Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 136 of 2073 (579509)
09-04-2010 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by jar
09-04-2010 9:56 PM


Re: What would the curriculum be? - Do a new topic?
That sounds like a Comparative Religions course.
If it is taught as Anthropology that would be very useful.
And it should not be taught as Religious Studies. As it is often practiced, I think that approach would also introduce a bias.
Further, it should not be taught by a leader of any particular religion, as that could introduce a bias. One possible exception might be a Jesuit, as they are generally very well educated and usually can present cogent arguments for a variety of positions.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by jar, posted 09-04-2010 9:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 09-04-2010 11:11 PM Coyote has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 137 of 2073 (579518)
09-04-2010 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Coyote
09-04-2010 10:59 PM


Re: What would the curriculum be? - Do a new topic?
Well, in my cases it was Episcopal Priests teaching the subjects. We did have a few Rabbis come in, one Imam and also one Buddhist Monk that I can remember.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Coyote, posted 09-04-2010 10:59 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Coyote, posted 09-04-2010 11:55 PM jar has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 138 of 2073 (579533)
09-04-2010 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by jar
09-04-2010 11:11 PM


Re: What would the curriculum be? - Do a new topic?
Well, in my cases it was Episcopal Priests teaching the subjects. We did have a few Rabbis come in, one Imam and also one Buddhist Monk that I can remember.
I would not favor such a teaching staff, as it does not have the analytical and hands-off/disinterested party approach that really pays off in this circumstance. In a worse-case scenario it could become a competition to capture new members for one's beliefs.
That is why I suggested the approach be Anthropology. (I had such a course in grad school, but the subject matter could be adjusted to other levels.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 09-04-2010 11:11 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by archaeologist, posted 09-05-2010 12:56 AM Coyote has replied
 Message 142 by jar, posted 09-05-2010 9:08 AM Coyote has not replied

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 2073 (579560)
09-05-2010 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Coyote
09-04-2010 11:55 PM


Re: What would the curriculum be? - Do a new topic?
i propose that evolution NOT be taught at all. after all as one evolutionist pointed out, evolutionary scientists use 'artificial experiments' to make their case. artificial does not mean real:
ARTIFICIAL, a. Made or contrived by art, or by human skill and labor, in opposition to natural; as artificial heat or light; an artificial magnet.
2. Feigned; fictitious; not genuine or natural; as artificial tears.
3. Contrived with skill or art.
4. Cultivated; not indigenous; not being of spontaneous growth; as artificial grasses.
Webster, N. 2006. Noah Webster's first edition of An American dictionary of the English language. Foundation for American Christian Education: Anaheim, CA
in fact i know that evolutionary scientists have NOT replicated one claimed change by the process of evolution. they can't for they do not know the original conditions that brought upon the claimed changes, they do not know all the failed attempts by the process to achieve said claimed changes, they do not know how those changes came about.
plus they themselves are not part of the original conditions which means any experiment for evolution is moot, for scientists did not create those claimed changes in the actual process of the supposed evolution nor brought the original claimed changes to existence.
in other words, they are nor 'repeating one change' which means evolution is disqualified from the scientific classroom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Coyote, posted 09-04-2010 11:55 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Coyote, posted 09-05-2010 1:03 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 141 by dwise1, posted 09-05-2010 2:50 AM archaeologist has not replied
 Message 144 by nator, posted 09-05-2010 9:36 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 140 of 2073 (579562)
09-05-2010 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by archaeologist
09-05-2010 12:56 AM


Re: What would the curriculum be? - Do a new topic?
Arch -- your post is a total non-sequitur. It has no relationship whatsoever to my post.
My post dealt with a potential curriculum and approach for a Comparative Religion course.
Care to try again?
Edited by Coyote, : formatting

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by archaeologist, posted 09-05-2010 12:56 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5974
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 141 of 2073 (579571)
09-05-2010 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by archaeologist
09-05-2010 12:56 AM


Re: What would the curriculum be? - Do a new topic?
I'm sorry, but I was greatly amused that you would even go so far as to ensure that your dictionary was cleared by a Christian organization. That is something that I would expect from a writer of satires about the berChristian community.
May I suggest that you have been read the wrong scrolls? Or at least that you would benefit greatly by expanding your scroll reading list? For example:
quote:
Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)
And also a non-scroll source, the Governor of Mississippi, circa 1990, give or take a few years, quoted here from memory from a radio newscast at the time. He was explaining why he was campaigning so hard for education reform in his state:
quote:
We know that ignorance doesn't work, because we've already tried it!
So, I've been noticing that you've almost exclusively been using ignorance in your posts here. How's that been working for you? I'm sure that it works well for you when you preach to the choir (America's leading atheist, Dan Barker, also found that as a fundamentalist preacher he could say almost anything at all and his fundamentalist audience would buy it very enthusiastically. And I'm sure that you can confuse and confound your ignorant opponents and even some of your learned opponents who are unfamiliar with creationist nonsense (the general situation in the 70's heyday of the ICR's travelling debate show, but then their opponents started studying "creation science" and started turning the tide circa 1980), but it doesn't even begin to fly with us who are familiar with your nonsense, does it? That's because ignorance does not work, as even a past governor of Mississippi knew all too well.
Why really do you not want evolution to be taught? Your feeble attempt at an expressed reason only generates the rolling of eyes. It's really because you see it as conflicting with your religious beliefs -- to be fair, while it really does not conflict with theism in general nor with Christianity in particular, it does conflict with the theology of a particular minor subset of Christianity. Apparently yours.
Now, please try to concentrate here. What is the expressed purpose of science education? Is it to compell belief? No, that is your purpose in education, to indoctrinate children in your narrow theology; you are only projecting there. The expressed purpose of public school education, not just science education, is understanding. And it is expliciticly not to compell belief. Was my example of the United States Air Force's education of its non-commissioned officers in Communism not sufficient to demonstrate that very simple fact?
Now, just why do you not want your children to learn about evolution? About what evolution really says, as opposed to what you try to tell them that it says? Do you not want your children to oppose evolution? Do you not want your children to fight against your chosen foe, evolution? Do you not want to give them everything you can to support them in that fight?
Then why do you wish to keep them ignorant about evolution? You are directly sabotaging any chance at success that they might have! Why would you deliberately sabotague your own children like that?
I believe that I know why you would take such a counter-productive course of action. Because you know full well that you are lying to your children about evolution. Yes, you think that you have been well-meaning, but you know that there will come a day when your children will come home and tell you, "Now I know what evolution really says. And you lied to me! If you lied to me about that, then what else did you lie to me about? About the Redemption? Why should I ever believe you again?"
arch, I have read the testimony of many atheists. So many of them were lied to by their religious leaders.
At this point, I would like to thank you personally for your outstanding contribution to the spread of atheism. You have no idea how much you are contributing to the future of our species!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by archaeologist, posted 09-05-2010 12:56 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 142 of 2073 (579622)
09-05-2010 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Coyote
09-04-2010 11:55 PM


Re: What would the curriculum be? - Do a new topic?
I would not favor such a teaching staff, as it does not have the analytical and hands-off/disinterested party approach that really pays off in this circumstance.
Had much experience with Episcopal teaching priests?
But I have no problem with the issue of teachers, as long as the subjects are taught in a neutral manner.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Coyote, posted 09-04-2010 11:55 PM Coyote has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 143 of 2073 (579625)
09-05-2010 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 9:45 PM


many scientists who are sent papers to check, do not repeat the experiments or even read them.
How do you know this?
You do realize that when someone is asked to review a paper for a reputable scientific journal, theyhave to provide a detailed analysis of it along with reccommendations for improvements, fatal flaws, etc., don't you?
Not reading the paper makes that step rather impossible.
Also, scientists reviewing papers for publication are not supposed to do replications. Replication happens by other labs who read the papers after publication.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 9:45 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2256 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 144 of 2073 (579632)
09-05-2010 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by archaeologist
09-05-2010 12:56 AM


genes
Do you accept that DNA is the basis of heredity?
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by archaeologist, posted 09-05-2010 12:56 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
PaulGL
Member (Idle past 3474 days)
Posts: 92
Joined: 04-06-2012


Message 145 of 2073 (658564)
04-06-2012 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by extent
05-04-2010 7:22 PM


I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of misguided (to the point even of committing perjury in ‘Dover, et. al.’) and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality
Evolution as a scientific discipline must be divorced from the associated parent philosophy Uniformitarianism which was in vogue preceding it for reasons which have been discredited since. Evolution is a valid scientific discipline, Uniformitarianism is a disproven philosophy and school of thought. Uniformitarianism has intruded and embedded itself into scientific thought and thus skewed many considerations of cosmology and astral physics from being objective and empirical. Never mind poor old Emmanuel Velikovsky: While the evidence that he was considering was and is relevant and valid, his derivations (due to his great lack in correct scientific methodology) and conclusions were far amiss. He thus did a great disservice to the school of astral catastrophism, and set back its credibility immensely.
The most recent conclusive disproof of Uniformitarianism is this(Coverage to the public was broadcast on a segment of Nova in the last 12 months):
1. In the past decade (survey completion in last 3-4 years) a radar/topological mapping satellite of improved precision surveyed the surface of Venus.
2. Recently formed (even of possibly historical times), non-eroded craters were found in large and significant quantities on the surface of Venus, craters which were not the result of volcanic activity, but of astral catastrophism (meteoric impact).
3. When a renowned (I didn’t take note of his name, due to the following) uniformitarian astrophysicist was interviewed for his opinion he said: Well, I don’t see how Uniformitarianism can ever possibly explain these craters. But, nevertheless, I’m not willing to give it up.
4. Gentlemen, this is not objective, logical, scientific methodology. Scientific methodology requires that when the derived conclusions of your theory are found to be false in light of the evidence, then you either discard the theory or, if possible modify the flawed part of it accordingly. To cling to it after it has been disproved is not objective, it is religious domaticism.
Creationism per se in all of its multi-farious manifestations, since it invokes to some extent and at some point a supernatural genesis of species, is thus by its very nature incapable of being a scientific discipline. That being the case, creationism has absolutely no place whatsoever in any scientific textbook.
Paul
amessageforthehumanrace
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines between paragraphs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extent, posted 05-04-2010 7:22 PM extent has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Larni, posted 04-06-2012 11:13 AM PaulGL has not replied
 Message 158 by Pressie, posted 04-19-2012 1:06 AM PaulGL has not replied

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 146 of 2073 (658568)
04-06-2012 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by PaulGL
04-06-2012 11:06 AM


Did that make sense in your head?

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by PaulGL, posted 04-06-2012 11:06 AM PaulGL has not replied

  
OpticalIllusions
Junior Member (Idle past 4450 days)
Posts: 9
Joined: 04-16-2012


Message 147 of 2073 (659475)
04-16-2012 7:36 AM


Kids should only learn about religions in school that their parents say are okay for them to learn. I don't want my son to learn about religions that I don't want him to be exposed to yet. Obviously few parents will want their kids to learn about witchcraft in their science class (just an example). I know that when my son is an adult he will have the sense to reject any of witchcraft's theories. But kids are impressionable. Teach the kids more about the religions that their parents have exposed them to. The best way to do this would be to seperate the kids into different classes based on what their parents want them to learn.
I'm not a religous zealot, I don't think religion should be taught in the science class (but creation science should). Of course religion would only be taught in literature, philosophy, art, and music, since religion basically creationed those subjects. You can't teach art without the Sistine Chapel.
Edited by OpticalIllusions, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by jar, posted 04-16-2012 9:57 AM OpticalIllusions has not replied
 Message 149 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2012 10:30 AM OpticalIllusions has not replied
 Message 150 by Taq, posted 04-16-2012 12:45 PM OpticalIllusions has not replied
 Message 151 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-16-2012 1:15 PM OpticalIllusions has not replied
 Message 159 by Pressie, posted 04-19-2012 1:52 AM OpticalIllusions has not replied
 Message 173 by saab93f, posted 05-29-2012 3:21 AM OpticalIllusions has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34064
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


(5)
Message 148 of 2073 (659490)
04-16-2012 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:36 AM


OpticalIllusions writes:
Kids should only learn about religions in school that their parents say are okay for them to learn.
Why?
The purpose of an education is not to learn what you want to learn or what your parents want you to learn, it is to learn in particular what others don't want you to learn. Education is to learn how to challenge ideas, think critically, test your beliefs.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:36 AM OpticalIllusions has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1491 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 149 of 2073 (659496)
04-16-2012 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:36 AM


Hi OpticalIllusions, and welcome to the fray
Kids should only learn about religions in school that their parents say are okay for them to learn. ...
Why shouldn't kids be exposed to all sides of a question so they can explore the differences and make up their own minds?
... I don't want my son to learn about religions that I don't want him to be exposed to yet. ...
Then you shouldn't expose him to any, otherwise you are biasing the information being presented to benefit your views.
... Obviously few parents will want their kids to learn about witchcraft in their science class (just an example). ...
Why not? We can teach kids that what is portrayed as "witchcraft" is actually a misrepresentation of other religions and show them what those other beliefs actually say. We can teach them to identify straw man and ad hominem logical fallacies, and encourage them to form opinions based on facts instead.
... I know that when my son is an adult he will have the sense to reject any of witchcraft's theories. ...
Because you intend to keep him from the truth about other religions and only feed him biased information?
... But kids are impressionable. ...
Which is why you should not try to take advantage of that in your own teaching.
... Teach the kids more about the religions that their parents have exposed them to. ...
Why? Don't their parents teach enough, don't their churches teach enough, so you want assistance in providing biased information?
If you have kids from a variety of religious backgrounds do you teach about all those backgrounds?
... The best way to do this would be to seperate the kids into different classes based on what their parents want them to learn.
So we could group them according to which parents want their children to be gullible ignorant and biased, and those that want to learn how to make decisions based on evidence and facts?
I'm not a religous zealot, ...
But your policies appear to be those of a zealot in what you want to see in school.
... I don't think religion should be taught in the science class ...
Good, because religion is not science, founded on evidence, it is faith, founded on belief without evidence.
... (but creation science should). ...
There is no such thing. There is either science or not-science.
... Of course religion would only be taught in literature, philosophy, art, and music, ...
These can all be taught without having to introduce religion, and where religion does impact these fields it is a small part of the overall picture that should be presented in them.
Of course this would apply to ALL religions, as no one religion has had more effect than the others.
Curiously, the best place to teach about religious impacts would be in a comparative religion course, covering as many different religions as practical.
... since religion basically creationed those subjects.
Nope. This is the kind of unsupported assertion that is made by religious zealots.
... You can't teach art without the Sistine Chapel. ...
And again, this is just the kind of unsupported assertion that is made by religious zealots.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:36 AM OpticalIllusions has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 150 of 2073 (659520)
04-16-2012 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by OpticalIllusions
04-16-2012 7:36 AM


Kids should only learn about religions in school that their parents say are okay for them to learn.
We already have places that will do that. In fact, they don't even charge an attendance fee. They are called "churches". You should look into it.
Why do we need public schools to teach religion? Why do you want the government in the evangelist business? That seems like a recipe for disaster.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by OpticalIllusions, posted 04-16-2012 7:36 AM OpticalIllusions 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