There are numerous admirable philosophies expressed by the good Pixie people here but few, if any, seem to have a firm grasp of just what the reality of applying these ideas in schools would be.

As the somewhat farcical and, in my opinion somewhat unhelpful (though nonetheless true), example of the Spaghetti Monster gives, as soon as you start advocating the teaching of numerous possibilities (whether in science classes, religion classes or something inbetween) it becomes impossible to draw a line.

'Intelligent Design' in its many guises is so resoundingly ambiguous as to make any claim for it to be a science obsolete. Strictly speaking the many formulations of it include all sorts of possibilities, from genuine theistic evolution, to Spaghetti Monsters. It would even be easy to argue that Evolutionary Theory is a case of Intelligent Design if you classed the 'Laws of Nature' which might be said to govern it as 'intelligent'.

People talk of the fairest way being of teaching the 'major' beliefs. But how are we to define 'major'? There will always be someone who if offended at having their beliefs rejected as not worthy for teaching.

Quite apart from this dilemma I think it's genuinely impossible to teach these sorts of things to young people - certainly without a major restructuring of the education system. The issues involved are just too complex. When the majority of adults who enter into the debate haven't considered issues such as where any deity might exist, how disembodied souls are supposed to exist and how biblical interpretation makes even 'Creationism' hard to define how are we supposed to expect those in high school to do it?

I would much rather see the emphasis of education be put on teaching children how to critically analyse, how to respect matters of opinion and letting them decide the rest for themselves. Unfortunately this only works in a world where parents can abide by the same rules - but that's a different issue.

I have to disagree with this I think it's one of the best time to teach something like this when they are young and still open to new ideas.

__________________
it's only kinky the first time

it's not the orgasm but getting there thats fun

a shot in the bush is worth two in the hand

whip me, beat me, tie me up, break my arm, but please don't break my heart

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid people are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" -Bertrand Russell

I am not an educator, nor am I a parent. However, I think that sometimes we don't give our kids enough credit for being able to understand ambiguity and different points of view. By the time kids reach high school, I think they should be able to understand the debate.

I believe the issue of seperating creationism from evolution -- into 2 seperate classes -- is that we'd be fundamentally calling one idea "science" and the other one "religion." Not sure everyone believes in this black and white difference. Especially when it comes to creationism.

I like Lixy's idea....and my mom exposed me to several Christian religions...but I hesitate to count on all parents to show this much concern for their kids' development of faith. Plus....many areas don't have access to the scope of religions I'd advocate covering in class. I spent a few months in NE Tennessee recently, and I saw no non-Christian "churces" in the neighborhood. Hard to expose one to Buddhism, Hinduism, Judiasm, Islam, and others when there are no local faithful. These "gaps" make an academic approach all that more crucial.

I'm enjoying hearing everyone's views. Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

__________________
Life is too short not to love and be loved....preferably multiple times in one night.

I think men talk to women so they can sleep with them and women sleep with men so they can talk to them. ~ Jay McInerney

I would dearly love to hear that we are socially mature enough to teach the basic tenets of all religions to our kids aimed at giving them a social flexibility and tolerance we struggle to achieve.

It's not going to happen, as I cannot imagine ardent followers of any of the major religions teaching the good things about the competition.

We are flawed and jaded, but the fact we still care gives just a smidgin of hope.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

Despite all that, I still think this about as spot on as one can get when it comes to religious education.

I still think it was the women from Mars who mess up the human race.

__________________

I've heard that one before. Has merit.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

I'd have to agree with you it would be a great time to teach them such things - before they've developed and misconceptions or personal bias.

But I wasn't saying it was a bad time to teach them. I was saying that it's impossible to teach them everything at that age. Just because it's theoretically a good time doesn't mean that we should do it.

Quite apart from issues of complexity (and I don't think that Osuche is right that children should understand - these are deep issues and require not only some life experience but also some incredibly complex philosophy) I think there is simply too much to teach them.

Much rather have grounded individuals who are literate and numerate even if they've still much to learn about these things. Are we really proposing to teach them a good understanding of all the world's major religions (again, how many of them exactly? 5? 10? 25? - the number of possible religions in this world is, after all, infinite), a firm grasp of the numerous different theories about how the world came into being, the skills to be able to properly compare what they are told AND everything else they are supposed to learn at school?!

It takes some people most of their lives to understand one religion properly and we're advocating teaching the most influential ones to children in a few years? As well as everything else?