For example -
Chemistry - Alchemy
Astronomy - Astrology
Physics - Magic
Neurology - Phrenology
Evolution - ID
2007-11-19 05:28:43 · 15 answers · asked by robert 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Did you even notice that all the subjects on the right side were precursors to the knowledge that comes from the topics on the left side?
When we better understood the science behind phenomenon, we generally discarded the explanations provided by these precursors.
I think we should continue to do so, unless you want to rely on magic and not physics to launch the next space shuttle.
2007-11-19 05:39:15 · answer #1 · answered by Pangloss (Ancora Imparo) AFA 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because there is no way that each topic would be handled fairly and objectively. Religion has no place in public schools, period. It is the responsibility of the parents to do the best they can to show the different viewpoints of the world and let the kids decide. If parents want to only show one narrow view then they are doing a disservice to their child, which is still better than the school systems do a disservice to multiple children at once.
Blessed Be )O(
2007-11-19 13:40:41 · answer #2 · answered by Stephen 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a elementary and secondary public school system that is financed through the collect of taxes and administrated by local and state government agencies and taught by government employees (teachers)? No, that would be a violation of the Constitution.
Now in a private elementary or secondary school or in a university setting as a elective type of class then fine.
Plus Alchemy, Astrology, Magic, Phrenology, and ID are all considered pseudo sciences with little to no basis in fact. Where would you propose trying to teach these subjects? Within the confines of science or as philosophy?
2007-11-19 13:41:07 · answer #3 · answered by ndmagicman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, why would we let them decide on things that have been proven and decided long before them. The point of education has always been to bring kids up to snuff with what has been discovered before them so that they can build on it not present the already decided facts so that they can redecide. It is synonymous to teaching kids that things fall down when they go up because they are moved by god's hands, and then have kids once again work out the laws of gravity from such misconceptions. This method keeps us at a standstill and sometimes moves up backwards but really that has always been the role of religion, to impede knowledge, rationality and science
2007-11-19 13:35:28 · answer #4 · answered by uz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Goodness no. If we taught all religious and scientific viewpoints that have and are held by the world we would have to start another 18 year class just for those studies. A basic class that is unbiased is all that is needed.
2007-11-19 13:39:12 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. Nobody 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why don't I just spend half my day telling my students that it's ok to beat on each other, swear, break things, steal, lie, and kill?
It's about the same thing-Teaching my kids lies is not going to prepare them for the real world either.
2007-11-19 13:33:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good point, but on the evo/id one. If they teach ID in schools, why can't we teach evolution in church?
2007-11-19 13:37:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on if you want science taught in science class, or mythology taught in science class. But given that many people don't even know what a scientific theory is, we might as well stop teaching science.
2007-11-19 13:32:22 · answer #8 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely!
2007-11-19 13:36:55 · answer #9 · answered by MotherB 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I want to take the class in Magic--why wasn't my high school that cool?
2007-11-19 13:33:27 · answer #10 · answered by Sister Cordelia VT-PMS 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋