend to many people. Not everyone is Christian, so they feel they shouldn't be forced to learn about it. Actually, when I was in school, neither was taught. We never learned about Creationism or about Darwin's theory. From what I can remember, we didn't learn about evolution either.

Answer 8

actually we can prove the theory of evolution... it has already been done in fact.




it's the same way that we can prove gravity, but cannot necessarily "prove" that gravity was the only influence on Newton's apple.

the difference is in proving the theory versus applying the theory to a specific situation after-the-fact in a sort of scientific autopsy.

Answer 9

contained in the top Adam and eve populated the earth by incest and god loved it a lot he wiped out the total international in his flood so Noah and his kin might want to repopulate the earth by incest a second time.

Answer 10

Question right out of the gospel of the FSM.