Religion has been an integral aspect of fostering social growth and cohesion.
Christianity in particular teaches selflessness, altruistic behavior, forgiveness, and unconditional love.
What evidence is there that proves teaching children their grandmother was a fish will be just as beneficial to society as religion has?

Would you pick this book as one of your child's first?


http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/1 ... -evolution

Are you suggesting we should not teach our children about evolution? Why would you assume evolution is incompatible with religious ideas of altruism and sharing? I'd say it's only incompatible with irrational, unreformable forms of worship. As the 14th Dalai Lama once said, If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.

Evolution shows how we are all connected, all life forms, which is a beautiful idea. It's also the truth. So, yes, absolutely we should reach our children about evolution. It sort of boggles the mind to think that anyone would even ask this question. As for this particular book, I'd have to see it before I could recommend it.

Yea, thats why the theory of evolution has been so important to the survival of mankind.
It's helped us care and love each other for thousands of years.
Too bad the beauty of TOE has done nothing to save the planet from total exploitation.
Or is it working on that?
Whether you want to admit it or not, the Bible actually advises Mankind to care for the planet.
But all that aside..,

You are more than welcomed to promote Buddhism over Christianity.
Actually, Christianity has played a greater role both within and along side the institution of science than Buddhism has.

So let me get this straight:

I propose the following hypothetical conversation between Geo and little Geo Junior.

Geo: Your great grandma was a fish.

Geo Jr: Does that mean i shouldnt eat my fish sticks anymore because I am eating somebody's grandma?

Geo: No, you arent. You are just eating fish! And fish is good for you!

Geo Jr: But papa! What if someone had eaten my grandma! I wouodnt be here today!

How does Geo answer little Geo Jr.?

I have three children and we've had many conversations about evolution. Funny thing, none of my kids ever asked if he was eating his grandma.

So, again, are you suggesting that we should not teach our kids about science and the world we live in?

Do you have kids, Ant? Or is it your preference to ask questions so you can mock the responses?

ant wrote: You are more than welcomed to promote Buddhism over Christianity.
Actually, Christianity has played a greater role both within and along side the institution of science than Buddhism has.

This is a separate question. For much of human history, humans have been religious one way or another. How's it looking now? Again, I would say that if one's religion is in conflict with science, the religion needs to be reformed. But as we see even on this board even, some of those with religious faith have no problem with science and evolution. (We hope this is the norm.)

Does teaching your child that 1+1=2 make them a caring and compassionate adult?

Does teaching them that squares have four equal sides make them a better parent?

Does teaching them that there are 12 inches in a foot make them better listeners?

Nope. These are facts about the way the world is. Like how we evolved from common ancestors with fish.
... and dogs, and lizards and worms and hawks and grass and bananas.

These are the facts of life.

How you socialize your child is what makes them a caring, compassionate adult who can be a good parent in turn. Religious people socialize their children through religion and conflate the morality fables of their tradition with history.

I teach the facts of the world and build a moral and social understanding of how to behave against that backdrop through real life examples of good and bad behavior.

ant wrote:What evidence is there that proves teaching children their grandmother was a fish will be just as beneficial to society as religion has?

The debate on public education gets pretty heated. At this stage I don't think anyone is saying that neo-Darwinism shouldn't be taught but that it's shortcomings should at least be discussed.
After all that's what many contemporary biologists are saying,that it needs to be extended to include the growing body of knowledge in this area.
I heard an evolutionary psychologist discussing soccer star Luis Suarez's penchant for occasionally biting his opponents in matches.
He said Suarez needs to learn to control his "inner chimp". Neill Shubin speaks more literally of our "inner fish" I wonder how far evo-psych wants to take this?
What are the effects on our behaviour of our "inner brachiopod?"

Geo: Your great grandma was a fish.

Geo Jr: Does that mean i shouldnt eat my fish sticks anymore because I am eating somebody's grandma?

Geo: No, you arent. You are just eating fish! And fish is good for you!

Geo Jr: But papa! What if someone had eaten my grandma! I wouodnt be here today!

You imagine THIS to be a difficult discussion for a parent?

First, if you told your kid that his great grandmother was a fish you would be a fool. She wasn't. Family terms are not used in that context even within our own species to refer to distant relations. You are for instance definitely, objectively related to Bill Gates. But you don't refer to him as part of your family because of the huge division in lineages, and that's just within your own species.

It is a mistake to say the word "grandma" when referring to the basal form between fish and people because it puts the wrong juxtaposition of images in a child's head. Even though technically speaking that fish IS indeed your great to the Nth grand parent. But when it gets to that extended reach using extended family terms to refer to them is nonsense.

The proper context to discuss this topic is within evolution itself. Like many abstract concepts you cannot expect your young child to pick up and run with this idea from the first offering. Instead you begin to introduce concepts and terminology which will be absorbed through multiple exposures and through context of use.

This involves introduction to geological time scales, time lines, rock strata, dinosaurs and even continental drift.

Sounds too difficult? Well, ask my 4 year old...

He doesn't get it all but he IS getting it. And at this point i'm pretty sure he would think you were being supremely silly if you suggested that his fish was somebody's grandma.

Please, don't let any branch of psychology color your view of any other science.
Psychology is a long way off from being a hard science.

While Johnson continues to impress himself with explanations a 4 year old would neither care for or understand, here's a video about grandma fish:




Note how engaged the children are about grandma fish