| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jack_the_mormon" |
| Date: |
29 Dec 2003 02:48:06 PM |
| Object: |
Five-year old perspective on evolution |
My Five-year old came to visit me for Christmas asked me about Adam &
Eve over Christmas. (His mother, my ex, is a devout Mormon and is
indoctrinating him in Mormon theology.) How did God make Adam, he
asked me. I thought for a moment then decided I would share alternate
(non-religious) theories with him. So I struggled to briefly explain
evolutionary biology using six-year old terminology and keeping the
explanation under 30 seconds. I failed miserably. My attempt went
something like this:
"Well, some people believe that life started out as a small simple ...
thingy ... then over time we grew and changed. First there were
animals like fishy's, then there were animals that could walk on land,
then after a long-long time there were animals like apes (like you see
in Zabomafoo) - then those apes slowly "evolved" or changed into us -
HUAMNS!"
He got a funny look on his face, shook his head, then said - "I don't
think that's right". Then he changed the topic.
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
.
|
|
| User: "observa" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
30 Dec 2003 03:41:51 PM |
|
|
"jack_the_mormon" <Jack_the_Mormon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f8f6ffd.0312291249.2f53f84c@posting.google.com...
My Five-year old came to visit me for Christmas asked me about Adam &
Eve over Christmas. (His mother, my ex, is a devout Mormon and is
indoctrinating him in Mormon theology.) How did God make Adam, he
asked me. I thought for a moment then decided I would share alternate
(non-religious) theories with him. So I struggled to briefly explain
evolutionary biology using six-year old terminology and keeping the
explanation under 30 seconds. I failed miserably. My attempt went
something like this:
"Well, some people believe that life started out as a small simple ...
thingy ... then over time we grew and changed. First there were
animals like fishy's, then there were animals that could walk on land,
then after a long-long time there were animals like apes (like you see
in Zabomafoo) - then those apes slowly "evolved" or changed into us -
HUAMNS!"
He got a funny look on his face, shook his head, then said - "I don't
think that's right". Then he changed the topic.
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
I think the fish hook in the situation is in this statement "I don't
think that's right". Your son is already looking for "right" and "wrong"
answers to things. You need to get him to start looking for fun answers
that lead to more questions. The right and wrong thing may be the result of
indoctrination by his mother's church, or the way his is taught at
school/sunday school(?) (is he going to school yet - here kids start at 5).
Work on his curiousity, and learning to handle that something that is
"right" now, may become "wrong" later as more information is found out. It
takes more work than a simple explanation, but will go a long way towards
opening his mind.
Alan Jeffery
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 11/12/2003
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rubystars" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
29 Dec 2003 02:57:25 PM |
|
|
"jack_the_mormon" <Jack_the_Mormon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f8f6ffd.0312291249.2f53f84c@posting.google.com...
My Five-year old came to visit me for Christmas asked me about Adam &
Eve over Christmas. (His mother, my ex, is a devout Mormon and is
indoctrinating him in Mormon theology.) How did God make Adam, he
asked me. I thought for a moment then decided I would share alternate
(non-religious) theories with him. So I struggled to briefly explain
evolutionary biology using six-year old terminology and keeping the
explanation under 30 seconds. I failed miserably. My attempt went
something like this:
"Well, some people believe that life started out as a small simple ...
thingy ... then over time we grew and changed. First there were
animals like fishy's, then there were animals that could walk on land,
then after a long-long time there were animals like apes (like you see
in Zabomafoo) - then those apes slowly "evolved" or changed into us -
HUAMNS!"
He got a funny look on his face, shook his head, then said - "I don't
think that's right". Then he changed the topic.
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
Ask him if he looks exactly like you or his mother. Then tell him that other
animals change every generation too. Later on, you could explain that a long
time ago, there weren't any humans, just other animals, and that over
generations, some of them slowly changed to be more and more like humans.
-Rubystars
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Uhrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
29 Dec 2003 03:25:10 PM |
|
|
Rubystars wrote:
"jack_the_mormon" <Jack_the_Mormon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f8f6ffd.0312291249.2f53f84c@posting.google.com...
My Five-year old came to visit me for Christmas asked me about Adam &
Eve over Christmas. (His mother, my ex, is a devout Mormon and is
indoctrinating him in Mormon theology.) How did God make Adam, he
asked me. I thought for a moment then decided I would share alternate
(non-religious) theories with him. So I struggled to briefly explain
evolutionary biology using six-year old terminology and keeping the
explanation under 30 seconds. I failed miserably. My attempt went
something like this:
"Well, some people believe that life started out as a small simple ...
thingy ... then over time we grew and changed. First there were
animals like fishy's, then there were animals that could walk on land,
then after a long-long time there were animals like apes (like you see
in Zabomafoo) - then those apes slowly "evolved" or changed into us -
HUAMNS!"
He got a funny look on his face, shook his head, then said - "I don't
think that's right". Then he changed the topic.
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
Ask him if he looks exactly like you or his mother. Then tell him that other
animals change every generation too. Later on, you could explain that a long
time ago, there weren't any humans, just other animals, and that over
generations, some of them slowly changed to be more and more like humans.
-Rubystars
The example of breeds of wolves and dogs might be helpful, too.
--
Richard Uhrich
"You should not underestimate yourselves. You are very effective in Iraq."
"All weapons---biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed."
Gen. Hussein Kamel (Saddam's son-in-law) to U.N. inspectors, after
defecting in 1995.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
29 Dec 2003 08:28:59 PM |
|
|
"jack_the_mormon" <Jack_the_Mormon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f8f6ffd.0312291249.2f53f84c@posting.google.com...
My Five-year old came to visit me for Christmas asked me about Adam &
Eve over Christmas. (His mother, my ex, is a devout Mormon and is
indoctrinating him in Mormon theology.) How did God make Adam, he
asked me. I thought for a moment then decided I would share alternate
(non-religious) theories with him. So I struggled to briefly explain
evolutionary biology using six-year old terminology and keeping the
explanation under 30 seconds. I failed miserably. My attempt went
something like this:
"Well, some people believe that life started out as a small simple ...
thingy ... then over time we grew and changed. First there were
animals like fishy's, then there were animals that could walk on land,
then after a long-long time there were animals like apes (like you see
in Zabomafoo) - then those apes slowly "evolved" or changed into us -
HUAMNS!"
He got a funny look on his face, shook his head, then said - "I don't
think that's right". Then he changed the topic.
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
Well, everybody's got opinions. Mine is that instead of trying to push a big
long explanation at him, you should let him pull whatever explanation he
needs out of you. He stopped listening to you and dismissed your
explanation because you didn't answer the question he was asking, which was
"How did God make Adam."
There are a lot of ways you can go with this. Who's Adam? Who says God made
Adam? Did you learn about Adam in the Bible? What does the Bible say? The
Bible says God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his
nostrils the breath of life - what do you think about that?
I guess that's more like the Socratic method or something. Anyway, that's
the way I've raised my daughter - a constant push and pull, pushing to see
how far she could go, following where she pulled the conversation. I let her
think for herself. I let her believe in magic when she was little, Santa
Claus, the Tooth Fairy, God - she figured out the truth on her own.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe W Larson" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
29 Dec 2003 05:07:48 PM |
|
|
"jack_the_mormon" <Jack_the_Mormon@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f8f6ffd.0312291249.2f53f84c@posting.google.com...
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
My three year old has been asking "how did ___ start?" constantly for about
two months now, which has been thrilling. "How did Christmas start?" "How
did books start?" "How did houses start?" "How did circles start?" "How did
food start?" "How did red start? "How did babies start?". Some of these are
a real trick to answer, even harder than if she was five, and often I just
explore with more questions and so on. Usually these will be repeats (she
asked about Christmas about 50 times), in which case I try to answer with a
slightly different angle on the same information, since obviously she still
doesn't feel she has all the knowledge about it she desires at this point.
For "How did people start?" the answer usually involves some of the
following: Talking about how she is sort of like mommy and daddy but a
little different, and that mommy and daddy are sort of like thier mommy and
daddy but a little different, and how over time all those little bits of
different add up to lots of different; Talking about how a long time ago
there where no people but there where animals like apes (she is pretty
fascinated with gorillas and chimps so she has something to go on there),
and some of those got a little smarter, less hair, walked upright, etc,
until they where people; Talking about how her "Great-great-great" and then
I have her say a bunch of "Great-great-great' which she gets a kick out of
"great-grandmas and grandpas where apes sort of like gorillas and chimps are
apes", and some of thier babies-babies-babies-babies (again, get her to join
in) are gorillas, some are chimps, some are people.
cheers,
joe w larson
http://www.soundclick.com/joewlarson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tedd Jacobs" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
30 Dec 2003 03:40:06 AM |
|
|
"jack_the_mormon" wrote...
My Five-year old came to visit me for Christmas asked me about Adam &
Eve over Christmas. (His mother, my ex, is a devout Mormon and is
indoctrinating him in Mormon theology.) How did God make Adam, he
asked me.
"how did God make adam?"
"God created man through a series of evolutionary steps over a long period of
time untill he was satisfied he'd created a being in his image. God then gave
him a soul and named him 'adam'."
(then sit back and wait for the next question.)
"whats evolution?"
"evolution is a process by which different creatures change over very long
periods of time."
answer *just* the question he asks. if he wants to know more or if he doesnt
fully understand, he'll let you know. keep it simple but precise and he'll do
the rest for you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
29 Dec 2003 02:56:34 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
jack_the_mormon wrote:
My Five-year old came to visit me for Christmas asked me about Adam
& Eve over Christmas. (His mother, my ex, is a devout Mormon and
is indoctrinating him in Mormon theology.) How did God make Adam,
he asked me. I thought for a moment then decided I would share
alternate (non-religious) theories with him. So I struggled to
briefly explain evolutionary biology using six-year old terminology
and keeping the explanation under 30 seconds. I failed miserably.
My attempt went something like this:
"Well, some people believe that life started out as a small simple
... thingy ... then over time we grew and changed. First there
were
animals like fishy's, then there were animals that could walk on
land, then after a long-long time there were animals like apes
(like you see in Zabomafoo) - then those apes slowly "evolved" or
changed into us - HUAMNS!"
He got a funny look on his face, shook his head, then said - "I
don't think that's right". Then he changed the topic.
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
Start simple. Look for _Maybe Right, Maybe Wrong_ at Amazon and read
it with him. Or get _What About Gods_ and do that.
- --
Enkidu
hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com
PGP KeyID 0xC5FEABDF
- -----
Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone
thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the
hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it
than
they already have.
René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode. 1637.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3
iQA/AwUBP/CVL+dBYuvF/qvfEQIRdACgjj+LGGctq9v5D99czzYo/l3XH7cAn1wu
o1pKCyM+Ab+/9z+KlLeUg/Vw
=metK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wade Hines" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
29 Dec 2003 11:15:24 PM |
|
|
(jack_the_mormon) allegedly scribed
<<< snip >>>
He got a funny look on his face, shook his head, then said - "I don't
think that's right". Then he changed the topic.
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
It is a very misguided objective.
It seems as if you don't get to spend as much time as you might
like to spend with your kid. That's the first issue I'm sure.
Next, you probably want your kid to be willing to question
authority. That's a matter of avoiding the "because I said
so" line and actually giving reasons, or if you are talented
and evil (ala Calvin's Dad
<http://www.alloftheabove.net/cahr/cahspecial/askdad.htm> )
you can instill the virtue of questioning authority in a more
anal expulsive modality.
But a 5 year old can learn a few things about biology if they
want to. Dinosaurs are still popular, right? There are good
books about dinosaurs and you might as well buy a few of those.
It should be fun so let it be fun and just give plenty of
opportunities to learn science while having fun. Evolution
will take care of itself if you simply teach you kid to think.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R.Schenck" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
29 Dec 2003 09:55:40 PM |
|
|
(jack_the_mormon) wrote in message news:<4f8f6ffd.0312291249.2f53f84c@posting.google.com>...
My Five-year old came to visit me for Christmas asked me about Adam &
Eve over Christmas.
(snip)
"Well, some people believe that life started out as a small simple ...
thingy ... then over time we grew and changed. First there were
animals like fishy's, then there were animals that could walk on land,
then after a long-long time there were animals like apes (like you see
in Zabomafoo) - then those apes slowly "evolved" or changed into us -
HUAMNS!"
He got a funny look on his face, shook his head, then said - "I don't
think that's right". Then he changed the topic.
(snip)
wow yer kid has the exact same arguement and tactics as most
creationists!
for what my opinion is worth, perhaps instead of trying to explain the
course of phylogeny, it might be better to explain that within a group
of animals, there is difference amoung them (as in dogs, or fish).
then explain that these animals pass on their differences to their
offspring, and then explain that the offspring who are the best
"adapted", be it strongest, fastest, cleverest tend to produce more
offspring than others, and that those offspring again tend to look
like their ancestors. maybe it would be better to start with an
example group, like a pack of dogs, which have to run fast to get
their prey, or a flock of birds that need to crack shells, the ones
who happen to be born with strong beaks have make more birds with
strong beaks, and then ones withot make less or none even. at least
then he'd have natural selection down relatively well. and of course
if he thinks that the birds strove to have stronger beaks, the tell
him thats lamarckism and he needs a time out.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
30 Dec 2003 12:31:27 PM |
|
|
(jack_the_mormon) wrote in message news:<4f8f6ffd.0312291249.2f53f84c@posting.google.com>...
My Five-year old came to visit me for Christmas asked me about Adam &
Eve over Christmas. (His mother, my ex, is a devout Mormon and is
indoctrinating him in Mormon theology.) How did God make Adam, he
asked me. I thought for a moment then decided I would share alternate
(non-religious) theories with him. So I struggled to briefly explain
evolutionary biology using six-year old terminology and keeping the
explanation under 30 seconds. I failed miserably. My attempt went
something like this:
"Well, some people believe that life started out as a small simple ...
thingy ... then over time we grew and changed. First there were
animals like fishy's, then there were animals that could walk on land,
then after a long-long time there were animals like apes (like you see
in Zabomafoo) - then those apes slowly "evolved" or changed into us -
HUAMNS!"
He got a funny look on his face, shook his head, then said - "I don't
think that's right". Then he changed the topic.
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
Tell that no one knows if Adam really existed. Tell him that
scientists don't think so. Then stop.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Bode" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
31 Dec 2003 08:49:53 AM |
|
|
(jack_the_mormon) wrote in message news:<4f8f6ffd.0312291249.2f53f84c@posting.google.com>...
My Five-year old came to visit me for Christmas asked me about Adam &
Eve over Christmas. (His mother, my ex, is a devout Mormon and is
indoctrinating him in Mormon theology.) How did God make Adam, he
asked me. I thought for a moment then decided I would share alternate
(non-religious) theories with him. So I struggled to briefly explain
evolutionary biology using six-year old terminology and keeping the
explanation under 30 seconds. I failed miserably. My attempt went
something like this:
"Well, some people believe that life started out as a small simple ...
thingy ... then over time we grew and changed. First there were
animals like fishy's, then there were animals that could walk on land,
then after a long-long time there were animals like apes (like you see
in Zabomafoo) - then those apes slowly "evolved" or changed into us -
HUAMNS!"
He got a funny look on his face, shook his head, then said - "I don't
think that's right". Then he changed the topic.
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
Given that it's difficult to impossible to simply and neatly explain
evolution to many adults, I'd say you're out of luck.
I'll offer a story from my own childhood. I was about 7 or 8 when I
grokked the idea of humans descending from apes. I'd watched the
documentaries of the Gombe chimps, and could see how they were similar
enough to us that we must be related somehow. I was talking with my
father about it, and he threw a monkey wrench into the works by saying
that many scientists thought we originally descended from fish. Being
7 or 8, I could see a path from ape to human, but not from fish to
human, and my reaction to him was almost identical to your son's
reaction. I think he fell into the same trap you did, trying to
simplify things so that I would understand, but in the end it just
confused me that much more.
So, my approach would not be to cover the whole history of descent,
but to focus on relationships between living populations. Start with
how the animals he'd be familiar with share certain traits, and how
they can be grouped or separated based on those traits. For example,
dogs and wolves are different from each other, but much more like each
other than either would be to a cat. Show how various bugs in he'd
find in the yard are like each other and how they're different from
each other. Get him to think in smaller steps, like from wolf to dog,
or from ape to human. Actually, you may want to save the idea of
human evolution for later. I don't know the common Mormon position on
evolution and Biblical inerrancy, but I worry that if his mother says
"A is true, your father is wrong" and you say "B is true, your mother
is wrong," you're going to wind up with a confused kid who'll
eventually turn to some New Age Crystal Pyramid *****, or worse,
Scientology. Better to focus on getting him to use his eyes and his
brain and to think critically than to get the finer points of
evolution across.
If he is at all interested in collecting bugs (haven't met many
five-year-olds who weren't), help him do that, then have him group
everything he's caught, but have him try to puzzle out the categories
for himself. Once he's done that, then go to your friendly bug
reference to see how others did it. Again, you're wanting him to use
his own eyes and brain to figure things out. Don't just read stuff to
him, have him do things.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
30 Dec 2003 08:21:16 PM |
|
|
(jack_the_mormon) wrote in message news:<4f8f6ffd.0312291249.2f53f84c@posting.google.com>...
My Five-year old came to visit me for Christmas asked me about Adam &
Eve over Christmas. (His mother, my ex, is a devout Mormon and is
indoctrinating him in Mormon theology.) How did God make Adam, he
asked me. [...]
I wonder what he would have said if you had replied, "Who made Santa?"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
29 Dec 2003 07:55:15 PM |
|
|
(jack_the_mormon) wrote:
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
You don't explain evolution to a five-year-old. What a stupid idea!
How about you let your son grow up without any isms, evolutionism or
creationism. He'll learn about evolution in high school, and that's soon
enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lee Paulson" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
31 Dec 2003 10:11:57 AM |
|
|
"trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> wrote in message
news:llm1vvs02tdtpbc8dlmvhk6ergvu92kot9@news.supernews.com...
Jack_the_Mormon@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote:
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
You don't explain evolution to a five-year-old. What a stupid idea!
What's stupid about it? I think it's a good idea.
How about you let your son grow up without any isms, evolutionism or
creationism.
How about don't teach him to read either?
He'll learn about evolution in high school, and that's soon
enough.
No, it's not. By high school, children ought to be doing something besides
learning the basics.
Here's some good links on teaching evolution and more generally, content
standards:
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/5787.html
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/6024.html
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/9596.html
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/4962.html
Regards,
Lee, the James
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
29 Dec 2003 09:43:34 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Jack_the_Mormon@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote:
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
You don't explain evolution to a five-year-old. What a stupid idea!
How about you let your son grow up without any isms, evolutionism or
creationism. He'll learn about evolution in high school, and that's
soon enough.
High school? That's just stupid. I've taken my daughter fossil hunting
when she was seven. Evolution is not a difficult concept it you lay the
groundwork correctly. The kid's got to have some sense of the age of the
Earth first. Fifty feet of sedemantary rock eroded worked just fine.
--
Enkidu
hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com
PGP KeyID 0xC5FEABDF
-----
Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone
thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the
hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than
they already have.
René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode. 1637.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
30 Dec 2003 03:16:32 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins <user@example.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Jack_the_Mormon@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote:
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
You don't explain evolution to a five-year-old. What a stupid idea!
How about you let your son grow up without any isms, evolutionism or
creationism. He'll learn about evolution in high school, and that's soon
enough.
Are you joking?
I've just been listening to Feynman's "The Pleasure of Finding
Things Out" on audiobook. His daddy (a salesman) was teaching
him science from infancy. And he retains warm memories of it
and credits it with his love of learning his entire life.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
30 Dec 2003 02:52:42 PM |
|
|
On 29 Dec 2003, "trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> screwed
up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message
in news:llm1vvs02tdtpbc8dlmvhk6ergvu92kot9@news.supernews.com:
Jack_the_Mormon@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote:
Now that I've completely messed up this elementary explanation of
evolution, I was wondering if someone out there could help me. I'd
like to expose my son to different theories and teach him to think
critically. So how do you simply and neatly explain evolution to a
five year old? Ideas?
You don't explain evolution to a five-year-old. What a stupid idea!
How about you let your son grow up without any isms, evolutionism or
creationism. He'll learn about evolution in high school, and that's
soon
enough.
I hope you won't take it personally if I call you an idiot.
Children are one hell of a lot smarter than a lot of adults like to
think. My little sis understood fairly advanced physics when she was 4,
as did I. You fucking idiot. You think that kids are stupid and
therefore shouldn't be taught anything hard, and then when you find they
don't know the answers to hard questions (because fucking morons like
you choose to withhold the knowledge from them), you assume that's just
because they're stupid.
You just have to present it in terms and vocabulary they already know --
because to explain something to a person, they have to know the words
you're using. Better yet, teach them what the words mean, then use
those words to teach them advanced subjects.
(If you're offended by the names I'm calling you, consider that a person
just tried to pass on useful knowledge to his son and you called it a
"stupid idea". In other words, shut the ***** up and take the abuse,
because you deserve it.)
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
31 Dec 2003 12:57:13 PM |
|
|
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 29 Dec 2003, "trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> screwed
up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message
in news:llm1vvs02tdtpbc8dlmvhk6ergvu92kot9@news.supernews.com:
You don't explain evolution to a five-year-old. What a stupid idea!
How about you let your son grow up without any isms, evolutionism or
creationism. He'll learn about evolution in high school, and that's
soon enough.
I hope you won't take it personally if I call you an idiot.
Whoa, what a hair trigger you got there, pard, but nah... I'm not
offended. After all, the name calling only makes you look bad.
Children are one hell of a lot smarter than a lot of adults like to
think. My little sis understood fairly advanced physics when she was 4,
as did I. You fucking idiot. You think that kids are stupid and
therefore shouldn't be taught anything hard, and then when you find they
don't know the answers to hard questions (because fucking morons like
you choose to withhold the knowledge from them), you assume that's just
because they're stupid.
Phew! Do you come to Usenet to avoid fits of road rage?
In any event, your assumptions are incorrect, and I stand by what I
said. I'm a great believer in education, and I believe children should
be encouraged and engaged in exploring the wonder that is the real
world, but I also believe that children are too often rushed into
growing up. I don't believe children should be subjected to actual
lectures of an -ism or -ology.
And if your little sister really understood advanced physics when she
was four, either she's a world-known child prodigy (she's not, is she?)
or you don't know what advanced physics actually means (much more
likely).
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
31 Dec 2003 01:31:20 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins <user@example.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 29 Dec 2003, " " <user@example.com> screwed
up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message
in news:llm1vvs02tdtpbc8dlmvhk6ergvu92kot9@news.supernews.com:
You don't explain evolution to a five-year-old. What a stupid idea!
How about you let your son grow up without any isms, evolutionism or
creationism. He'll learn about evolution in high school, and that's
soon enough.
I hope you won't take it personally if I call you an idiot.
Whoa, what a hair trigger you got there, pard, but nah... I'm not
offended. After all, the name calling only makes you look bad.
Children are one hell of a lot smarter than a lot of adults like to
think. My little sis understood fairly advanced physics when she was 4,
as did I. You fucking idiot. You think that kids are stupid and
therefore shouldn't be taught anything hard, and then when you find they
don't know the answers to hard questions (because fucking morons like
you choose to withhold the knowledge from them), you assume that's just
because they're stupid.
Phew! Do you come to Usenet to avoid fits of road rage?
In any event, your assumptions are incorrect, and I stand by what I
said. I'm a great believer in education, and I believe children should
be encouraged and engaged in exploring the wonder that is the real
world, but I also believe that children are too often rushed into
growing up. I don't believe children should be subjected to actual
lectures of an -ism or -ology.
Why shouldn't he learn "biology"? That's just ridiculous.
rich
And if your little sister really understood advanced physics when she
was four, either she's a world-known child prodigy (she's not, is she?)
or you don't know what advanced physics actually means (much more
likely).
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
31 Dec 2003 10:33:30 PM |
|
|
rich hammett <bubbarichau@warmmail.com> wrote:
In talk.origins <user@example.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
In any event, your assumptions are incorrect, and I stand by what I
said. I'm a great believer in education, and I believe children should
be encouraged and engaged in exploring the wonder that is the real
world, but I also believe that children are too often rushed into
growing up. I don't believe children should be subjected to actual
lectures of an -ism or -ology.
Why shouldn't he learn "biology"? That's just ridiculous.
Well, what do you mean by "biology?"
By the time he was four, my nephew could identify by common name just
about every little weed and bush we came across on walks around his
Marin, California neighborhood. Still, I wouldn't say that his mom and I
taught him "biology" (or even "botany").
As far as I'm concerned -- and you certainly don't have to agree -- once
you call something by a name like "biology," you're talking about a
formal, structured field of study. Personally, I don't think formal,
structured studying is good for five-year-olds, no matter what the
subject is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
02 Jan 2004 12:13:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 04:33:30 +0000 (UTC), "trebor@sirius.com.no.more"
<user@example.com> posted to alt.atheism:
As far as I'm concerned -- and you certainly don't have to agree -- once
you call something by a name like "biology," you're talking about a
formal, structured field of study.
Okay, no one agrees with you. Teaching a child the names of plants
*is* teaching botany. What would you call it? Sociology?
Personally, I don't think formal,
structured studying is good for five-year-olds, no matter what the
subject is.
Then I'm glad you don't set the educational standards for this
country. You're off by at least 2 years.
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
02 Jan 2004 04:08:47 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 04:33:30 +0000 (UTC), "trebor@sirius.com.no.more"
<user@example.com> posted to alt.atheism:
As far as I'm concerned -- and you certainly don't have to agree -- once
you call something by a name like "biology," you're talking about a
formal, structured field of study.
Okay, no one agrees with you. Teaching a child the names of plants
*is* teaching botany. What would you call it? Sociology?
<shrug> I call it quality time with the kids. Not everything must be an
-ology or an -ism.
Personally, I don't think formal, structured studying is good for
five-year-olds, no matter what the subject is.
Then I'm glad you don't set the educational standards for this
country. You're off by at least 2 years.
Oh, I know all about Super Kids. That's just another example of how
parents try to live out their fantasies through their children. Genetic
engineering isn't quite there yet, but parents figure that putting the
kids through the wringer of overscheduled, overlystructured lives, where
everything is serious business and nothing is play, will produce
"better" kids than the Jones's can, kids who will get into better
schools and become more successful adults.
But the result is stressed out kids, kids who can tell they're not so
much members of a family as they are the special projects of two
self-centered adults who care not about them but about how well they
perform.
Fortunately, there's a growing recognition that all this pushing kids
into being Doogie Hausers isn't good for the kids, and there's nothing
anti-intellectual about such recognition. Children need their
childhoods.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
02 Jan 2004 10:02:56 AM |
|
|
In talk.origins <user@example.com> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 04:33:30 +0000 (UTC), " "
<user@example.com> posted to alt.atheism:
As far as I'm concerned -- and you certainly don't have to agree -- once
you call something by a name like "biology," you're talking about a
formal, structured field of study.
Okay, no one agrees with you. Teaching a child the names of plants
*is* teaching botany. What would you call it? Sociology?
<shrug> I call it quality time with the kids. Not everything must be an
-ology or an -ism.
Then your objection is to the English language as it currently
exists?
Personally, I don't think formal, structured studying is good for
five-year-olds, no matter what the subject is.
Then I'm glad you don't set the educational standards for this
country. You're off by at least 2 years.
Oh, I know all about Super Kids. That's just another example of how
parents try to live out their fantasies through their children. Genetic
engineering isn't quite there yet, but parents figure that putting the
kids through the wringer of overscheduled, overlystructured lives, where
everything is serious business and nothing is play, will produce
"better" kids than the Jones's can, kids who will get into better
schools and become more successful adults.
Well.
I just listened to several essays by Feynman, where his daddy, a
uniform salesman in the Depression, inspired him from birth to
be a scientist. It was quite enlightening. Feynman himself
elaborated on techniques he used with his own children, who
had quite different personalities, but both were inspired with
that same love of science from childhood.
Childhood is a time of discovery. I don't think it hurts to
direct the children in their discoveries, as much as possible.
Nobody here has mentioned any of the Yuppie Disease techniques
and pressures that you are so agitated about, so you might
consider that it's possible to teach science WITHOUT destroying
childhood.
rich
But the result is stressed out kids, kids who can tell they're not so
much members of a family as they are the special projects of two
self-centered adults who care not about them but about how well they
perform.
Fortunately, there's a growing recognition that all this pushing kids
into being Doogie Hausers isn't good for the kids, and there's nothing
anti-intellectual about such recognition. Children need their
childhoods.
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
02 Jan 2004 03:47:02 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:02:56 +0000 (UTC), rich hammett
<bubbarichau@warmmail.com> posted to alt.atheism:
Childhood is a time of discovery. I don't think it hurts to
direct the children in their discoveries, as much as possible.
Nobody here has mentioned any of the Yuppie Disease techniques
and pressures that you are so agitated about, so you might
consider that it's possible to teach science WITHOUT destroying
childhood.
In fact it's fairly simple to enrich childhood by teaching, whether it
be science, art, music or anything else. What's 'wrong' with a 7 year
old who appreciates Bach?
--
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but
not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."
-A. Einstein (1929 -- Einstein Archive 33-272)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "rich hammett" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
02 Jan 2004 08:42:32 PM |
|
|
In talk.origins Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> sanoi, hitaasti kuin hämähäkki:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 16:02:56 +0000 (UTC), rich hammett
<bubbarichau@warmmail.com> posted to alt.atheism:
Childhood is a time of discovery. I don't think it hurts to
direct the children in their discoveries, as much as possible.
Nobody here has mentioned any of the Yuppie Disease techniques
and pressures that you are so agitated about, so you might
consider that it's possible to teach science WITHOUT destroying
childhood.
In fact it's fairly simple to enrich childhood by teaching, whether it
be science, art, music or anything else. What's 'wrong' with a 7 year
old who appreciates Bach?
I think it's okay with trebor as long as we don't call it
"musicology."
Which I would agree sounds like a horrible thing to teach a
5-year-old.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ "Better the pride that resides in a citizen of the world;
\ than the pride that divides
/ when a colorful rag is unfurled."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
02 Jan 2004 10:42:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 02:42:32 +0000 (UTC), rich hammett
<bubbarichau@warmmail.com> posted to alt.atheism:
In fact it's fairly simple to enrich childhood by teaching, whether it
be science, art, music or anything else. What's 'wrong' with a 7 year
old who appreciates Bach?
I think it's okay with trebor as long as we don't call it
"musicology."
Which I would agree sounds like a horrible thing to teach a
5-year-old.
Technically, music appreciation isn't musicology. :)
--
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
05 Jan 2004 02:37:02 PM |
|
|
On 02 Jan 2004, "trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> screwed
up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message
in news:u4gavvkd198b5ahhitgre73kdb6a4kgsg4@news.supernews.com:
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 04:33:30 +0000 (UTC), "trebor@sirius.com.no.more"
<user@example.com> posted to alt.atheism:
As far as I'm concerned -- and you certainly don't have to agree --
once
you call something by a name like "biology," you're talking about a
formal, structured field of study.
Okay, no one agrees with you. Teaching a child the names of plants
*is* teaching botany. What would you call it? Sociology?
<shrug> I call it quality time with the kids. Not everything must be
an
-ology or an -ism.
Personally, I don't think formal, structured studying is good for
five-year-olds, no matter what the subject is.
Then I'm glad you don't set the educational standards for this
country. You're off by at least 2 years.
Oh, I know all about Super Kids. That's just another example of how
parents try to live out their fantasies through their children.
Genetic
engineering isn't quite there yet, but parents figure that putting the
kids through the wringer of overscheduled, overlystructured lives,
where
everything is serious business and nothing is play, will produce
"better" kids than the Jones's can, kids who will get into better
schools and become more successful adults.
But the result is stressed out kids, kids who can tell they're not so
much members of a family as they are the special projects of two
self-centered adults who care not about them but about how well they
perform.
Fortunately, there's a growing recognition that all this pushing kids
into being Doogie Hausers isn't good for the kids, and there's nothing
anti-intellectual about such recognition. Children need their
childhoods.
Nobody's talking about forcing kids to give up their childhoods. But
the man's kid asked a *question*. He *answered* the question. You
called him "stupid" for doing so. Would you prefer that he pat his son
on the head and say, "Oh, son, you're far too small and stupid to
understand such heavy things. I suggest you find a church to go to
until you're more grown up -- they will teach you a much simpler
explanation."
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
31 Dec 2003 01:11:54 PM |
|
|
On 31 Dec 2003, "trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> screwed
up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message
in news:ji66vvkproe170fod0pbfjgno3lot2gjeu@news.supernews.com:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 29 Dec 2003, "trebor@sirius.com.no.more" <user@example.com> screwed
up his face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following
message
in news:llm1vvs02tdtpbc8dlmvhk6ergvu92kot9@news.supernews.com:
You don't explain evolution to a five-year-old. What a stupid idea!
How about you let your son grow up without any isms, evolutionism or
creationism. He'll learn about evolution in high school, and that's
soon enough.
I hope you won't take it personally if I call you an idiot.
Whoa, what a hair trigger you got there, pard, but nah... I'm not
offended. After all, the name calling only makes you look bad.
Children are one hell of a lot smarter than a lot of adults like to
think. My little sis understood fairly advanced physics when she was
4,
as did I. You fucking idiot. You think that kids are stupid and
therefore shouldn't be taught anything hard, and then when you find
they
don't know the answers to hard questions (because fucking morons like
you choose to withhold the knowledge from them), you assume that's
just
because they're stupid.
Phew! Do you come to Usenet to avoid fits of road rage?
In any event, your assumptions are incorrect, and I stand by what I
said. I'm a great believer in education, and I believe children should
be encouraged and engaged in exploring the wonder that is the real
world, but I also believe that children are too often rushed into
growing up. I don't believe children should be subjected to actual
lectures of an -ism or -ology.
And if your little sister really understood advanced physics when she
was four, either she's a world-known child prodigy (she's not, is
she?)
or you don't know what advanced physics actually means (much more
likely).
Note I said "fairly advanced", meaning advanced considering the time
she'd had to learn what she did. I don't mean advanced in the sense a
college professor would use it. My point stands.
Oh, and correction: She was 5, not 4, as was I when I was learning that
material. That was a typo. Doesn't make a difference, though.
And personally, I'm happy I learned about the natural world when I did.
The universe is a damned fascinating place, and children should (not
necessarily be forced, but) be allowed to learn about these things
before they get old enough that they've already been raised on trivial,
mindless pursuits and no longer have the same interest in accumulating
knowledge.
What a very stupid person you are. Children are not idiots who need
their minds tied up in shrink-wrap for fear they'll be overloaded.
Indeed, if you want to breed idiots, that's just the way to do it --
deliberately isolate them from any form of real knowledge so they can
grow up accepting ignorance as a natural fact of life.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Five-year old perspective on evolution |
31 Dec 2003 06:22:35 PM |
|
|
Mekkala wrote:
Indeed, if you want to breed idiots, that's just the way to do it --
deliberately isolate them from any form of real knowledge so they can
grow up accepting ignorance as a natural fact of life.
Just ask the Jesuits.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tracy" |
|
| Title: AQOTM nomination |
30 Dec 2003 05:29:51 PM |
|
|
Ok, I've never done this before, but here goes:
On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:52:42 +0000 (UTC), Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
I hope you won't take it personally if I call you an idiot.
Children are one hell of a lot smarter than a lot of adults like to
think. My little sis understood fairly advanced physics when she was 4,
as did I. You fucking idiot. You think that kids are stupid and
therefore shouldn't be taught anything hard, and then when you find they
don't know the answers to hard questions (because fucking morons like
you choose to withhold the knowledge from them), you assume that's just
because they're stupid.
You just have to present it in terms and vocabulary they already know --
because to explain something to a person, they have to know the words
you're using. Better yet, teach them what the words mean, then use
those words to teach them advanced subjects.
(If you're offended by the names I'm calling you, consider that a person
just tried to pass on useful knowledge to his son and you called it a
"stupid idea". In other words, shut the ***** up and take the abuse,
because you deserve it.)
Ok, I tried to trim it, but I just love the whole thing.
Seconds?
Tracy
aa#2144
Reply-to address is a spam catcher.
Instead use thock at umr dot edu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
