I think we should continue to agree to disagree ( rather than suffer Too Much I or all starting up our own schools ) by deciding our children's involvement by means of agreed extra -curricula teaching in secular schools.
Because the content is controversial though , individual parents and teachers must know what the content is ( they work from agreed content and have some a classroom teacher supervise as well ) and be able to veto access of their children . Going to " the boundaries of knowledge for stimulation " must be a process that is subject to considerable scrutiny by parents in particular .
There is a lot to learn and lots of ways to learn . Good to have parent and other teacher input . Classic divisions are "work " and "play ". I like having a distinction between secular and religious in common conversation amongst us because it helps separates the world of facts and process ( world of work? ) from discussions about purpose and values ( The 2 words are only approximations anyway ) I like the stimulation that comes from having a distinction between practice work ( not much exploration ) and practice play.( more exploration ) A stated secular / non secular boundary( agreed /not necessarily agreed ; explored / unexplored ) helps ensures that parents can check that important purpose and value conversations are taken by teachers whom they trust ( as they would do with sex education or psychological matters )
Whitehead was also clear about the danger of the temptation to limit discussion to things our minds can understand , talking about" the trenchant judgements of those who will not give the time to think out a complex question " ( surely a growing risk in the over -information age ) .
It needs to be said that , just because you are a scientist ( includes myself) doesn't mean your grasp of the breadth of knowledge is relatively any better than anyone else's .
I for one don't want churches to start schools in my area if , like doctors , we can't get one professional trained operator to work in our community.I want the teacher of physics or chemistry to be as a good teacher as possible because I believe the subject is never exhausted: to see it that way is to encourage discovery.
For the first time in modern Australian history we can't even get one chemistry teacher to teach in our public local high school at higher levels.
It's the headache image that best pictures the dilemma that is created in our minds when we do not have a big picture to help order all the small pictures . None of us are welcome to discuss politics or religion at a nice gathering where people are all suffering from a headache - that reality doesn't mean such a discussion wouldn't help individuals avoid more of them. If TMI is the problem --you still need a way of sorting it ( secular- religious distinctions are a start - a start with a proven record of reasonable success across the West .
Alternatively tell us --why aren't kids excited by science ( take a look at what excites scientists!) ?
Australians ( including the non religious) are increasingly choosing to go/send their children where secular and religious are accepted as important categories of curriculum. Why risk trying to make schools totally secular, as if those proposing to do what Emperor Julian tried some years ago have actually been there and done that. .