Talk:Teach the controversy

	This Teach the controversy related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Merge

This should probably be merged with Teach the Controversy, but I'm too lazy to do it and we don't have a Template:Merge. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

See template:dup & RationalWiki:Duplicate articles. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah excellent, thanks. Placed them on the articles. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

From duplicate article's takling page

I know we have an article on "psuedo science" but for the life of me I can't find what we called it. Sorry to leave that red link. I'll work on "grass roots" later, cause i think that's another useful link.--En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 11:25, 5 March 2009 (EST)

nm. & thanks L.--En attendant Godot_{"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov»} 11:26, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Religionist

A "religionist" is a religious fanatic, or someone who promotes an expanded role for religion in society. I put the word in to replace "Christian" because there are also creationists of other religions (e.g., Islam). ListenerX^TalkerX 11:30, 5 March 2009 (EST)

I don't think this edit should have happened because the sentence the word was switched from, refers to the Discovery Institute, as does the entire article, which explains that Teach the Controversy is a tactic develop by DI to guide their followers. DI is a christian group, and their followers are christians. Unless Islamists have their own Teach the Controversy strategy, changing the word 'christian' to 'religionist' on the basis of the fact that followers of the religion of Islam are 'creationist' is not reasonable. This is not an article about creationism, it is an article about a christian tactic from a christian group. Changing the word to 'religionist' obfuscates the truth of the article. I will revert the edit myself if there are no objections in the next month. Considering this edit has stood for 13 years, I think it's high time to undue the damage. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.180.92.37 / talk}

other controversies

I don't know how to work this in , or if it even belongs, but there are other classes which, if the "controversies" were taught, would make the whole of education look ridiculous:

Ancient History: Erich von Daniken's ancient astronauts, and Graham Hancock's underwater cities. Marijas Gimbutas. Recent history: JFK conspiracies, David Icke, Chemistry: Alchemy Astronomy: Immanuel Velikovsky - whaddayamean, who? Physics: perpetual motion, free energy, Hutchison effect etc Biology: Rupert Sheldrake's "morphic fields"

...but of course, none of these support Christianity.

There are probably more but this'll do to get my point across. teach the controversies! Totnesmartin 12:15, 5 March 2009 (EST)

This reminds me of some dialogue in Blackadder II:

• "I was under the impression that it was common maritime practice for a ship to have a crew."
• "Opinion is divided on the subject."
• "Oh?"
• "All the other captains say it is; I say it isn't."

ListenerX^TalkerX 12:20, 5 March 2009 (EST)

Know this is an old discussion, but not sure how or if I can work this in. There is a 'controversy' that would piss off fundamentalist Christians that some other religionists promote. It looks like a joke but I know some people use it in a serious manner. Arachne1988 (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge

Teach the controversy should probably be merged into this, but I'm too lazy to do it and we don't have a Template:Merge. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional Violations

Should we talk about the violation of the Establishment Clause if Teaching the Controversy was implemented? Or is that too obvious? --TheGreenWarrior (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comparing

I think it would be useful to add more comparisons (aside from the pi example) to other issues. For example, it would be ridiculous to teach that the Holocaust never happened in public school, it would be ridiculous to teach the Lost Cause of the South as anything more than an incorrect hypothesis, and it would definitely be wrong to teach that some people believe that immigration is used to cause a genocide against white people. Kentuckyball (talk) 03:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Canuckistan

Biological Evolution in Canadian Science Curricula. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Dead link. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.180.92.37 / talk}

Teach the errors!

THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF CURRICULUM STATEMENTS AND TEXTBOOKS ON MISCONCEPTIONS: THE CASE OF EVOLUTION. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 19:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Evolution of the controversy

The evolution of antievolution policies after Kitzmiller v. Dover Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)