Postby Technomancer » Sun Apr 01, 2007 7:17 am
USSRGirl wrote:True. And you may still get teachers telling kids it's all a bunch of fables. I think the best way to go about this would be to present the historical evidence - both the pros and cons of the inerrancy of scripture or its historical content, and let kids decide on their own.
I've never been a fan of that kind of approach, at least as it pertains to arguments that attempt to establish something as being factual or not. The problem is that high schoolers (and most adults) simply do not have the education necessary to evaluate many of the claims being made by either side. I think it's far better instead to teach what is the broad consensus of archaeologists, linguists and other scholars on these matters as being authoritative. Where meaningful controversies exist (and are pertinent to the curriculum) these can and should be explored, although probably not in depth.
The scientific method," Thomas Henry Huxley once wrote, "is nothing but the normal working of the human mind." That is to say, when the mind is working; that is to say further, when it is engaged in corrrecting its mistakes. Taking this point of view, we may conclude that science is not physics, biology, or chemistry—is not even a "subject"—but a moral imperative drawn from a larger narrative whose purpose is to give perspective, balance, and humility to learning.
Neil Postman
(The End of Education)
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge
Isaac Aasimov