Quote Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro View Post
But some textbooks that teach evolution do teach it badly.
How so?

Creationism in school books is mostly harmless because in general it's an insignificant area, comparable to astronomy. The only use of it is to keep bad theories out. But getting some basic facts right that fundamentalists get wrong doesn't mean you don't have a bad theory. Do you know how many people use and have used evolutionary theory to argue for despicable things?
I know of instances it was used to justify terrible things, but the issue is not with the theory but with the people who wield it. You can't claim modern evolutionary theory is bad because people use it for justifying bad conclusions. We would all condemn organized religion if that was the case. But we shouldn't. Hence, why I complain about the fundamentalists as opposed to Christianity.


In a schoolroom environment (grade&high school) they do one of two things. A list of facts and information that people forget, because they have context, or don't know what to do with, because they have no context. Or they teach a simplified story along with the facts and info, and people end up believing they have solid reason to believe in that simplified story. This is many times worse than not teaching it at all.
Interesting. This might cause you distress, but my uni world history class has us reading a book called "Maps of Time" by David Christian. The purpose of the book is to combine the various sciences and social sciences together to make a coherent "Big History" of humanity, starting from the origin of the universe. A modern, scientific creation-myth story he semi-jokingly calls it in the intro.

It would be best if they merely tried to get students interested (for the young ones) and had them read primary sources, chronicles, journals, literature from the time etc (for high school). A heavy dose of that can make it a decent class with even the worst teacher. But it's one of the least teachable subjects. We usually don't have philosophy classes in high school, maybe we shouldn't have history classes either. Usually it's just someone who isn't truly qualified, teaching a simplified version of history that tells a message they believe in. In many countries this is a rabidly nationalist message.
Interesting idea. One I would entertain, but there are concerns I have. I guess that topic requires it's own thread.


Would you rather have too much fundamentalism than not enough?

Fundamentalists are a known quantity. They probably aren't going to change much. We have experience with the role of religion in political life.

Overvaluing science is as bad as promoting the idea that you should look for answers in religious doctrine. It's a way to not think. The fact that the government funds as much psychology as it does, and that people treat it as credulously as they do, is many times worse than having some congressman who is a creationist. They are directly comparable. If you believe that there is a scientific method for getting at important human truths then you think you can just read the results and know the truths. It's just like listening to a preacher or looking something up in the bible. The people who think otherwise believe, on some level, in a pro-science ideology and have a bias.
On some level, people don't want to think. OR at least, they do the bare minimum in order to survive. Whether it is at uni, or in their daily lives. What I want to know is why you are so concerned about the overzealous science supporters who demand money for ventures that at least have the benefit of giving us cool new stuff to play with and yet write off the fundamentalists who actively attempt at dictating people's lives and the information they do/do not get?