I'm suggesting it's rude and confusing to teach a subject that the parents of nhearly half the class don't believe in, without acknowledging those beliefs.
I see you on these threads all the time, so I know you find this subject fascinating to debate. I bet you learn a lot about both the subject, and your fellow citizens from such discussion and debate. Let the kids do the same.
It really does not need to be not all that complicated.
I see you on these threads all the time, so I know you find this subject fascinating to debate. I bet you learn a lot about both the subject, and your fellow citizens from such discussion and debate. Let the kids do the same.
It really does not need to be not all that complicated.
Not, it is not complicated. Science operates under a particular set of rules, the scientific method. These (in short) define what science studies and how it studies it. So how would you like science to "acknowledge those beliefs?" As superstition? Myth? As being unsupported by science? Do you want a full evaluation, as occurs in science, of, say, the stories of a global flood or the tower of Babel? I would guess that you would not be happy with the result.
To be true to its methods, science would have to say that there is no scientific evidence for creationism and ID. Is that what you want? You want science to detail various religious beliefs and then say that there is no scientific evidence for those beliefs?
Perhaps it is better to leave well enough alone.
Would you complain if the school system decided to teach alchemy as an alternative to chemistry or astrology vs. astronomy in science class?
And I suggest that enabling mythological beliefs and ignorance of science in the schools is wrong. If half of parents refused to believe in gravity, would we simply stop teaching it so we don't offend???