Should Schools be Required to Teach Evolution?

[vortigen84]

Nor are children the property of the parents. Parents have responsibilities to their children. One of those responsibilities is education. Not providing a good education is neglect, which is child abuse.

And which specially privileged, godlike class of individuals gets to say what a "good" education is for your children, at the expense of your right to decide that?

Someone who doesn't know how to mind their own damn business, that's who.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

And which specially privileged, godlike class of individuals gets to say what a "good" education is for your children, at the expense of your right to decide that?

Someone who doesn't know how to mind their own damn business, that's who.

You can always homeschool. What you can't do is fail to provide any education at all.

 

[vortigen84]

You can always homeschool. What you can't do is fail to provide any education at all.

Really? Well the other poster is talking about a "good" education, so who gets to say what that is?

In some Western countries, do you realize you cannot homeschool, it is illegal?

Either way though, you've got to know your place; it isn't in other people's homes dictating to them how to raise their kids.

That's something social conservatives and progressives alike need to learn: MYOB.

A child, like an adult, should not be dictated how to live their life by a nanny state.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm always exasperated by the way libertarians seem to assume that their ideas of the limits of government are self evidently correct. Opinions differ. I didn't come here to argue politics, so just let's leave it that you and I do not agree on this topic, nor are likely to.

 

[Tomk80]

And which specially privileged, godlike class of individuals gets to say what a "good" education is for your children, at the expense of your right to decide that?

Someone who doesn't know how to mind their own damn business, that's who.

A group of people who are experts in different important subjects and can determine which of these subjects are essential for kids' later development. It really isn't that hard of a prioritization either. As the child grows older, you can slowly give the kids more choices in this.

First, basic reading writing, basic calculus, some drawing, handcraft and musical skills.
Second, more advanced topics, basic maths, physics, chemistry, biology, history, English, possibly a second language.
Third, more advancement if the kid chooses, ie more specialization in topics that the kid needs if he want to go on to advanced education, like college or university.

It really isn't rocket science, and if you look at the topics to teach that different countries have come up with independently, the topics are remarkably alike.

Sorry, but if it concerns making sure that the next generation has at least a basic skill set to be able to succeed, "minding your own business" is very bad advice. Just in the same manner as the government doesn't mind it's own business when it comes to other types of child abuse.

 

[Tomk80]

Really? Well the other poster is talking about a "good" education, so who gets to say what that is?

In some Western countries, do you realize you cannot homeschool, it is illegal?

Either way though, you've got to know your place; it isn't in other people's homes dictating to them how to raise their kids.

That's something social conservatives and progressives alike need to learn: MYOB.

A child, like an adult, should not be dictated how to live their life by a nanny state.

Preventing child abuse has very little to do with a "nanny state". MYOB is not a good practice when it comes to child abuse. And not providing a good education is child abuse. Many parents are not able to provide education, which is why it is a good idea to forbid homeschooling. The detrimental effects of bad home-schooling is already sufficiently clear in homeschooling communities.

 

[Naraoia]

This MYOB mentality confuses me. What is the government's business?

Do you just want to teach your kids whatever you want (which you are already free to do outside school...), or do you also want to punish your own criminals (and who determines who the criminals are?), fight your own fires, build your own roads...? Where and how do you draw the line between enough and too much state interference?

 

[Loudmouth]

We can still determine how the government should run their own schools. Publicly funded schools are required to have a secular curriculum (see Lemon test). I don't think it is much of a stretch to state that a science education in a public high school should prepare students for college, and possibly for a career in the sciences. At the least, it should allow students to understand the concepts that biologists are using so they can make informed decisions when it comes to funding research grants with public money.

Evolution is a vital part of both. A student needs to have a basic understanding of what evolution is and is not when they get to university. A Biology 101 course should not be a remedial course that has to start from scratch. If high school graduates are going to somewhat understand the biological research that their tax dollars fund then they need to understand the theory of evolution.

Should evolution be required in the high school curriculum in public schools? Absolutely. We would be doing a disservice if we didn't require it. We would be wasting tax dollars. What people want to teach in private schools or at home is their business, but what our government teaches is most certainly our business.

 

[Jamin4422]

Should Schools be Required to Teach Evolution?http://www.christianforums.com/t7684703/

Yes, we need to teach our young people all the science and all the evolution we can. Because science and evolution help to confirm that the Bible is accurate and true. Evolution helps us to better understand our Bible and the work God is doing in our lives.

 

[Jamin4422]

A student needs to have a basic understanding of what evolution is and is not when they get to university. A Biology 101 course should not be a remedial course that has to start from scratch.

Your going to need more then just evolution if you want to get a degree in science. Your going to need physics, chemistry and all that. Evolution is the easy stuff compared to the other classes you will be taking.

 

[Jamin4422]

What is the government's business?

If your talking public schools then education is the governments business. I have nothing against private schools if you can afford it. But it's expansive. I know someone that was paying $100,000 a year. He had four kids in school. Two in public and two in private.

Just what classes do you have to take to be a Biologist?

 

[CabVet]

Just what classes do you have to take to be a Biologist?

Varies by college, but in general:

English
Zoology
Botany
Chemistry (organic in depth and inorganic basic)
Physics (not in depth)
Biochemistry
Biophysics
Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Evolution
Genetics
Reproductive Biology
Human and Comparative Anatomy
Cell Biology
Physiology
Ecology
Developmental Biology
Statistics
Basic Math
Basic Geology

 

[Loudmouth]

Your going to need more then just evolution if you want to get a degree in science. Your going to need physics, chemistry and all that. Evolution is the easy stuff compared to the other classes you will be taking.

If this thread was asking if these subjects should be required I would agree. For this topic, the focus was evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Evolution should be taught in public schools, and it should be a required subject for every child. All should be tested until they demonstrate that they fully understand it. They then should be made to affirm by signature that they believe it.

 

[Naraoia]

If your talking public schools then education is the governments business. I have nothing against private schools if you can afford it. But it's expansive. I know someone that was paying $100,000 a year. He had four kids in school. Two in public and two in private.

Just what classes do you have to take to be a Biologist?

Here in Scotland, it's pretty much "just" biology once you are at uni. I personally also took some maths and stats, geology and programming because I felt like it. Oh, and I did something called Science Methods, which is part critical thinking, part philosophy of science, and it's great.

"Just" is in quotes up there because "biology" is a huge subject (like any major area of science). My degree included biochemistry and molecular biology, multiple evolution-related modules (one just about sexual selection and conflict!), ecology, developmental biology, animal behaviour, zoology, physiology... (I realised I can't stand physiology after about the third lecture on fish kidneys ).

 

[Loudmouth]

They then should be made to affirm by signature that they believe it.

Why?

 

[Naraoia]

Evolution should be taught in public schools, and it should be a required subject for every child. All should be tested until they demonstrate that they fully understand it. They then should be made to affirm by signature that they believe it.

I don't quite understand the joke...

 

[driewerf]

Evolution should be taught in public schools, and it should be a required subject for every child. All should be tested until they demonstrate that they fully understand it.

They then should be made to affirm by signature that they believe it.

 

[cricket0206]

A better question is, why would you NOT teach evolution?

Evolution is science, after all.

 

[sandwiches]

Evolution should be taught in public schools, and it should be a required subject for every child. All should be tested until they demonstrate that they fully understand it. They then should be made to affirm by signature that they believe it.

I say we shame and scare our kids into believing evolution and force them to perform a ritual of being dunked in water in front of their peers as a sign of their rebirth as evolution believers.