Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match!

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

A post in yesterday's Post and Courier caught my attention. An education committee has approved South Carolina not teaching "natural selection" as fact. From TFA:

[SC Senator Mike] Fair argued South Carolina's students are learning the philosophy of natural selection but teachers are not calling it such. He said the best way for students to learn is for the schools to teach the controversy.

"To teach that natural selection is the answer to origins is wrong," Fair said. "I don't have a problem with teaching theories. I don't think it should be taught as fact."
...
Ultimately, the committee approved all measures except that clause, which now gets sent back to the committee level for review. State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais said after the meeting he was not surprised by the debate that took place.

"This has been going on here in South Carolina for a long a time," Zais said. "We ought to teach both sides and let students draw their own conclusions."
I've read a lot of comments on this story on Slashdot (a tech news aggregator) and most of the posters think this is asinine. One particular comment sums it up as such:

The distinction between what is and is not "science" doesn't mean much to those who want to make sure that their kids are not taught lies in school.

Some people turn to religion to gain certainty where there is none. In order for this psychological device to work, they must honestly believe that the points of their religious teaching are inarguable fact, and that any evidence to the contrary is a result of either incompetence or deception. People who believe this don't give a hoot what is or is not "science," since they only care about what does or does not agree with their forgone conclusions.

"Teach the controversy," is the second-best stance that they take only because they know that "teach our religion as fact" is already a lost battle (but would still be the best option).

Trying to get logical consistency on these points is futile, since the basic motivation has nothing to do with challenging kids to think critically, and everything to do with ensuring that their kids don't lose their faith by going to school.
So is this a good thing or will it serve to drive the wedge of secularism even deeper?

Feb 11th 2014 new
(quote) Paul-1057122 said: A post in yesterday's Post and Courier caught my attention. An education committee has approved South Carolina not teaching "natural selection" as fact. From TFA:

[SC Senator Mike] Fair argued South Carolina's students are learning the philosophy of natural selection but teachers are not calling it such. He said the best way for students to learn is for the schools to teach the controversy.

"To teach that natural selection is the answer to origins is wrong," Fair said. "I don't have a problem with teaching theories. I don't think it should be taught as fact."
...
Ultimately, the committee approved all measures except that clause, which now gets sent back to the committee level for review. State Superintendent of Education Mick Zais said after the meeting he was not surprised by the debate that took place.

"This has been going on here in South Carolina for a long a time," Zais said. "We ought to teach both sides and let students draw their own conclusions."I've read a lot of comments on this story on Slashdot (a tech news aggregator) and most of the posters think this is asinine. One particular comment sums it up as such:

The distinction between what is and is not "science" doesn't mean much to those who want to make sure that their kids are not taught lies in school.

Some people turn to religion to gain certainty where there is none. In order for this psychological device to work, they must honestly believe that the points of their religious teaching are inarguable fact, and that any evidence to the contrary is a result of either incompetence or deception. People who believe this don't give a hoot what is or is not "science," since they only care about what does or does not agree with their forgone conclusions.

"Teach the controversy," is the second-best stance that they take only because they know that "teach our religion as fact" is already a lost battle (but would still be the best option).

Trying to get logical consistency on these points is futile, since the basic motivation has nothing to do with challenging kids to think critically, and everything to do with ensuring that their kids don't lose their faith by going to school.So is this a good thing or will it serve to drive the wedge of secularism even deeper?

It doesn't necessarily have to be either or.
Posts 1 - 2 of 2