|
Search this Blog:
Subscribe to Blog:
[ Friends ]
|
The following errors have occurred:
No data was found when trying to access the feed at: http://blog.higherthings.org/annajoy/rss.xml
|
|
|
Posted At: 6:35pm by Rachel Engebretson
|
Perhaps the most controversial of events in history is the very creation of life. Because no human was around to witness it, much speculation about the event is debated in scientific circles everywhere. While the majority of scientists believe life evolved from several generations, about 10,000 scientists (including 2,000 biologists) believe life exists from an outside creator. Incidentally, 90% of Americans consider themselves creationists in some form and agree with certain aspects of it, such as the consideration of the age of the earth.
Even with the number of Americans considering creationist science valuable, only 20% of public teachers teach both theories in biology classrooms. The reasoning behind this low number is the curriculum being presented to students. Almost all textbooks assume evolution is the basis of life, without mentioning the intelligent design theory at all. With the sheer number and bulk price of biology books and material only written in evolutionary terminology, it is simply easier to accept it as the only adequate theory to teach. Most biology teachers consider evolution true in every sense; for many it feels blasphemous to allow students to consider anything else. Several school districts across the nation also discourage any mention of intelligent design in public classrooms. Communities consisting of people who were taught evolution frown upon the teaching of anything which is not believed to be real science. It seems as though the Scopes vs. the State of Tennessee trial, the pivotal decision which allowed evolution to be taught in public schools, has reversed in today’s society to block anything else.
In response to this swelling debate, it is important to consider that science is composed entirely of theories; the theories themselves are fallible considerations which always retain the possibility of being disproved later. It is unfortunate that since creationism is affiliated very closely with religious belief, it is rejected entirely in public schools. Creationism can be considered science apart from religion; however, it is never treated as such. The theory that a generic intelligent designer created life on earth, while believed to be fact by many people, is still a theory in science.
Teaching all theories accepted by scientists is the fairest way to approach science when teaching children. Biology should, in no way, be excluded or excused from presenting material that many legitimate scientists find true. Both theories should be presented in some form during biology education. Any other approach would be unreasonable considering the amount of Americans who take creationism seriously. It is up for the student to decide what scientific theories coincide most closely with their own beliefs; making the decision for them is tantamount to teaching one religion in a public school. Science is continually being reexamined and reformulated. As different ideas are replaced with preexisting theories over time, it is ludicrous in respect to scientific honesty to ignore any community in science. Children in schools are trained to examine the world objectively, and the way to foster this approach most effectively is to teach both evolution and intelligent design in the classroom.
|
Posted On: March 28th, 2008 at 11:29pm by luvable lutheran |
Of course, the common complaint among Christians is that creation is not taught in public schools and universities, period. However, I agree when you write that all theories should be taught in our schools and universities. Thinking like an academic, you'd think that in addition to the evolution theory and intelligent design theory, that Academia would teach creation as a theolgy too. Afterall, they don't lend it any credibility do they? Comparing all three of these across the board with what they say and critically looking at where they fall short would be the appropriate thing to do. Yet, schools actually discriminate against Christianity, as they don't even consider it worthy to mention as a theory even though we know better.
A Baptist project partner and myself did decide to approach Christianity from an Academic perspective when we contrasted the "Christocnetric" theory with another theory we'd learned in our Biomedical Ethics Class applied to the Embryonic Stem Cell debate. I would encourage you in your courses if you are able to incorporate the Christ centered view/theory in your papers or presentations. You never know you might be teaching the professor or your fellow students a thing or two, in addition to sharing God's Word!
|
Posted On: March 29th, 2008 at 8:33am by Rachel Engebretson |
You're right. Too often academics let their biases get in the way of credible science. I'll have to look into the "Christocentric" approach. Thank you for the insights, Andrea!
|
Comment on entry entitled "Evolution and Creation in the Public Classroom"
You may use BBCode within your posts, a reference is available here.
|
|
|
|
