Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Alice Roberts says no to teaching creationism in our schools!
#11
I have always wanted to debate creationists about God's intentions to those who were born and died before Christ's message reached them. If we accept for the sake of argument that the earth is 6000 years old, and that the Good News only reached the UK a maximum of 2000 years ago, this means that everyone born before this point, some 4000 years of souls, cannot be in heaven. So where are these people? Is god so strict that they're in Hell, and if so did he really create a system where people were born to fail for thousands of years? Or is he all love in which case do good pagans go to heaven? If the latter whats the point of being a Christian if good people go to heaven? Or perhaps Christ's central message, regardless of what the Church has added on, simply to love thy neighbour, is enough? Are there any creationists out there who would care to comment?
Reply
#12
one or two last words on this non-issue:

1:this is not a matter for the law - cirriculums are agreed by education bodies, and a school/teacher who operates outside of those already faces proffesional penalties.

2:this is definatley not a matter for the law - it behoves us to remember that evolutionary theory was itself was once seen is laughable/highly-damaging to young minds (depending on view piont) and subject to court cases- do we really want a 'Legal Ban' on somebody elses view of life or to wear those shoes? (note piont 1 above)

[done.]
Reply
#13
Can't resist Smile

Yes but no.

Take an extreme view.....what about a religion that say for an extreme view, practices and encourages infanticide. Should it be ok for members of this religion to teach their views in schools?

People's views shouldn't be banned..........but teaching/spreading them, indoctrination should be. And yes I do mean all the current religions too.
Reply
#14
Jack Wrote:People's views shouldn't be banned..........but teaching/spreading them, indoctrination should be. And yes I do mean all the current religions too.
Does that include postprocessualism?
Reply
#15
pdurdin Wrote:Does that include postprocessualism?

Grin..............very good question.

The Post-processual movement is a part of the history of archaeological thought. It did happen, so should be taught in that respect.............but never as an indoctrination!
Reply
#16
Jack Wrote:The Post-processual movement is a part of the history of archaeological thought. It did happen, so should be taught in that respect.............but never as an indoctrination!
Which is an equally valid argument for teaching creationism in science classes... :face-angel:
Reply
#17
pdurdin Wrote:Which is an equally valid argument for teaching creationism in science classes... :face-angel:

How so? By definition Creationism a religion not a science
Reply
#18
Jack Wrote:How so? By definition Creationism a religion not a science
Because if you teach the history of pre-19th century science without the creationist context then you're leaving out significant parts of the story.
Reply
#19
pdurdin Wrote:Because if you teach the history of pre-19th century science without the creationist context then you're leaving out significant parts of the story.
not really. creationism as we know it is a 20th century construct invented specifically to provide a rationale for sustaining bigotry in the overwhelming face of post Darwinian science
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Reply
#20
Hm, may I throw an interesting little sideline at you all?
Now Im no expert like other august members- but there are other text for which, it can be argued, there is equally, or even less proof that the events recorded are true, that ARE accepted by archaeology. The most obvious one is the King list, from which a lot of Sumerian chronology is derived. Similarly Egyptian chronology, Mayan inscriptions...heck even the chronology of the "Dark Ages" has been in doubt (the King Otto question).

Perhaps its how Creationism and other theories, should be used in the teaching of science. Some say on here that Creationists are "nutters"- but what is there about this theory that has so many people believing in it even in modern times? Working from there- a case can be made for looking for the evidence for the theory (laying aside the Good Book and the 6006BC date)- and one then can even bring in the Bible and examine some of the suggestions in it in terms of modern science- in the same way "Intelligent Designers" like Richard Dawkins have interpreted sections. From there- the theory can then equally be de-constructed. That way kids can look at any theory and evaluate pros and cons- even evolution!

Isnt that the way Archaeology and other sciences should work?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Archaeology in Schools Dirty Boy 8 5,115 28th September 2014, 09:04 PM
Last Post: vulpes
  Teaching with Texts and Artefacts BAJR 1 1,124 8th June 2013, 10:31 AM
Last Post: BAJR
  Update on aerial photography suitable for YACs and schools etc John Wells 3 2,028 25th January 2013, 02:26 PM
Last Post: John Wells
  Roberts and Wrathmell's Atlas of Rural Settlement in England now available as GIS dat BAJR 1 1,696 23rd March 2011, 01:42 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Time Travelling by Water - Wessex Schools Collection BAJR 1 1,228 28th August 2010, 05:10 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Post Doctoral Teaching Assistant /Researcher in Early Prehistoric Archaeology BAJR 1 1,101 23rd July 2010, 06:04 PM
Last Post: BAJR
  Teaching A Level Classical Civ. & Archaeology Bones 8 2,723 14th November 2009, 05:39 PM
Last Post: Bones
  Tuition in field schools renegades 5 2,522 18th May 2009, 03:38 PM
Last Post: renegades

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)