Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Such flexibility would lead to teaching creation science
> as being just as valid as evolution in our schools.
I think this is a very deep, tough, and controversial issue. If we had a
catholic priest here to discuss this with ["thank god we don't" :) ], this
would be a tough discussion.
Overall, I think the preprogrammed nature of the school system as we have it
(the concept is the same over there as it is here) is a problem in itself.
The basic premise of education is that adults determine what kids should
learn, and then these facts are rammed down children's throats. And kids who
can't cope with this awful approach are deemed "problematic". Be it creation
science or evolution - ideally, kids would learn what they want to learn, at
the time they want to learn it. [Although it probably does get more
complicated than that.]
I think your assertion - "such flexibility would lead..." - is largely
irrelevant, because what is taught in schools is probably not what is
"right", it is what the majority wants kids to be taught. As in most human
conflicts, the decisive arguments here are arguments of force, not arguments
You and I are fortunate enough that what is taught in schools is largely
(but definitely not entirely) compatible with the way we think. Catholic
priests are, well, less fortunate.
Just my 2.35 Yen.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:25 MDT