Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

archaeologist writes: keep in mind that not one discovery has been made in science and archaeology that disproves the Bible.

I'm sorry but as a fellow Christian I must point out top you that that is simply a false statement. Many, many parts of the Bible have been shown to be factually false.

For example, the Creation myths in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are mutually exclusive, if one was true the other must be false; the Biblical Flood has been absolutely, totally refuted; it never happened; the evidence is overwhelming that the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan never happened as described in the Bible.

Posting such totally false assertions does nothing to help your cause or Christianity.

---

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

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!

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!

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!

archaeologist writes: so all i have to ask is, what are you afraid of that you cannot let others participate who disagree with you?

You are free to participate, but will be expected to present evidence that can be supported. Stuff like "God said it" or "The Bible says" will carry no weight.

---

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

We know for a fact that life was not a one time creation event and that the Bible is factually wrong on many subjects such as the Biblical Flood, the Exodus, the Conquest of Canaan and so it certainly does not belong in any Science class and it is unlikely that it would be of anything more than peripheral interest in a history course.

I do believe that religion needs to be taught but primarily because of the great harm it has done over time, particularly the Christian religion.

Since religion also plays such a great part in society today I also think that at least the major religions need to be taught in a value neutral basis.

---

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

Do you understand that beyond the fact that ABR is not a Scientific organization and that what you quoted actually supports the real strength of the Scientific Method?

What you quoted shows that the Scientific Method works; as additional data is found the conclusions must change.

If the culture of ethics that is ubiquitous in Science was reflected in Christian Theology then you would have no problem understanding that many parts of the Bible like the Biblical Flood or the Exodus or the Garden of Eden story or the Conquest of Canaan as described in Joshuah are not historical.

But there is no culture of ethics in Christian Theology similar to what is found in Science.

Religion needs to be taught, but the above is a major lesson that needs to be taught to all kids.

---

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

archaeologist writes: {forgot to add the source of the quote, and i am sure many of you will dismiss it because of theauthor eventhough the person speaking the words was a very reputable scholar. The Case for Christ, by Lee Strobel pg. 60}

It is dismissed but not because of the author. It is dismissed because it is a classic example of muddy thinking. How many copies of something exist, how closely the current versions compare to older copies tell us nothing about whether anything in the text is true or even relevant.

That is another thing that needs to be taught, and that is "How to look at arguments and determine when they are nothing but smoke and mirrors." We need to teach children how to read religious texts critically.

---

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

archaeologist writes: and of course you willingly miss the point and distort the reality. it does not prove what you say, it proves that you cannot trust science or its methods but those who are too unwillingly to open their minds and recieve the truth about their chosen 'authority' they just add more evidence to my point.

But no one has said that anyone should trust science. That is exactly why science works, it gets tested.

The examples you posted show that science did respond to new data, and it corrected itself. That is why Science works.

archaeologist writes: of course not, science rejects God's ethics and morality, what did you expect? a field that omits the supernatural to hold to supernatural morality? you are certainly duped to think that secular ideas of ethics trump Godly ones.

That of course is simply false. Science does not reject God's ethics or morality.

Science does not even reject the super-natural. The fact though is that whenever the super-natural has been tested it has failed.

archaeologist writes: keep in mind, you cannot trust something that is always changing. when such is applied to humans, they are called 'unstable' and shunned by the more 'stable' members of the community. you cannot change the definition froma negative to a positive simply because it is applied to a field you like.

Of course you can trust things that are always changing, that is called life and learning. Only a fool does not consider new evidence and revise conclusions based on the new evidence.

The problem though for teaching is that there is no evidence of the super-natural.

Religion needs to be taught, after all religion for good and ill, has effects in the real world. Kids need to be taught to challenge, question and test their beliefs.

---

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

archaeologist writes: no,it is not false, you just want it to be. as for failing the so-called objective tests the supernatural does not act upon demand by the unchurched world andit is no surprise that they or you did not get the response you wanted.

HUH?

archaeologist writes: you hide behind your tests and refuse to check the honesty of them or if you have the right questions or attitude. the supernatural did not fail, you and your fellow scientists have.

HUH?

Again, the whole process of the Scientific Method is to check the honesty of what is published. You even posted a bunch of examples that show that the Scientific Method did just that.

archaeologist writes: you confuse 'new evidence' with truth and that is not always the case. you forget the mitigating factors like peer jealousy, peer fabrication and you have forgotten to learn your lessons from the myriad of hoaxes that plaque the evolutionary field.

Again, that is simply not true. Those factors are certainly considered and in fact are the basis of the Scientific Method. The Scientific Method recognizes such things can happen and that is why it is open, published, constantly subject to testing by others.

Truth is not as important as factual. For example it is a fact that the Biblical Flood never happened and has been totally refuted. That fact needs to be taught to kids.

Edited by jar, : changed who;e to whole... appalin spallin

---

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

archaeologist writes: your selective use of the scientific method is noted as we all know that the peer review system is faulty. many scientists who are sent papers to check, do not repeat the experiments or even read them. then th eeditors doing the selection can manipulate the results by selecting the scientists they want to review them--depending on what answer they want. don't give me this idea that the scientific method is working or is perfect or above board.

Again, what you claim I said is just untrue.

I never claimed that the Scientific Method is perfect but it is certainly above board. The beauty of the Scientific Method is that it does not just rely on peer review. When folk publish Scientists all over the world are free to try to replicate the work. In fact, until the work is replicated it is held as VERY tentative.

In fact, the quotes you published were ALL examples of the self correcting ethics that are the Scientific Method.

Again, the very most basic principle of the Scientific Method is that all findings are tentative and subject to change when new evidence is found.

That is why Creationism can never be taught as Science. It begins with the conclusion and then selects or creates whatever evidence it can find to support the position and ignores the evidence that refutes the position.

---

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

archaeologist writes: there are too many questions that they cannot answer, nor will they ever be able to answer which disqualifies their theory from being considered legitimate and a viable option to creation as found in Gen. 1 &2.

Yet more untruths.

First the myths in Genesis 1 & 2 are mutually exclusive; if one is true then the other is false. Second, even if true they tell us absolutely nothing about how life was created. Third, Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are not even related to the subject of how life began; that is the area called Abiogenesis.

---

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

What aspects of Christianity would you include within a "will be constitutional" framework?

There is lots covered in that thread, but of course Christianity would only be one of the religions covered.

It's hardly worth a whole new thread IMHO, particularly since there are many many examples already in practice, for example the studies in the UK.

The minimal religions covered would the the Judaic family (stressing the similarities), the Indus Valley religions, the historic pantheon (Greek, Roman, Norse), Egyptian, and then the Philosophic religions, the writings of Mencius, Confucius, Taoism, Buddhism.

Typical questions would be things like what did (pick a religion) say about (pick a subject).

It would cover both the good and bad effects of religion over time.

---

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

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!

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!