Evolution in history class?

[RickD]

Well,

My son started his sophomore year in high school yesterday. He told me today what he's learning in history class. He's learning primate to man evolution. In history class. Now I fully expected that a public school would teach evolution. But in history class?

Shouldn't evolution be under the realm of science. Isn't evolution a scientific theory?

It looks like I may have to sit in on this class.

[bippy123]

Well,

My son started his sophomore year in high school yesterday. He told me today what he's learning in history class. He's learning primate to man evolution. In history class. Now I fully expected that a public school would teach evolution. But in history class?

Shouldn't evolution be under the realm of science. Isn't evolution a scientific theory?

It looks like I may have to sit in on this class.

HMm Rick, I guess they want to get doctrine to be taught in as many areas of school as possible, maybe its being taught in the only right place after all

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Well, Evolution is of historical importance. I don't see anything wrong with presenting it in a history class. May I make a suggestion? Buy your son a copy of Darwin's Origin of Species and encourage him to read it by promising something he likes when he finishes the book...

FL

[B. W.]

Well,

My son started his sophomore year in high school yesterday. He told me today what he's learning in history class. He's learning primate to man evolution. In history class. Now I fully expected that a public school would teach evolution. But in history class?

Shouldn't evolution be under the realm of science. Isn't evolution a scientific theory?

It looks like I may have to sit in on this class.

Back to School...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

Be sure to video tape!

Ask the teacher who was there recording primate to human - did Cheta the Chimp write it all down ?
-
-
-

[Ivellious]

Is he learning the history of the study of evolution, perhaps? I could see learning about the people involved with the study of evolution in a history class, but studying ancient, prehistoric events is, by definition, outside the realm of the general definition of "history." It's paleontology, if anything.

Then again, my public high school only taught us about evolution in biology class, and even then it was only a super brief mention that Darwin hypothesized that species change over time. As much as we like to think that "standardized education" is how public schools operate, every state has its own curriculum guidelines, and every school district has its own rules, too. And plenty of teachers are given pretty much free reign to teach what they want unless someone complains.

[RickD]

Is he learning the history of the study of evolution, perhaps? I could see learning about the people involved with the study of evolution in a history class, but studying ancient, prehistoric events is, by definition, outside the realm of the general definition of "history." It's paleontology, if anything.

It's only the first day he was taught anything. But from what he said, it seems like he's being taught evolution itself. And from what my son said, I don't think the teacher is even accurately teaching what evolution really is. I'm waiting for some kind of book, study guide, or homework, so I can see what's going on.

I vaguely remember being taught about evolution. But it was in some kind of science class.

[melanie]

Well,

My son started his sophomore year in high school yesterday. He told me today what he's learning in history class. He's learning primate to man evolution. In history class. Now I fully expected that a public school would teach evolution. But in history class?

Shouldn't evolution be under the realm of science. Isn't evolution a scientific theory?

It looks like I may have to sit in on this class.

So interesting you should bring this up, I had a very similar situation with my son last week, he is in yr 7. That is his first year of high school over here, the students are 12-13. So a little younger than your son.
He goes to a catholic school, we are not catholic but I made that choice because the state schools in our area are just not up to the same educational standard. At the school they have a new way of integrating classes, maths is the only subject that is kept separate, oh and practical PE. the rest of the classes are integrated into each other to what they call CLE's they interchange over the year, so a class could be history, religion and science all rolled into one CLE. That is one of his CLE's at the moment.
We were sitting at the dinner table and I overheard him say to my daughter, "you know Adam and Eve isn't real, it's just a made up story" my daughter responded " yes it is real, it's in the bible, don't you believe in the bible" he said "I know it's in the bible but it's like the story of Noah and the flood, it's not real, there's no evidence" I was gobsmacked listening in, wondering where he got this from, certainly not from home. Then he said "we didn't come from Adam and Eve we are learning about otzi the ice-man and early neanderthals, we evolved from apes, there is proof for that"
I asked him where he got this information from, he told me his teacher at school, in CLE B, (this is a history, science and religion class) I asked him if the teacher specifically said, Adam and Eve and Noah are made up stories with no proof and not real, I badgered the poor kid, I just wanted to make sure that this was exactly what the teacher was saying, he said that those were her exact words.
At a catholic school, in a combined religion class.
I went through catholic schooling, we learnt about the accounts in the bible in religion, we were taught they were real. Then would walk into science and learn about evolution. Now it seems they are teaching in religion that the stories in the bible are just bogus. What next? That the bible itself is not the inspired word of God. That Jesus isn't real?
I had a talk with him, he just said, "mum, your not a teacher, I think the teacher knows what's she talking about"
"Yeah, clearly she doesn't have a clue!" I was going to go to the school and complain, I haven't yet, what's the point, it's not like they will change the curriculum because I go and have a whinge.

[RickD]

Mel,

I believe the official position of the Catholic Church says Adam and Eve were real people.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Maybe Byblos would know a little more.

[PaulSacramento]

Mel,

I believe the official position of the Catholic Church says Adam and Eve were real people.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Maybe Byblos would know a little more.

Correct.
My daughters go to a Catholic school and they teach evolution in science class.
It is also taught as PART of history class ( human history).

[melanie]

This is combined science, history and religion class. He was adamant that his teacher told him that they weren't true. I have never heard him speak like that before. Thank you, I think I will go to the school, if they are teaching something outside of the position of the Catholic Church then I would have a case against the curriculum they are teaching. It's just tricky because of this new ridiculous way of blending subjects together. But I guess it doesn't matter what subject it is, a teacher shouldn't be telling the kids that full stop.

[PaulSacramento]

It should also be noted that we did NOT evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor with apes.
Anyone stating that should not be teaching evolution.

[melanie]

This has been my issue with the integrating of subjects. Is the teacher a science teacher, a history teacher or a religious teacher? A science teacher not qualified to do so and a religious teacher not qualified either by the sound of it.

[Byblos]

Mel,

I believe the official position of the Catholic Church says Adam and Eve were real people.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Maybe Byblos would know a little more.

Yes, the literal Adam and Eve is de fide. But this does not preclude traditional evolutionary understanding since a literal Adam and Eve could literally have been the first man and woman made in God's image (i.e. as in spiritual image).

[PaulSacramento]

Mel,

I believe the official position of the Catholic Church says Adam and Eve were real people.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Maybe Byblos would know a little more.

Yes, the literal Adam and Eve is de fide. But this does not preclude traditional evolutionary understanding since a literal Adam and Eve could literally have been the first man and woman made in God's image (i.e. as in spiritual image).

Since Genesis 2 refers to the happenings in the Garden of Eden in specific and not the whole world/universe as Genesis 1 does, it has been reconciled by some that Adam and Eve were indeed real people, even the first ever humans since there isn't really a timeline for when the Garden was made and how long they were there for.

[Morny]

Mel,

I believe the official position of the Catholic Church says Adam and Eve were real people.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

Maybe Byblos would know a little more.

Yes, the literal Adam and Eve is de fide. But this does not preclude traditional evolutionary understanding since a literal Adam and Eve could literally have been the first man and woman made in God's image (i.e. as in spiritual image).

I strongly doubt that http://www.catholic.com represents "the official position of the Catholic Church". Even the Jesuits would find humor with the website's creationist ramblings, for example, the page that lists "... scientific objections to evolution ...".

But let's assume that the Catholic Church, or anyone for that matter, believes in evolution and also a spiritual Adam and Eve, i.e., the first mating pair with souls.

How does that work exactly?!

Adam and Eve would share at least 99.999% of their DNA with their parents. So with less than a .001% DNA difference, the parents are left off the list of those receiving souls? Really?

And what about Adam and Eve's children? The science of genetics shows that a single mating pair could not be the ancestor of all humans. So those kids would have had to have mated with pre-spiritual (soul-less) "humans". If you thought devout Christian parents would be aghast at their daughter bringing home a nice Jewish boy, can you imagine Adam and Eve's dismay when their daughter's date didn't have a soul?