Legal Eagle

Timely article given that we have recently worshipped rabbits, eggs, chocolate and resurrection from the dead.

Science is as fundamental to the education of children as learning to speak, read, write and of course perform basic maths. Basic scientific concepts such as you described regarding the various states of H2O and the reasons are easily understood at an early age. And vital, why should any child believe that thunder is caused by deities in the sky?

We should never underestimate the learning ability of children - they are sponges for knowledge as the Jesuits all too knowingly observed; "give me a child until s/he is seven and I will give you the adult (sic)".

Personal history: I was reading about Darwin, thanks to my parents, (neither of whom were scientists but noted my interest) at age 6 - they bought a child's illustrated version of the "Origin of the Species" and that foundation ensured I breezed through biology and botany at school and beyond. This foundation also enhanced my ability to question and not to accept blatant statements at face value.

I have no issue teaching about religion and mythology, in fact I believe an understanding of religion is imperative in the development of children's understanding of sociology, however science needs to be placed rightfully alongside the basic three "R"s as described in my second paragraph.

The "creation" Museum aint faith. It is pig-headed no nothing ignorance.
It is even recognized as such by most Christians.

I agree with most of what is said in this article and was dismayed at the proposed mixing the empirical science of the West with traditional accounts as if they have the same epistemological basis. Inclusiveness is not a good criterion for producing a science curriculum. Western science is unique and is the basis for the success of all our technologies. It is therefore mere political correctness to include understandings of nature that are not based on the empirical method.

However, underlying the article is the assumption that if it is not science, that is, if it is not testable, then it is not true. This produces a dualism between science and faith that cannot be sustained. As usual this error is the result of an exclusively scientific education, as the author admits, and the complete ignorance of how Christian theology functions. There is no abandonment of reason, otherwise nothing intelligible could be said. Indeed, the medieval theologians were obsessed with reason. Of course they did not have the description of how the natural world worked and were not limited by its constraints. Contemporary theologians do have this description and theological discourse must take it into account. Faith and reason must go hand in hand.

The problem with the attitude that only science is true is that by far the vast ranged of human experience is excluded from consideration. While we may understand how the material world works we are at a loss as to how we live our lives. This is deeper than any ethical commitment that we might think is a good thing, but it about our deepest identity as human beings. The fact that the content of faith may not be examined in a laboratory does not mean that it is not true in its way. It does describe a reality, the reality of the human “being unto death.” The problem that has arisen between faith and science is when it appears that faith has a deficient understanding of how the world works. Of course it has! It is a product of pre-scientific culture.

Peter Sellick

Good article - the proposal to include non-scientific explanations of natural phenomena in school science may be well-intentioned, but it is deeply flawed. Such worldviews belong in philosophy or comparative religion classes.

Mind you, that's exactly where any faith or theologically based perspective belongs - including that of Christianity - for epistemological and ontological reasons.

"However, underlying the article is the assumption that if it is not science, that is, if it is not testable, then it is not true. This produces a dualism between science and faith that cannot be sustained. As usual this error is the result of an exclusively scientific education, as the author admits, and the complete ignorance of how Christian theology functions. There is no abandonment of reason, otherwise nothing intelligible could be said. Indeed, the medieval theologians were obsessed with reason. Of course they did not have the description of how the natural world worked and were not limited by its constraints. Contemporary theologians do have this description and theological discourse must take it into account. Faith and reason must go hand in hand."

How badly does this comment err - shall I count the ways?

Nah - there are too many errors in Peter Sellick's comment to enumerate in 14 lines of iambic pentameter. Rhyme was never my metier and I don't want to debase a very fine sonnet. I shall merely note the first error in that paragraph - the opening sentence, which misrepresents Leagle Eagle's (LE) argument completely. LE's point is that if it ain't science then it doesn't belong in the science class. Her atheism is immaterial to the matter at hand - what should be taught in science classes? Um, science of course.

That initial error is compounded with irrelevances, an unsupported inference that LE is ignorant of Christian theology and then the insinuation that as the recipient of a defective education, deficient in religious instruction, LE is necessarily deficient in reason. All of these rather offensive sentiments are cloaked with a veneer of civility which is just a little bit too thin for my taste.

I'll be back later in the day to see how the cats and pigeons are getting along.

"The problem with the attitude that only science is true..." is not what I took from the article.

I thought the point about 'science' is that a fact is a fact until it is moved aside with a new fact....it is never actually 'true', just 'the best explanation to date'.

Faith is 'always correct'.

That's why Christians ignore the origins of Easter and Christmas and insist on pretending that these age old festivals existed well before Jesus dropped by.

Theologians play games with words, and are not interested in any form of 'truth' at all, just in shoring up whatever it is they believe in, that is, have 'faith' in.

How's this as far as the value of faith goes, "It is a product of pre-scientific culture"?

Indeed...it is, and it may be an interesting diversion to ponder, 'what's it all about' but the 'faith' view refuses to consider that 'it' might not be 'about' anything at all.

Perhaps there is no 'purpose' to life at all?

And, gazing around the world, driven by the 'deeply religious' political hum-buggers, and the business and religious/faith leaders we all suffer under, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that they are all scammers of the first order, dragging the deaf, blind and mute by their nose rings in a pointless pursuit of power (other than possessing that power), through human abuse, arms trading, war, and 'organised crime', better known as 'globalisation' and capitalism.

Our schools are ill-equipped to educate anyone, preferring only to further promote the hegemonic thinking that keeps our world spinning.

As far as teaching science goes, it is purely optional in Qld because Ed Qld is really an extension of the Christian churches, allowing ID and Creationism to be taught instead of science.

Christian churches assist with curriculum writing of the QSA, the people charged by Bligh to write the State's school curriculum.

And of course, Ed Qld is not a secular public educator and has not been for the last 100 years.

So, why would anyone expect 'science' to be taught in our schools here?