Which theories do you believe should be taught in schools?

Question

The never-ending debate about theories of creationism, intelligent design (Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?), and evolution being taught in schools.
What do you think should be taught and why?
What about religions?

No bashing please!

Answer 1

I have studied quite a bit of constitutional law. Really, evolution should be taught in science class because it is a scientific theory. It really doesn't have to be compared to religious theories to teach it. Intelligent design could be taught without referring to what god, but it does still teach that there was a god that created everything.

If intelligent design and creationism are taught, then it should be an elective class about theories of the beginning of the world taught by a professional teacher who knows the material and not to cross the line between teaching and preaching or endorsing.

Can you imagine being an atheist listening to a theory in science class that has no physical evidence and goes against your very belief because it is rooted in the belief in god? Or being Hindu and told that the Christian God created the world? Constitutional law has created a barrier between the school endorsing religion and being neutral to it. Allowing open discussion of all theories and possibilities in an elective class is neutral and still allows people to learn each theory and each point of view. Teaching a theory in a scientific class that could connect the school to endorsing the religious viewpoint is not in accordance with the leading Supreme Court decisions.

Answer 2

I have no problem with all scientific theories being taught in public school science class. To be a theory something must have testable evidence to support it.

And if you want a comparative religion class that would be fine also. I have no problem at all with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Scientology, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism etc. and the various forms of non theism all sharing the floor equally

Answer 3

Picking a theory like creationism/ intelligent design would be a breach of the separation of church and state so it is actually illegal to have them in schools, but look every religion has a different creation story, and that is fine, but that is to be learned in a religious setting or a religions studies class, not a science room. You don't have to beleive what is taught in science class rooms if it is against your religion, but you can't try to teach children what your religion tells you is the truth simply because it is you religious belief, there needs to be respect for the fact that not everyone is of the same belief, so it isn't fair that one religion gets to over rule everything and force everyone to learn what they think is right.

Answer 4

Evolution should be taught - it is an integral part of the biological sciences.

Separation of Church and State which is critical in the USA dictates that creationism should not be taught in the public schools as a science. As part of social studies/comparative religions, maybe.

My opinion..

A Catholic

Deus meus et omnia

Answer 5

Of the "theories" you named, only evolution is scientific. I suppose teaching nonsensical things like intelligent design could help kids learn to be more discriminating judges of ideas, but I'm really more in favor of direct instruction in schools. If we taught intelligent design in schools, some of the kids would probably believe it, and then where would we be?

In order to advance our society's overall knowledge, we have to educate kids in the basics so when they grow up they can build on them. Wasting time on intelligent design would mean less time spent on reality and would ultimately mean kids growing up without as firm an understanding as they would otherwise have.

Answer 6

Intelligent design has a number of peer reviewed scientists so it does have a scientific base. If it is so easy to dispute then no one should be afraid of children learning it. No one learns critical thinking by only hearing one side of an argument. Intelligent design theorists do not make it their purpose to define who the intelligent desginer may be but simply to show evidence of intelligent design. The FSM argument is easily defeatable and deserves a category all of it's own. Poorly thought out arguments in an attempt to try and discredit legitimate arguments that atheists are afraid of. here is an interesting letter I read earlier today. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/arn/orpages/or101/101cship.htm and here is a link showing Intelligent design peer review http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640 and http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/intelligent_design_research_la.html

Answer 7

Religions and their stories can be taught in a religion survey class.

Scientific theories such as relativity, gravity and evolution belong in the science classes for their discipline.

Edit:
Basically, a science "theory" does not mean the same as "theory" in common usage. In simple terms it is saying that the theory is as close to being true as they have gotten so far.

Intelligent design has no supporting evidence, and that's why it was published for the masses as opposed to being presented to the scientific community.

Answer 8

Everything in the appropriate place.

For science class a theory needs to have significant amounts of hard evidence supporting it. Evolution fits that bill. The rest do not.


If you have a world religion class then you can teach the major world religions there.

Answer 9

Most Christians I know don't want biblical creationism taught in science classes. What we want is for molecules-to-man evolution to be taught with all its warts (they are not even allowed to present evidence that would put evolution in a poor light). And we want intelligent design to at least to be presented. Unlike leprechauns and a flat earth, etc., a significant percentage of the (tax paying) population believes in ID.

So many people these days are confusing biblical creationism with intelligent design. "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence" (Dr. William Dembski). That's it; it says nothing of who the creator is and how he/she/it/they did it. Intelligent Design encompasses every "creation" story, even aliens seeding life on this planet.

The thing is, reliable methods for detecting design exist and are employed in forensics, archeology, and data fraud analysis. These methods can easily be employed to detect design in biological systems.

When being interviewed by Tavis Smiley, Dr. Stephen Meyer said, “There are developments in some technical fields, complexity and information sciences, that actually enable us to distinguish the results of intelligence as a cause from natural processes. When we run those modes of analysis on the information in DNA, they kick out the answer, ‘Yeah, this was intelligently designed’ . . . There is actually a science of design detection and when you analyze life through the filters of that science, it shows that life was intelligently designed.”

And for those who put so much faith in peer-review, check this out: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

Answer 10

In my school, they taught us about each of the major religions, and taught us the definitions for each of the relevant terms such as atheism, polytheism, agnosticism, monotheism, etc. That was in World Cultures class in 10th grade, and took up about a quarter of the year. I'm glad that we were taught that stuff in school (althought I already knew most of it anyway). It was a public school, btw. I think everyone should be taught that kind of stuff. It's important to understand the beliefs of our comrades, so that misunderstandings and offensive actions are less likely to occur.