Difference between revisions of "Schools and evolution"
(tell me if this is more of an essay than an article) |
(Darwinian teaching would give children ‘ … a doctrine that refutes not only their belief in God, but their belief in a Savior and belief in heaven, and takes from them every moral standard that the Bi) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The motive for teaching [[evolution]] is to support the view that God does not exist, or exists but is unimportant. If schoolchildren were permitted to believe (and say) that evolution is less likely than [[intelligent design]], it would contradict the philosophical underpinnings of [[unguided evolution]]. This would lead students to question, even to reject, such [[materialism|materialist]] philosophies as [[atheism]] and [[secular humanism]]. | + | The motive for teaching [[evolution]] is to support the view that God does not exist, or exists but is unimportant. |
| + | |||
| + | {{quotebox|[[William Jennings Bryan]], the chief spokesman against evolution, was concerned that teaching evolution would undermine the biblical foundation for moral teaching. He said that Darwinian teaching would give children ‘ … a doctrine that refutes not only their belief in God, but their belief in a Savior and belief in heaven, and takes from them every moral standard that the Bible gives us’. [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5625/]}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | If schoolchildren were permitted to believe (and say) that evolution is less likely than [[intelligent design]], it would contradict the philosophical underpinnings of [[unguided evolution]]. This would lead students to question, even to reject, such [[materialism|materialist]] philosophies as [[atheism]] and [[secular humanism]]. | ||
A more honest way of teaching about evolution would not be to present it as an unquestionable dogma, but simply to tell pupils what it is, how many scientists of various types believe in it; then to present all the scientific evidence for and against it. | A more honest way of teaching about evolution would not be to present it as an unquestionable dogma, but simply to tell pupils what it is, how many scientists of various types believe in it; then to present all the scientific evidence for and against it. | ||
Revision as of 15:07, May 29, 2008
The motive for teaching evolution is to support the view that God does not exist, or exists but is unimportant.
William Jennings Bryan, the chief spokesman against evolution, was concerned that teaching evolution would undermine the biblical foundation for moral teaching. He said that Darwinian teaching would give children ‘ … a doctrine that refutes not only their belief in God, but their belief in a Savior and belief in heaven, and takes from them every moral standard that the Bible gives us’. [1]
If schoolchildren were permitted to believe (and say) that evolution is less likely than intelligent design, it would contradict the philosophical underpinnings of unguided evolution. This would lead students to question, even to reject, such materialist philosophies as atheism and secular humanism.
A more honest way of teaching about evolution would not be to present it as an unquestionable dogma, but simply to tell pupils what it is, how many scientists of various types believe in it; then to present all the scientific evidence for and against it.
For students who are mature enough to understand the philosophical implications, say, beginning with the upper three grades of high school, educators could explain the ideological links between evolution and various philosophical and political schools of thought: materialism, atheism, Eugenics, Nietzsche, etc.
Similar links could be explored for ideas which criticize evolution, such as Intelligent Design which accepts some aspects of evolution while denying the lack of guidance, and Creationism, which begins with the premise that God created everything; see Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism.