God made us

Gotta love contemporary schools. Recently I attended graduation services for my pre kindergarten grandson. He is now 5 and has had almost as many graduations as I have had.

This preschool is associated with a Baptist Church. Part of the graduation service, the children repeated lines of a mini catechism.

One of the lines was God made me.

And I am OK with that teaching. I am sure that many here on LT would not be OK.

My question though is why cannot God made me be presented with something about the science. Some reference to evolution, to the connectedness of creation.

Can we begin at early ages to teach the science, keeping the biblical stories if the particular school is so affiliated.

And I don't think that this is specific to a Baptist preschool. I think other denominational schools would as well teach God made us, and the Genesis creation and the flood.

Do other church related preschools teach God made us without approaching the science of life and evolution and our place in the world and the cosmos? our connectedness to other life and to non life?

For secular schools, is there an effort at this early age to teach the story of life and the Earth?

Is there a secular story similar to Creation, Adam and Eve, and Noah, that can be told at early ages?

It seemed like we gave an answer to 5 year olds, rather that opening minds with the questions?

>1 richardbsmith: For secular schools, is there an effort at this early age to teach the story of life and the Earth?

From what I remember of my early, mostly secular education, "science" began with a general overview of what you could call the physical laws (lots of mild but entertaining experiments designed to show what "heat" was or how things were affected by cold) and a rundown on the various categories of scientific knowledge -- astronomy, biology, geology (although in 1st grade we talked about stars, animals and rocks).

I think I got the creation of the solar system theory in middle school? 5th grade, maybe? (I can picture the classroom) Spinning gaseous cloud of stuff with pockets that glommed together because of their own gravitational attraction and ended up becoming the planets?

I may have repressed it, but I did spend a number of years in a Catholic school and I don't remember them ever teaching anything that I would now call scientifically inaccurate.

>1 richardbsmith:

It seemed like we gave an answer to 5 year olds, rather that opening minds with the questions?

Yes.

The point of religious indoctrination is drumming the "god made you" into young heads, the younger the better. Later on sophistry and casuistry will be added so that lip service can be paid to "critical thinking". As for "opening" minds via religion, ha!... good luck to anyone who tries.

>2 southernbooklady:

Is there a story of evolution or of the origins of the Earth that can be told appropriate to an early age?

It is interesting that you do not remember the Catholic school teaching anything scientifically inaccurate. I missed out on the Catholic school experience.

We have the story of the 7 day creation. I really don't know if that was presented at the pre kindergarten in the Baptist school. I was just struck at the reciting of the catechism - God made us.

Is there a similar story that can be told, based on the science?

Is the catechism that God made us an answer that may end further questions, or does it lead to more questioning about how and when God made us?

I am not here attempting to engage in a polemic. Is there a similar story that can be told?

I believe Genesis was taught, but not as "science". I was allowed to sit out the period of the class that covered religion since I wasn't Catholic. The sisters let me go to the library and read.

Older than the stars

Our Family Tree

Born With a Bang

Maybe these are examples of some stories for younger people.

>1 richardbsmith:

My question though is why cannot God made me be presented with something about the science. Some reference to evolution, to the connectedness of creation.

I am a little bemused why you would want, let alone expect, a Baptist preschool to teach evolution to a 5 year old.

It seemed like we gave an answer to 5 year olds, rather that opening minds with the questions?

Five year olds have many questions, age appropriate questions. They should be encouraged to ask them and their teachers should answer them. They should certainly be exposed to science and technology. The state I live in has a new standard curriculum, that includes Pre-K and has a lot of good stuff. "Pre-K students focus on experiencing and making observations of the world around them."

But evolution is too hard a concept for a 5 year to get their head around. It's hard for many 55th graders too. The science standard doesn't pick up that thread until 2nd grade and doesn't get to any depth until 5th grade. Which seems all very appropriate to me.

Beside, by the time they get to 12th grade, the Theory of Evolution will have evolved (as is it nature). Better wait to see how the story turns instead of having to correct the errors of an earlier time.

>1 richardbsmith:

Also, "God made me" is a perfectly reasonable religious answer to the Baptist Pre-K student's question "Why are we?". Actually, its a perfectly reasonable religious answer to any Christian, Muslim, Jewish and many other other religious student of any age. I really don't see why this particular answer bothers you.

If I answered my 5 yo with a question, she would likely kick me and ask again.

And rightly so. How can you stand on the shoulders of giants, if all they do is tell you to work it out yourself?

>2 southernbooklady:, >4 richardbsmith:

I also had a Catholic education and I don't recall anything scientifically inaccurate being taught, but then Catholics are not creationists nor bible literalists.

>7 rrp: But evolution is too hard a concept for a 5 year to get their head around

So are many scientific concepts, but you start simply and in a way that is age-appropriate and that lays foundations which don't contradict what we know. As you say (with a different intent, I think), "instead of having to correct the errors of an earlier time". But of course you are coming from a US context; in most of the world evolution is not controversial.

>8 rrp: "God made me" is a perfectly reasonable religious answer

And here I agree with you. Religion answers certain types of questions, science answers others, and there should be no contradiction between the two.

>10 John5918:

So are many scientific concepts...

Absolutely. According to the Baptists, God made magnetism too. Yet magnetism isn't introduced until 3rd Grade at the earliest -- forces at a distance are a difficult subject for a 5 year old. You are right, this is all about the "controversy" surrounding evolution. Magnetism is not so controversial any more.

If less fuss were made here (on both sides), keeping science and religion separate, as they should be by law, there would be no issue. What would help greatly is if teachers made it clear that no one is required to "believe" in evolution. They have to understand it, to be sure, but whether they believe in it or not is a religious question and should be kept out of the science classroom.

I think there is a story to be told, similar to the God made us story, with Noah and Adam and Eve. A story that is age appropriate.

And that story may be in the books I linked above.

As far as waiting until later to begin that story, for fear that science may change? I am not sure that I agree with that for multiple reasons.

>12 richardbsmith:

Well first, none of those books are suitable for Pre-K; they contain material for much older children.

As far as waiting until later to begin that story, for fear that science may change? I am not sure that I agree with that for multiple reasons.

One of the important characteristics of science that the new standards emphasize is "Scientific knowledge is open to revision in light of new evidence." It is important that people understand that scientific knowledge isn't fixed, it is previsionary, continent, evolving. And Evolution has evolved and is evolving more than most science.

Take Newton's Theory of Gravity. It hasn't evolved. It has been superseded (by Einstein), but it's still useful and still taught.

Take Darwin's Theory of Evolution. It hasn't been superseded by a new theory of evolution. It has evolved into a form Darwin would have a hard time understanding. No one uses "On the Origin of Species" as a text book in a modern classroom. (Newton had the advantage that physics is much easier than biology.) Sure, some basic elements remain, but much baggage has been added, and it's still evolving. It hasn't yet gelled. For example, the kin selection debate still rumbles on. Evolutionary theorists are an argumentative bunch, and quite right too. We shouldn't pretend otherwise.

>1 richardbsmith:

Is there a secular story similar to Creation, Adam and Eve, and Noah, that can be told at early ages?

Most parents of small children that I know have kids who think dinosaurs are amazing. It's not a story on par with "God made us," but it does decenter humanity in existence.

>14 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Right on. For all that humility is a traditional Christian virtue, even the traditional Christian virtue according to some sources, the "Biblical" cosmology is mind-blowingly anthropocentric, and oh-so-charismatic dinosaurs prospering for a longer age than humanity will likely see are a huge threat to that worldview. Hence the glorious Jesus-riding-a-dino image.

One of my 3 or 4 questions about things is the anthropocentricity of religion. And perhaps that is mostly the patriarchal religions. It might be a good discussion for LT Religion to consider the comparative perspectives of man in creation across religions.

My grandson loved(s) dinosaurs. And sharks.

Surely there is a story to be told, that is not overly detailed. We do not need to teach Hardy Weinberg equilibrium in kindergarten, yet there is a story there that captivates. Both with life and with cosmology.

If the concern is the need to unlearn something, then might children be forced to unlearn the flood, the 7 day creation, and the story of Adam and Eve, if those stories are simply taught without context and without the simultaneous telling of the other stories?

We already have to unlearn Santa Claus.

I tend to think there's value in the very experience of unlearning.

Which is not to justify the deliberate teaching of patent falsehoods.

The Baptist's would, of course, teach that God made the dinosaurs and the sharks.

But I am still not getting what you are so concerned about. Please explain.

BTW. There is plenty of age appropriate scientifically valid literature for 5 years olds.

http://www.scholastic.com/parents/books-and-reading/book-lists-and-recommendatio...

Why not stick with that?

rrp,

In the OP, it was mentioned that I think is not limited to Baptist schools, and other church schools with similarly literal interpretation. If it is so limited, then I am simply asking about the story that is told by other denominations, along with Genesis creation, and by secular schools without Genesis creation.

I also mentioned that I am OK with God made us part, as far as that goes. God made us can be an overlay onto evolution and cosmology, should that be desirable.

During the ceremony, my first question was whether telling a child that God did it suggested to that child that there is little need to pursue further the question of origins.

(An aside, God did it can be the final answer for many things.)

Then I thought about the religious affiliation. What is the responsibility of the church to communicate the science, along with the biblical stories. Is that responsibility different for a Baptist affiliated school and for a Methodist or a Catholic affiliated school?

Keep in mind that this school is not a church summer bible school program, but is intended to prepare for the 1st grade.

Then I wondered if there is an age level equivalent that presents origins and conveys ideas of humanity's place in the cosmos.

And that is my question.

Is there such a story? for young children?

>14 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

>16 richardbsmith: the anthropocentricity of religion

Questions that religion asks include who are we and why are we here. It's hardly surprising that some communities several thousand years ago tended to answer those questions not only anthropocentrically but also in terms of their own particular group. That's precisely the problem with interpreting any ancient religious text literally, or with assuming that its narrative is scientific fact rather than creation myth.

Many within Christianity are exploring a new cosmology. Thomas Berry speaks of a "new story", a new story which is not anthropocentric. While I grant that he is not very mainstream, there are many within Christianity who have become aware of the need for a new narrative and it's evolving in different areas. It hasn't crystallised yet, nor spread very widely, and within certain branches of US evangelical protestantism it probably hasn't even begun, but it's there. The Catholic teaching document Laudato Si' and the Episcopal Church declaration that climate denial is immoral are two recent examples of this process.

>17 paradoxosalpha: there's value in the very experience of unlearning

Yes. Or rather, perhaps it's not so much that the myth itself needs to be unlearned but more the use, purpose or place of the myth. It has to be set into context; this is the narrative which helps to explain where our group is coming from, not literally but religiously, culturally, socially, etc.

And of course many forms of spirituality teach that each one of us as an individual needs to learn humility and unlearn the arrogance that we are the centre of everything.

>16 richardbsmith: We already have to unlearn Santa Claus

Do we? I don't think so. We only need to unlearn a particular childish interpretation of the stories. We don't have to unlearn the stories themselves.

Totally OT, but there's a pretty hilarious "counter-unlearning" of Santa Claus in Ishmael Reed's novels The Terrible Twos and The Terrible Threes. Has anyone here read them?

>21 John5918:

Mayhap the value in unlearning simply lies in learning that what one has learned doesn't necessarily count for shit.