Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

I've off-topic bannered a bunch of messages. That does not mean that the un-bannered messages are necessarily on-topic.

People, please - Topic theme awareness.

Adminnemooseus

Thank you for this important post. I totally agree with you. Religion is a dangerous means to mind control people and particular children. The subject religions on planet Earth would be a teaching subject to teach but only to kids older than 16 so that they can learn all about the different religions, what they stand for, all of their values, how the religion evolved and why, what it does to people psychologically, what people gained from it, who gained from it and why, what were and (or) are the negative aspects of any particular religion and so on. Children under 16 are way too receptive for all kinds of craziness and as the Catholic church said it "when you have a child from 7 you have him for life". This needs to be avoided particularly in a country which is already struggling with world image and world market competitiveness.

The plain answer is, "don't even try". It would be a tremendous disservice to students and a waste of valuable resources if schools were to entertain the idea of teaching religion alongside evolution. Creationism (which flavor?) is absolutely not a legitimate 'alternative' to well-understood and highly reliable science.

Evolution is a matter of scientific fact. Some religious people are able to reconcile their religious belief and science and some cannot. Fortunately, it is illegal to teach religious dogma in public schools and creationism is religious dogma.

Hi, Maezeppa, welcome to EvC.

You are most correct. School science classes are for teaching science. I, personally, do not see any reason for having any religious classes in school. This, to me, detracts away from the training/teaching/learning a secular public school needs to provide for the student to fit and succeed in this culture. Home and church can provide any religious training necessary, though I don't believe any such training is good for the human species considering the problems we face with where we are and where we're going.

At the top of the screen under the banner there is a command bar. If you hit "All Topics" you will see a list of all the most recent topics with the latest and greatest messages for the present on-going discussions. Come on over and join in.

Again, welcome to EvC

Edited by AZPaul3, : spl'n as usual.

I, personally, do not see any reason for having any religious classes in school.

I see some good in it. I suggest that studying religion is at least as beneficial as studying any historical subject. In fact I believe it would be a great idea to provide some instruction in both the Koran and the Bible, because doing so might aid in understanding your neighbor. Certainly other religions should be included.

For what it's worth, I remember spending a good deal of time discussing mythology in 8th grade English. That stuff was all part of someone's religion. What if we had spent time comparing origin stories. How long would that rlast before the fundies got in an uproar.

I, personally, do not see any reason for having any religious classes in school.

Maybe I'm not realizing what you mean by a "religion" class, but I have a one-word rebuttal for you: Anthropology.

I mean, you did italicize "any".

There is quite a difference between studying comparative religions, which is often done in Anthropology, and the type of religion which fundamentalists want taught in school (i.e., indoctrination favoring only their particular brand of religion).

I have a one-word rebuttal for you: Anthropology.

Ya got me. I surrender.

I'm just bouncing off your post, but I just noticed the subtitle.

School is for Facts

I have to object to that one.

I remember reading some stupid poetry in English class and the teacher is all: "What does it mean to you?" And I'm all: "I don't know, something a frog and a bug and a flower, its pretty dumb." And she goes: "No, it metaphorical, there's a deeper meaning there, what is it?" Again i go: "Beats the hell out of me, all I see them talking about is plants and animals."

"Can't I go back to the chemistry lab? I prefer to learn about facts, mam."

"Fine, yes I'll go to the principal's office."

I remember reading some ****** poetry in English class and the teacher is all: "What does it mean to you?"

In my English class we digested Paul Simon's "I am a rock" and Paul McCartney's "Eleanor Rigby."

So my point remains since the "fact" is, CS, you went to the wrong school.

So my point remains since the "fact" is, CS, you went to the wrong school.

I only had two options, and the Catholic high school was waaay better than the public option.

Teaching Academics:

Protestants believe the way to heaven is through deeds.

Teaching Religion:

Only through deeds can you get to heaven.

--Percy

Let's define religion:
re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

: the belief in a god or in a group of gods

: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Let's focus on the last definition. Teaching evolution is, in my opinion, teaching religion. As for ID or creationism, if it has a valid description of origins, then people should be made aware of the differing theories.

Common sense question:
Which is the safer teaching?
1. You are a chemical/biological accident. Upon death you will decompose and cease to exist as an individual.
2. You are a created for a purpose, held accountable for everything you do, etc.

Edited by mram10, : No reason given.

Teaching evolution is, in my opinion, teaching religion.

Your opinion is wrong.

As for ID or creationism, if it has a valid description of origins, then people should be made aware of the differing theories.

It does not have a valid description of origins. Its description is contradicted by the evidence.

And please, do not use the term "theory" to describe ID. It is not a theory, but a religious belief trying (unsuccessfully) to masquerade as science.

Common sense question: Which is the safer teaching? 1. You are a chemical/biological accident. Upon death you will decompose and cease to exist as an individual. 2. You are a created for a purpose, held accountable for everything you do, etc.

But which alternative has evidence to support it? Certainly not the second one.

mram10 writes: As for ID or creationism, if it has a valid description of origins, then people should be made aware of the differing theories.

By all means, let's teach ID and/or creationism as failed hypotheses, just like we teach alchemy and astrology as failed hypotheses. A theory is basically what you have left after you throw out all of the failed hypotheses. ID and creationism have failed every test, so all we have left is evolution, which has passed every test.