Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,598 Year: 4,855/9,624 Month: 203/427 Week: 13/103 Day: 2/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9277
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 31 of 2073 (573415)
08-11-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:55 AM


we have museums filled with archaeological evidence supporting the biblical record.
Nope, no evidence. How about showing some?
there is so much but if you only listen to those who tell you what you want to hear and are not serious about it then i could give you the ark (an example) and you would never believe me.
i have already given some--go to the nurseries and see for yourself that life reproduces exactly as genesis said.
we have museums filled with archaeological evidence supporting the biblical record.
there is so much but if you only listen to those who tell you what you want to hear and are not serious about it then i could give you the ark (an example) and you would never believe me.
The old "it is your fault you don't see the evidence, because you don't believe" line.
How about providing some evidence and show us how 'highly" educated you are? Personally I do not consider bible degrees or most degrees from fundie institutions as "highly" educated. You have not provided any arguments that I should think you have any higher education at all. The education isn't importnat, the ability to provide evidence and present a cogent argument is what is important
ABE
i have already given some--go to the nurseries and see for yourself that life reproduces exactly as genesis said
No it doesn't. Please explain how you think it does.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:55 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34054
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 32 of 2073 (573418)
08-11-2010 10:29 AM


we must teach both
I believe that if we hope to ever get an educated citizenry we need to teach evolution (a science subject) and also teach about religion (a social studies or sacred studies subject).
As I ask in the thread about Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula, "Should Sacred Studies, the study of religions, their history, their effects on society, the basic tenets of each and inter-relationships be taught as part of the general public education in the US"?
My answer is "most certainly."
We cannot ignore the effects that religion has had on the world and all of us living through those effects. Kids should learn that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God, the basic tenets of the Eight Fold Path, the writings of Confucius and Mencius, what Taoism says, the Vedas, Greek, Roman, Germanic and Norse mythology.
Kids should understand the horrific acts done in the name of religion, particularly the Genocide carried out by Christianity.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2010 12:15 PM jar has replied
 Message 134 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-04-2010 9:35 PM jar has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2779 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 33 of 2073 (573432)
08-11-2010 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:19 AM


Hi, Archaeologist.
Welcome to EvC! It's been a rough start so far.
Let me explain to you why I feel that evolution should be allowed in science classes, but not creation.
You say prediction is not helpful in science. But, being able to use a theory to predict what you will find in the future is a pretty good indication of the usefulness of the theory, isn't it?
Look at Tiktaalik again. You said they discovered a partial skull, but, in actuality, they discovered 3 skeletons, one of which included the entire animal except its hind limbs and tail.
This discovery is important for a number of reasons. Scientists wanted to find a fossil that fit between elpistostegalian fish that had been dated to 380 million years ago, and the earliest amphibians, which had been dated to 360-365 million years ago.
They found some rocks that had been dated to between those time periods, and which were hypothesized to have been part of the coastal ecosystems of the time period where they thought they would find this intermediate animal.
And, they found a fossil (three of them, actually) that fit their predictions, in the place where they predicted they would find it. The fossil’s anatomy fits comfortably between the anatomy of the fish and of the amphibians, and it provided a plausible model to explain the ecological processes that drove the transition between aquatic and terrestrial modes of living based on characteristic structures of the fossil.
I can’t understand why you think predictions are not important for science. The ultimate goal of science is finding a framework of understanding that gives us the best insights into the workings of the natural world, and allows us to make use of this understanding to improve the condition of life in the future. The best way to meet this goal is to develop theories that can guide future work (i.e. make predictions).
It seems like you want science to be taught as a collection of assorted facts about nature. I can’t imagine what you think the point of such an approach would be: a source of bedtime stories, maybe? Fodder for quizzes and exams?
Don’t you agree that a larger, more structured, more useful approach makes much more sense?
Shouldn’t we be teaching ideas that can give insights into the future (i.e. can make predictions)?
If we’re not, why bother teaching them anything at all?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:19 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 2073 (573437)
08-11-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
08-11-2010 10:29 AM


Re: we must teach both
We cannot ignore the effects that religion has had on the world and all of us living through those effects. Kids should learn that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same God, the basic tenets of the Eight Fold Path, the writings of Confucius and Mencius, what Taoism says, the Vedas, Greek, Roman, Germanic and Norse mythology.
Kids should understand the horrific acts done in the name of religion, particularly the Genocide carried out by Christianity.
That isn't a religious class though, that's a social study. The Crusades, for instance, while obviously fought over religious pretenses, it is not a part of the tenets of the religion. That is in contrast with Israelites committing genocide against the Amalekites which is part of the curriculum.
Secondly, I believe when teaching such a course, it needs to be done using objective facts that aren't slanted, and it must be done with a neutral tone, with a clinical detachment.
IOW, just the facts, no emotive arguments. Allow the kids to come to their own conclusions. In public school, this must be done in a theology class. No promotion or demotion of a religion must be expressed.
So for instance, one could teach the central tenets of a religion along with corresponding facts. If those facts happen to show a contradictory nature of the religion, then so be it.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 10:29 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 12:26 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3725 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 35 of 2073 (573440)
08-11-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:55 AM


we have museums filled with archaeological evidence supporting the biblical record.
No, we don't. When I was an evangelical Christian, I went looking for this evidence as I had been told the same lie. I could not find it. I went to the Biblical Archaeological Review, the one serious evangelical Christian archaeology publication, and they showed that it does not exist. There is very little evidence consistent with the OT, never mind that actually supports the OT narrative.
There is no evidence for Moses and the Exodus. There is plenty of evidence against it. There is no evidence for Joshua and the Conquest. There is plenty of evidence against it. There is no evidence for any of the Judges and no evidence for Saul. For mighty David and all his great stories, there is one scrap of pitiful evidence that may just mention his name - that is all - and many dispute that it has anything to do with the David of the OT.
There is virtually no evidence at all for the entire pre-captivity OT narrative of the Jews, and a very good reason for this is that it was all made up by the captivity-period priests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:55 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4271 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 36 of 2073 (573441)
08-11-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:55 AM


i have already given some--go to the nurseries and see for yourself that life reproduces exactly as genesis said.
we have museums filled with archaeological evidence supporting the biblical record.
there is so much but if you only listen to those who tell you what you want to hear and are not serious about it then i could give you the ark (an example) and you would never believe me.
I have listened to these Bronze age myths for 62 years and that is why I say you still have shown no evidence. 5000 year old stories show no evidence nor do looking a plants & animals. If genesis was true there would be one species of cat, dog, horse, maple, oak, jellyfish, squid, lobster etc. How many species were on your mythical Ark? But to get back on topic. It is simple. Science should be taught in science classes and religion in social classes.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:55 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34054
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 37 of 2073 (573443)
08-11-2010 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Hyroglyphx
08-11-2010 12:15 PM


Re: we must teach both
Did you see where I said...
jar writes:
believe that if we hope to ever get an educated citizenry we need to teach evolution (a science subject) and also teach about religion (a social studies or sacred studies subject).
We should not exclude the historical facts that are related to religion. Parts of the subject would be appropriate in a sacred studies or theological class but we also need to understand that religious beliefs have very real consequences in the real world. Those need to be addressed in a social studies class.
The Crusades are a good example, they were directly driven, created by the Christian Church, promulgated by a Fatwah, a Papal decree that was broadcast all over the Christian world.
But we also need to understand more recent examples, in the US the genocide against the Native Americans again carried out to a great extent for "Christian" reasons and by Christians.
The reason is so that we can learn, learn from past mistakes, and use that knowledge gained to examine current behavior.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2010 12:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2010 1:29 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 38 of 2073 (573446)
08-11-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:41 AM


Inerrant? Not!
keep in mind that not one discovery has been made in science and archaeology that disproves the Bible.
The claims for a young earth and a global flood have both been disproved.
Early geologists, seeking to prove the global flood, gave up just about 200 years ago.
The evidence that the flood did not occur as described, about 4,350 years ago, and that the earth is old is overwhelming. The only ones who can't see that evidence are bible literalists.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:41 AM archaeologist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 12:44 PM Coyote has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34054
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 39 of 2073 (573449)
08-11-2010 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Coyote
08-11-2010 12:35 PM


Re: Inerrant? Not!
Coyote writes:
The only ones who can't see that evidence are bible literalists.
Perhaps off topic but you have to remember that Biblical Literalists do not take the Bible Literally. If they did they would have to acknowledge all of the contradictions and conflicts in the various stories.
Biblical Literalists start and end with the position that there are no contradictions in the Bible and so ignore what is literally written. If they really were Literalists they could not get past the first two chapters without realizing that the Bible contradictions exist.
Edited by jar, : took out an is that snuck in

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Coyote, posted 08-11-2010 12:35 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2010 1:34 PM jar has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 2073 (573459)
08-11-2010 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
08-11-2010 12:26 PM


Re: we must teach both
We should not exclude the historical facts that are related to religion. Parts of the subject would be appropriate in a sacred studies or theological class but we also need to understand that religious beliefs have very real consequences in the real world. Those need to be addressed in a social studies class.
Agree with that, I just wanted to distinguish which parts be taught in social studies and which parts be taught in a theology class.
The Crusades are a good example, they were directly driven, created by the Christian Church, promulgated by a Fatwah, a Papal decree that was broadcast all over the Christian world.
Indeed, it most definitely should be taught in a social studies class.
But we also need to understand more recent examples, in the US the genocide against the Native Americans again carried out to a great extent for "Christian" reasons and by Christians.
I don't want to derail the thread, but the fighting between native american tribes and colonial settlers was more complex than killing in the name of religion.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 12:26 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 2073 (573462)
08-11-2010 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jar
08-11-2010 12:44 PM


Re: Inerrant? Not!
Biblical Literalists start and end with the position that there are no contradictions in the Bible and so ignore what is literally written.
It's quite the crux. If they go the literalist route, they have to deal with some of the more obvious contradictions. If they don't, then how do they know that any part of the bible is accurate?
Quite the little conundrum.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 12:44 PM jar has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 42 of 2073 (573466)
08-11-2010 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 8:19 AM


sorry but that is not a good example to use but it does demonstrate how desperate evolutionists are because that is not a fulfilled prediction, but conjecture to make the prediction look true.
The prediction was that an intermediate form between fish and tetrapods would be found in that location. In fact, a fossil of something that has body features demonstrating a transition between fish and tetrapods was found. These are facts. If you disagree, provide facts to dispute it, not supposition, wishes or rhetoric.
what you miss is, that secular science does not get to make the rules of what is or isn't science
This is absurd. Of course science makes the rules for what science is. You statement is as ridiculous as saying that baseball doesn't get to make the rules for baseball.
God does not go by secular science rules or models He goes by His will thus we do not have to predict because creation was a one time supernatural act and secular science is designed to avoid that fact.
This statement is a complete non sequitor. The discussion isn't about what any god does, it's about how science is conducted. That was the whole point of the quotes you yourself provided from Del Ratzsch. If you now wish to abandon Ratasch's position, I would certainly encourage you to do that. But don't try to change the discussion to how a god did what you think it did.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 8:19 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 2073 (573511)
08-11-2010 6:47 PM


You say prediction is not helpful in science. But, being able to use a theory to predict what you will find in the future is a pretty good indication of the usefulness of the theory, isn't it?
Look at Tiktaalik again. You said they discovered a partial skull, but, in actuality, they discovered 3 skeletons, one of which included the entire animal except its hind limbs and tail.
discussed in the uranium dating thread in the dating forum.
I can’t understand why you think predictions are not important for science. The ultimate goal of science is finding a framework of understanding that gives us the best insights into the workings of the natural world, and allows us to make use of this understanding to improve the condition of life in the future. The best way to meet this goal is to develop theories that can guide future work (i.e. make predictions).
christians do not need predictions, we already know what is going to happen in the future. science has proven over andover that it cannot predict the future (i.e. weather forecasts) and it has a hard time even predicting the past.
the idea of 'predicitions is just anothe rtool to lead people away from the truth. since creation was a one time supernatural act, we do not need to predict anything, we know what will take place and how things came to be.
one just has to accept or reject it. it is that simple.
No, we don't. When I was an evangelical Christian, I went looking for this evidence as I had been told the same lie. I could not find it. I went to the Biblical Archaeological Review, the one serious evangelical Christian archaeology publication, and they showed that it does not exist. There is very little evidence consistent with the OT, never mind that actually supports the OT narrative.
biblical archaeology review is hardly evangelical christian. itis run by a total jewish person by the name of hershal shanks. please post it claims to being evangelical. perhaps you are thinking of ABR, associates for biblical research which is found at Home - Associates for Biblical Research. they claim to be christian and list many articles containing the proof you seek.
keepin mind, the christian belief is one of faith not physical evidence and to please God one must use faith not evidence. God will provide enough physical evidence to shore one's faith up but not destroy what pleases Him. which is why there is such limited physical evidence for most things of the Bible.
also remember that dating artifacts and mss. is very subjective and some items, like the Ipuwer paprus are misdated giving the idea that there is no evidence for anything. or if you listen to people like k. kenyon who ignored evidence at her digs or discovered by j. garstang then you will be listening to faulty conclusions which are based upon limited and missing data.
ABR has three jericho dvds if you want to watch something presenting you with evidence.
I have listened to these Bronze age myths for 62 years and that is why I say you still have shown no evidence. 5000 year old stories show no evidence nor do looking a plants & animals. If genesis was true there would be one species of cat, dog, horse, maple, oak, jellyfish, squid, lobster etc. How many species were on your mythical Ark? But to get back on topic. It is simple. Science should be taught in science classes and religion in social classes.
the evidence is there, go to that website and read some of those articles, you will get more evidence than i can list here. there is also many books out there which provide detailed accounts. one is Lost Treasures of the Bible by fant & reddish, eerdmans 2008 or 100 Reasons to trust Old Testament History by murray, wsc 2005 and many more.
Edited by archaeologist, : fixed quotes

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 6:50 PM archaeologist has replied
 Message 53 by nwr, posted 08-11-2010 8:41 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 68 by Taq, posted 08-12-2010 3:58 PM archaeologist has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 44 of 2073 (573512)
08-11-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by archaeologist
08-11-2010 6:47 PM


christians do not need predictions, we already know what is going to happen in the future. science has proven over andover that it cannot predict the future (i.e. weather forecasts) and it has a hard time even predicting the past.
the idea of 'predicitions is just anothe rtool to lead people away from the truth. since creation was a one time supernatural act, we do not need to predict anything, we know what will take place and how things came to be.
one just has to accept or reject it. it is that simple.
You are of course free to believe these things if you like. But this is a forum for the discussion of scientific issues. Since you've simply dismissed science out of hand, there's really no point in you participating in this forum any longer.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 6:47 PM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by archaeologist, posted 08-11-2010 7:19 PM subbie has replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 2073 (573518)
08-11-2010 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by subbie
08-11-2010 6:50 PM


But this is a forum for the discussion of scientific issues
yea yea, you all hide behind that idea but you forget that science does not own everything, is not the final authority and is not owned by the secular world and when you enter into topics relating to the Bible you give up that right to exclusively use your own rules for you are outside the scope of science and dealing with the topic of theology and religion
which means you are in God's realm and His rules apply. if you want to talk only science then stay out of theology and religion issues.(that includes origins)
Since you've simply dismissed science out of hand, there's really no point in you participating in this forum any longer.
what i dismiss is the lies and misinformation you think is science but until you realize you are basing your conclusions, theories and hypothesis on limited data and excluded information, you will always be looking in the wrong direction and get the wrong answers.
but that is the way it is with secularists, they do not want the truth so they use the field of science as a starwman to exclud contributions that upset their neat little applecart.
so all i have to ask is, what are you afraid of that you cannot let others participate who disagree with you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 6:50 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by subbie, posted 08-11-2010 7:22 PM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 47 by jar, posted 08-11-2010 7:22 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024