Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9174 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,616 Year: 4,873/9,624 Month: 221/427 Week: 31/103 Day: 0/11 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 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 9 of 2073 (559196)
05-07-2010 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Taq
05-07-2010 10:54 AM


Comparative religion
The best way to do this, IMHO, is to teach kids about other cultures and how religion plays a role in those cultures. Students could discuss how religion has helped to mold the political views of each culture, and how it relates to international relations. In today's world students should know the difference between Sunni's and Shi'a and how the friction between these sects has shaped the politics of the Middle East. I know from my college years that it is impossible to discuss the development of Western Civilization without discussing the emergence of Protestantism, Calvinism, etc. By incorporating religious education with history/civics I believe the material can be covered in an objective and informative manner.
What you are advocating is actually a course in comparative religion taught within the discipline of anthropology.
If you teach it within the discipline of theology you are more liable to get a whole different approach, and one that is neither based on empirical evidence nor impartial.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Taq, posted 05-07-2010 10:54 AM Taq has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 94 of 2073 (573894)
08-13-2010 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by archaeologist
08-12-2010 8:27 PM


Wrong once again
take for example the field of archaeology. the majority of its discoveries come from normal non-profressional people not the professional archaeologist who has spent years studying ancient languages and his/her field.
Absolutely wrong! Particularly so in areas where there is no monumental architecture or major ruins, or no rock art.
Many of the finds in some areas may be made by non-professionals, but the discoveries that advance the archaeological profession are not so often made in the field, and are rarely made by non-professionals. In the field you may excavate some nice artifacts and features, and in some areas run across ruins or rock art or whatever. But you are confusing finds with meaningful increases in knowledge. Finds by themselves lack context, and are of limited use.
The true discoveries are made by figuring out what those finds mean. The finds are only a means to an end, and that end is knowledge. You need to study the finds, date them, perform any of several hundred tests on them, or devise some new tests, correlate all of the results with each other and with results from other finds and other areas. They you can place those finds in a context and give them meaning. Only when you have some context will you have a good idea what the particular find means and will have contributed to our knowledge of the past.
Perhaps you should study some archaeology before pretending to be one.
(And yes, I know there are different kinds of archaeology and methods vary from area to area.)

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by archaeologist, posted 08-12-2010 8:27 PM archaeologist has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 112 of 2073 (574516)
08-16-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by archaeologist
08-16-2010 5:54 AM


...don't you think?
What I think, after reading this amazing post, is that you should seek professional help.
You appear to have lost all touch with reality.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by archaeologist, posted 08-16-2010 5:54 AM archaeologist has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 123 of 2073 (579232)
09-03-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Nuimshaan
09-03-2010 8:51 PM


Re: Evolution of the Chimpanzee
{Hide off-topic reply to non-topic blather message - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide something.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 8:51 PM Nuimshaan has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 125 of 2073 (579239)
09-03-2010 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Nuimshaan
09-03-2010 9:24 PM


Nonsense
If this is an example of the type of religion you want taught in schools, you have provided the best evidence for laughing you and it right out of the schools.
It is gibberish.
Your post is so confused on the timelines and events that it is not even worth responding to. You appear to simply have no frame of reference with which to address a detailed and scientific response.
I suggest that you first try to unlearn old falsehoods, then you might be able to more adequately evaluate new information.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Nuimshaan, posted 09-03-2010 9:24 PM Nuimshaan has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 187 of 2073 (728884)
06-04-2014 1:12 AM


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).

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 194 of 2073 (733343)
07-16-2014 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by mram10
07-16-2014 12:11 PM


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.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 12:11 PM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(4)
Message 205 of 2073 (733405)
07-17-2014 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by mram10
07-16-2014 11:58 PM


This is going to be fun So far, I see the "science" here is the same as my professors and co-workers since. I was really hoping to find an unbiased site where new ideas are welcome.
New ideas are welcome here, but in the Science Forums they are not immune to skepticism. If they fail to measure up, you must expect that they will be criticized.
The topic is teaching evolution vs. religion in school. You clearly are coming down on the side of teaching religion in public schools (whether as creationism, or it's illegitimate step-child, ID).
Most that argue against ID or a creation moment are ignorant to what work has been put into it and the logic behind it. I will not try to argue them to those close minded there-is-no-evidence-for-that types. For those with a truly scientific mind, I would love to learn from and debate the differing theories, rather than argue a flat earth for the rest of all time
But, unfortunately, what you are doing is arguing a flat earth--you are arguing for a belief that has been found to be without evidence. And this is what you want taught in schools?
Sadly, I do not have time to respond to all of the replies aimed at me above, but have read them.
No problem. Just pick a representative one, close to the topic, and respond to that. It is encouraged that we remain on-topic here so feel free to just respond to those posts to you which are on-topic.
Evolution requires faith, which those that are entrenched will not admit.
Evolution is based on evidence. Religions require faith because they don't have the evidence to support their claims. If you, as a religious believer, truly had evidence supporting your beliefs you would be trumpeting that evidence from the highest towers. Instead, you (generic "you") have to try and sneak your beliefs into schools under the guise first of creation "science," then of the "science" of intelligent design, then as some sort of "critical thinking." And you do so by sneaking believers onto school boards rather than presenting evidence in peer-reviewed journals. The whole sordid story came out in the Dover trial.
Observational science is my comfort zone, thus I feel without observation, I am not comfortable putting blind trust in a theory.
A theory is the single best explanation for a particular series of facts. It must explain all of those facts, not be contradicted by any relevant facts, and make successful predictions. And then it is just a theory--not a "proven fact" as creationists usually demand. In science proof is not the "gold" standard--theory is.
"Observational science" is just a creation of creationists seeking to denigrate those sciences that contradict their religious beliefs.
I look forward to those of you looking for true science.
And true science, or should I say, TRVE science, is what agrees with your religious beliefs? All science relies on the scientific method, and no part of science is more true than any other as science is not aimed at truth, or TRVTH. This is just another false definition propounded by creationists in an effort to shore up their beliefs and to denigrate any field of science which contradicts their beliefs.
Here is a good way of describing this issue:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
As for the others, your position is noted, but please feel free to keep the negative comments to yourself. I hope you know I am not being rude, I just do not have time to waste hearing the same bashing that is all over the internet to anyone not accepting of the TOE.
In other words, you were looking for a site to rubber-stamp your religious beliefs, and maybe even tell you that they represented good science.
Sorry, try down the hall. We have Forums on this site devoted to religious belief and biblical study.
But you have posted to the Science Forums part of this site, and here you are expected to bring evidence to support your claims.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by mram10, posted 07-16-2014 11:58 PM mram10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 1:01 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 217 of 2073 (733445)
07-17-2014 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by mram10
07-17-2014 1:01 AM


Coyote,
You are obviously the closed-minded type that is against "science".
Actually I do science for a living.
The human body is complicated enough to warrant a look into "design". Life in general warrants a look into "design". THe universe is too perfect in my opinion to be a chance happening.
Your opinion has not been shown to be correct.
Observation is just a creation argument?? Not sure where you came up with that, but it is false. Observation is a building block of the scientific method. You think you have me "pegged" as a ....., and I obviously have you "pegged" as an evolutionary zealot, thus, it is probably better for you to avoid my posts. I am being respectful and wish to avoid wasting your time as well as mine.
The false dichotomy between "true" science and some other type is a creationist fantasy. Our poster Faith has often disparaged those sciences which disagree with her beliefs as not being "true" sciences. Creating a dichotomy between observational sciences and some other kind seems to be a part of the same creationist technique.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 1:01 AM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 221 of 2073 (733540)
07-17-2014 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by mram10
07-17-2014 11:36 PM


Re: redirections
Occom's razor could agree that a Creator or ID force created or aided in our origin It does, after all, have the fewest assumptions. Creation .... creator.
It is not the number of assumptions that matters, rather it is the quality of those assumptions.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by mram10, posted 07-17-2014 11:36 PM mram10 has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2189 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 233 of 2073 (733611)
07-19-2014 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by mram10
07-19-2014 11:40 AM


The complexity issue alone should warrant the ID option.
So, complexity is enough to turn ID, which is simply religion playing hide-the-god, into a science?
And what would you use as a textbook, the bible?
Regarding ID as a science, see the decision from the Dover trial. That should disabuse you of that notion.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 11:40 AM mram10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:13 PM Coyote has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024