www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:- Calvin, Aquinas, Luther, etc. all have a historical place; but the sunject of their teachings has no place in secular education.

I bet we're actually in agreement on this one as well. But to be clear. I agree that an extended theological discussion is uncalled for.

However the context here was:

"a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century"

Which is a "secular" angle.

In short while I don't think history should preach religion or get into the depths of theology, one can't deny that religion has been a major factor in the history of, well, everywhere I think. Removing it is clearly altering an accurate representation of history.

Agreed. Teaching about a person's impact is not the same as a theological dissection, however.

Personally I think, if you are going to teach Calvin then you had better be prepared to teach Hobbes as well.

...and here we are.

Honestly, I can't believe it took this long.

I was trying to hold it in...

We don't ahve this kind of nonsense here, thankfully. But if we ever do... well I decided a long time ago that I don't lie to my students. If I am ever required to "teach the controversy" about evolution I'll do so in a simple way : "there isn't one." Job done.

GrahamKennedy wrote:If I am ever required to "teach the controversy" about evolution I'll do so in a simple way : "there isn't one." Job done.

I can think of a better way: "Some people claim that evolution doesn't happen because of a, b and c. They're wrong because of x, y and z."

Guys, you know that I respect the hell out of ya.....but I have to disagree with you here. Evolution is still a THEORY with as much validity at this point as CREATIONISM. I truly feel that both theories should be presented equally to encourage independant thought.

As soon as one can be PROVEN, they should be carefully treated as such.

Is my sarcasm metre broken or are you fucking stupid?

Likely a little of both.

However, it does stand as a "Theory" until proven to be a fact, correct?

Captain Seafort wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:If I am ever required to "teach the controversy" about evolution I'll do so in a simple way : "there isn't one." Job done.

I can think of a better way: "Some people claim that evolution doesn't happen because of a, b and c. They're wrong because of x, y and z."

Nope. I won't dignify it with an argument, and more than I am going to take the time to explain that the moon isn't really made of green cheese or the sun isn't really pulled across the sky by a god in a chariot.

I think it needs to be taught, insofar as it is a belief held by a significant number of people. It doesn't need to be presented as a viable alternative to evolutionism, though, as it is almost invariably tied to theology.

As the two major theories out there, equal time should go to each. Remember, I went to a Christian High School where they spend nearly nine weeks teaching creationism, and then two whole days on evolution. It's not fair to the individual to present one side and not the other. Let people make up their own minds.

At least address the issue. If there's something, pretty much anything, where people are arguing about it night and day, and someone tells me there isn't any controversy, I figure that either they don't know enough about the subject to discuss it, or they "drank the Kool Aid" so to speak.

Also before you send your students out to look stupid, you might want to mention that while core concepts in evoltion are verifiable, many other aspects regarding specific creatures and the like are just hypothesis or speculation and so you shouldn't be overly surprised if they find out that T-Rexs were actually pink or whatever.

...T-Rexs were actually pink or whatever.

I hope not.