> Timothy Bates <tbates@karri.bhs.mq.edu.au> wrote:
> I think this is actually an inevitable problem with state-sponsored
> education. In part, the Americanisation of creationism is a reflection
> not of their dogmatism, but of their love of freedom from state
> influence.
Huh?
A state-sponsored education can either be constructed to promote uniformity or promote diversity. Most importantly, it can be constructed to promote "belief in existing memes" or "critical thinking". Whether the state is involved or not, the critical factor is what is being "sponsored" or "taught".
I question this whole "Americanisation of creationism" perspective! I had a long conversation over Microsoft NetMeeting with a couple of "Christians" from New Zealand a few weeks ago. It isn't "where" you are from, but how much you have been brainwashed that counts.
> If the only curriculum allowed is one that is universally sanctioned,
> then there is no curriculum.
Not true. Indviduals who are open-minded could certainly
teach "critical thinking" followed by a variety of examples
from various religious/non-religious perspectives. The essential
component is transfering "belief/faith" into the "subject to
critical review" realm.
> If you refuse to allow people to determine their own individual
> curricula, then fights like these are inevitable at the margins.
It depends entirely on the individual. I, for one could present a very balanced perspective to students in a variety of areas. I would argue for very critical thinking. I would presume that Max would be the best individual to comment on this topic since he has had to teach these subjects and deal with the underlying belief systems.
Robert