Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
76 online now:
Percy (Admin), Phat, Stile (3 members, 73 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,230 Year: 4,342/6,534 Month: 556/900 Week: 80/182 Day: 14/38 Hour: 2/9

Announcements: Security Update Released

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Inactive Member

Message 6 of 2058 (559037)
05-06-2010 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by extent
05-04-2010 7:22 PM

I believe religion should not be taught until a much older age than what is shown above, although im sure many may disagree.

I understand why you feel this way, but a more important precedent is at stake if it's illegal to teach kids about religion. The freedom of religion is protected and should be protected.

However, there is also a provision that says that government cannot give respect to any religion. Obviously creation and religion are inextricably linked, so if one wants to teach about creation it must be done at privately held seminars and not in public schools.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by extent, posted 05-04-2010 7:22 PM extent has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 13 of 2058 (559207)
05-07-2010 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 11:41 AM

I think creation should be taught in school but not right beside evolution. There are ways to do it even without bringing the religious aspect into such as the cross and the resurrection.

I don't see how since creationism and the cross are inextricably linked. That has always been the fundamental problem with creationisms' lack of acceptance in the classroom. It violates the Bill of Rights. It hasn't gottet in to the classroom because it can't get passed the courtroom.

Make it elective or something if kids want to take a class on creation. Also, it could be taught (here in America) as a Biblical/Western culture history class or something like that.

It would have to be a theology class. It couldn't be an elective within a hard science course because it has no scientific backing.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 11:41 AM Flyer75 has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 34 of 2058 (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

Inactive Member

Message 40 of 2058 (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

Inactive Member

Message 41 of 2058 (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 taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 102 of 2058 (573960)
08-13-2010 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 5:24 AM

you do realize that micro-evolution does not exist, right?

So different breeds of dogs don't exist? A figment of our imagination?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 5:24 AM archaeologist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by archaeologist, posted 08-14-2010 12:42 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Inactive Member

Message 1368 of 2058 (875603)
04-30-2020 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1353 by candle2
04-28-2020 3:23 PM

Re: Please define what you mean by Evolution
Evolutionists believe minute changes, which they refer to as micro evolution (it is nothing more than variations in a species), over the course of eons, leads to macro evolution.

No, evolutionists do not use the terms "micro" or "macro," they just use evolution. Those are invented creationist terms.

Evolutionists must have great faith to believe in their concept, because it certainly isn't observable.

I'd like to remind you that a pug is directly related to a wolf. If you were looking by mere appearances and did not know the history you would likely not believe that there was any relation between them because of the radical differences in appearance. This, of course, is evolution at work and it is incontestable. The only difference is it was guided by human intervention. We all know a pug, if left in the wild, would not be fit for survival.

There is no way possible for them to prove their assertions.

Oh, sure there is. You are relying on observation, as in, only by direct observation can science be explained. Not true at all. If you accept DNA and you sequence the genome of various creatures you will see that some match within tenths of percentages. If direct observation is a requirement, then how is it that police can solve cases using DNA evidence without having observed the crime directly?

I only believe in science that can be proven. True science never relies solely on assumptions.

And it has been proven... it just happens to fly in the face of your beliefs so look for ways to make it conform to a preordained narrative.

And what I observe is "kind producing kind"

And what precisely is a "kind" in scientific terms?

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1353 by candle2, posted 04-28-2020 3:23 PM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1369 by candle2, posted 04-30-2020 5:01 PM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022