Both or neither.

TruthDetectorWhy not make a seperate religious course to offer at the schools as an elective,hell even as a requirement? Then either,in an elective, the choice can be up to the student/parent or,as a requirement,the teachers can allow open discussion and debate against the hard questions.But it does not belong in a science class as it is not science.

---

"I am not young enough to know everything. "
Oscar Wilde[This message has been edited by sidelined, 01-18-2004]

Why not indeed. I think several of us here would be happy to have major religious ideas about the universe (turtles all the way down for example) and the formation of life presented in science class.The only correct approach would be to show how the evidence gathered over the last 2 or 3 centuries forced the complete renunciation of these ideas. That is the science based on the facts as we know them. However, there are two reasons why this would be difficult to implement. One is the time problem as I mentioned, it would be hard to keep it to "a couple of days" -- classes are usually only one hour at a time -- for the reason given next.The other is that a correct approach as I outline above would be construded by many to be a very full frontal attack on the beliefs of some individuals. It is hard enough for them to swollow the teaching of the current, consensus view. To specifically bring up and discuss the lies that are being promulgated in some churchs would be politically sensitive.

---

Common sense isn't

I believe that the court decisions do allow the teaching of various religious views but in the context of religious studies. I don't know what happens if the science class is used not to teach a religous based "theory" but to actually take it apart piece by piece and drop it in the garbage. This would be a whole new issue.It could be taken as "infringment" could it not?

---

Common sense isn't

On Thursday, September 26, the school board of Cobb County (in suburban Atlanta, Georgia) approved a policy change which allows "alternative views about the origin of life" to be taught in its classrooms. Here is the policy, as published on CNN's web site:It is the educational philosophy of the Cobb County School District to provide a broad based curriculum; therefore, the Cobb County School District believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species. This subject remains an area of intense interest, research and discussion among scholars. As a result, the study of this subject shall be handled in accordance with this policy and with objectivity and good judgment on the part of teachers, taking into account the age and maturity level of their students.The purpose of this policy is to foster critical thinking among students, to allow academic freedom consistent with legal requirements, to promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity of opinion, and to ensure a posture of neutrality toward religion. It is the intent of the Cobb County Board of Education that this policy not be interpreted to restrict the teaching of evolution; to promote or require the teaching of creationism; or to discriminate for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, religion in general or non-religion.Cobb County school board, says the district believes "discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of species."...Forum : Education and Creation/EvolutionTopic : NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-17-2004]

So?This is probably a politically based attempt to cross the church-state separation line without encountering any court problems.Now that some other ideas can be taught what should be taught? There is a thread on this somewhere or I guess we can go into it here. The only thing that can be taught in a science class that doesn't infringe on the state support of religion would be the complete devestation of the young-earth, instant creation of species, global flood position. If you don't have a problem with that then fine.If you do have a problem with it then you will have to pick each item and show why you think it is valid in a science class.

---

Common sense isn't

"The only thing that can be taught in a science class that doesn't infringe on the state support of religion would be the complete devestation of the young-earth, instant creation of species, global flood position. If you don't have a problem with that then fine." NosyNedWhy can't anything that eaches the young earth theory, or the global flood theory, ect ( all legit theories), be taught in science class?
Seems to me your just listing things above you do not agree with. By the way, I support 100% Georgia's school district's decision.
Please, let's not get back into which classes to teach ID/Creation.

quote:

---

Why can't anything that eaches the young earth theory, or the global flood theory, ect ( all legit theories), be taught in science class?

---

Because your premise is wrong: they're not legit theories. Scientifically, they're complete rubbish. That by itself doesn't mean they can't be taught in science classes (at least constitutionally). What matters is that people only advocate them because of religious motivation. Since they have no nonreligious support, and represent a specific set of religious beliefs, teaching them (not to be confused with teaching about them) represents a constitutionally forbidden exercise of state power in favor of a particular religion.

That's only one, you said more than one. However, you are way behind the times. From Cobb County Clarifies: Teach Only Science in Science Classes:"On January 8, 2003, the Cobb County, Georgia, School District issued guidelines that clarify the new Theories of Origins policy. ...The guidelines largely rectify the problem by clarifying the nature of the controversy over evolution: It is recognized that instruction regarding theories of origin is difficult because it is socially controversial and potentially divisive (emphasis added by NCSE - JRF). There is no mention in the guidelines of any supposed scientific controversy over evolution or of any supposed scientific alternatives to it. Curt Johnston, the chairman of the Cobb County Board of Education, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (January 9, 2003) that Encouraging discussion of that might be illegal. Johnston was evidently alluding to faith-based views such as intelligent design. ...The clarification of the Theories of Origins policy also won approval from the American Civil Liberties Union. Michael Manely told the Marietta Daily Journal (January 9, 2003) that, in light of the guidelines, the ACLU has decided not to file suit over the Theories of Origins policy. It certainly seems that the board is telling the teachers to back down on the teaching of creationism, intelligent design or other faith-based theories, he said."

Ok, so CAN they teach ID, Creationism, or any other theories other than evolution? Also, you called Christianity and like beliefs "faith-based theories." Evolution requires more faith than Creation. Evolution is a slow, and VERY-unlikely process, on the other hand, Jesus Christ, has NeVeR been disproven and only requires that you believe He was who He said He was. So, anyways, can teachers teach Creation in Georgia or not?

Evolution is slow, yes, but a very likely process based on basic scientific principles.And Jesus has never been disproved, yes, but neither has he been proven. There is far more evidence in favor of evolution than the existence of Jesus.

They can teach other scientific theories, of which there are none. They cannot teach ID or creationism because they are not scientific theories. An old and oft-disproved canard. Indeed? Please post your calculations of exactly how unlikley it is. Please do not make the common error of posting calculations having to do with any purely random process, which evolution is not. True. So what? "Not been disproven" is far from being the only criteria for being a scientific theory. Not in public school science classes. It's unconstitutional.So far your support for your claim that "There are already some states allowing it" is a citation of one county (not state) that has turned out to be wrong. Are you ready to admit that there are no public schools in the U.S. in which ID or creationism is being taught in science class?I also note that you have mde no reply to my message 44. I take that as an admission that the only religious views you want taught in science class are your own, even though they are the religious views of a very small minority of Americans. Am I correct?

What percent of americans believe in creation? I can get technical too see? It is also not fair to rule out creation by some sort of supernatural being - that at least should be taught. Ok, then what happened in that COUNTY in georgia that they stopped teaching Creation?

How likely is evolution? How unlikely is Jesus? Give me numbers! If you can't it's just your opinion.

About 47%. So what? What percentage of Americans believe in the different proposition that Biblical creation or ID is science that should be taught in science classes?And do you think that truth is established by majority vote? If so, you've lost. Which supernatural beings should be included, and why?Science looks for the best explanation for the available data. So far, the theory of evolution and old-earth geology and cosmology explains all the known evidence better than any other theory. Supernatural beings are not necessarily ruled out ... they just don't bring any extra explanatory power to the table. Answered in the link that I posted and in many other places, easy to find. There was a groundswell of protest at the obviously unconstitutional actions.Are you ready to admit that creationism and ID are not being taught in any public school science courses in the U.S.?Still waiting for your calculations of the probability of evolution.[This message has been edited by JonF, 01-18-2004]

Since it's been observed, the probability is 1.00000000...The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory we have that adequately explains the observed facts of evolution. Others may have different answers ... my answer is that it's irrelevant. Nobody has claimed that Jesus did not exist, or that He was not divine, in this thread. Whether or not Jesus existed could be a scientific question, but it's unrelated to evolution. His divinity is not a scientific question.The topic of this thread is not Jesus.