Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
30 online now:
DrJones*, Hyroglyphx, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (4 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,004 Year: 22,040/19,786 Month: 603/1,834 Week: 103/500 Day: 0/61 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Importance of the First Amendment
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 16 of 59 (463967)
04-22-2008 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Serdna
04-21-2008 10:18 PM


But doesn't this completely undermine the teaching of religion to students from their lives outside of school including, but no limited to, church and biblical studies from family members or religious leaders.

[...]

The evolutionary theory is not a religious belief, it is a scientific theory, and is therefore is given free passage in public schools curriculum even though it is essentially undermining any belief in a god or religion, and I believe that this is a breach of the first amendment.

If their religious leaders, family, or whatever, are teaching them that evolution is a lie and a work of the devil, then teaching them about evolution will indeed undermine this belief.

But if we stop teaching them about evolution on that basis, we're going to have to stop teaching a lot of other things as well.

For example, there are lots of geocentrists still, who get their arguments from the Bible as they did in Galileo's day. Teaching that the earth moves conflicts with their religious beliefs. Should we abandon that?

Jack Chick famously taught that the strong nuclear force is a lie, and that the nuclei of atoms are held together by Jesus. Nuclear physics contradicts his religious beliefs. Let's stop teaching it.

There's a chap on these forums who offered the "fact" that the Great Pyramid wasn't built by Egyptians as one of his top six pieces of evidence for Creationism. Can we teach, contrary to his religious beliefs, that the Egyptians built the pyramids?

Here's a random creationist arguing that rainbows are miraculous: "Where do you think the rainbow came from? There is no scientific explanation." So, we can't teach basic optics. It contradicts his religion. Drat.

Here's Anne Coulter lying for Jesus: "It [the theory of evolution] doesn't explain why we don't find any bad mutations." We don't find any bad mutations, Ms Coulter? Okay, that's teaching genetics out the window, but that was going to happen anyway, because the theory of evolution is genetics.

How many times have I seen a creationist pretend that "the second law of thermodynamics says that evolution is impossible"? Teaching what the 2LoT actually says contradicts their dogma. Oopsie. There goes the theory of thermodynamics off the curriculum.

Here's a creationist tract by one Jolly F. Griggs. "Scientists cannot explain why two atoms of hydrogen (a gas) combined with one atom of oxygen (another gas) will result in water (a liquid) or why one atom of sodium (a poisonous metal) combined with one atom of chlorine (a poisonous gas) will produce common, non-poisonous table salt." Right, let's kiss basic chemistry goodbye.

Here's a tract from the Jehovah's Witnesses: "Are there any links between the Cambrian period and what went before it? The butterfly, fern, rose and fish appear suddenly and fully developed." Oops, there goes teaching the facts about the fossil record.

I recently saw a creationist physics professor at a creationist college proseletyzing by claiming, amongst other things, that scientists can't explain how rain gets up in the sky. (Water is heavy, see ...) okay, there goes basic meterology and, in particular, the fact that water evaporates.

Lots of creationists pretend that the speed of light is not constant. There goes Einstein. Newton follows next, as they explain how it's impossible for orbits to be stable.

I was going to say that maybe we could teach them about electromagnetism, but if you go too far down that road you're teaching them principle of optics and they might find out why rainbows exist.

If we're not allowed to teach anything that contradicts some piece of religious apologetics, then we can hardly teach anything at all. We've already lost the theories of gravity, relativity, chemistry, genetics, thermodynamics, optics, nuclear physics ... and I could keep going.

Heck, we can't even teach them what "theory" means, because that conflicts with creationist mantras too.

Teacher: "Today we're going to study the germ theory of disease".

Student: "So there's no evidence that germs cause disease?"

Teacher: "Germs certainly cause disease. That's as sure as sure can be, and is supported by all the evidence."

Student: "But in Sunday school I was taught that a theory is 'an assumption for which there is no evidence'."

Teacher: "You were taught it in Sunday school? Then, alas, it is illegal for me to tell you anything different."

At the same time teachings such as the evolutionary theory which attempt to undermine any religious beliefs ...

Science is not in any way an attempt to undermine religious beliefs, but if people are going to incorporate pseudoscience into their religious beliefs and their religious teaching, then science is inevitable going to undermine these beliefs as a side effect.

And it's not the scientists who are at fault here. If Jack Chick is going to teach people that they have to choose between Jesus and the strong nuclear force, or if Kent Hovind is going to teach people that they have to choose between God and evolution, if Christian apologists are going to base their arguments for God on the claim that no-one can explain how rain gets up into the sky --- then they are undermining religious belief, by opposing it to solid science.

That's not a good reason to stop people from teaching science. That's a good reason for people to stop talking utter rubbish in the name of religion. Science does not, after all, undermine "any belief in a god or religion", as you claim, just the beliefs that are grossly unscientific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Serdna, posted 04-21-2008 10:18 PM Serdna has not yet responded

  
Serdna
Junior Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 8
From: Florida
Joined: 04-21-2008


Message 17 of 59 (463968)
04-22-2008 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Rahvin
04-22-2008 11:32 AM


Re: The False Dichotomy
Your position seems to be that we should gloss over or sugar-coat historical facts (or scientific facts) that might offend a person's religious beliefs. But the cold truth is that objective facts will often contradict subjective beliefs, and giving those subjective beliefs some sort of free pass is identical to letting children believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If a belief is contradicted by objective evidence, purposefully avoiding the subject does nothing mroe than promote ignorance.

I do not see how anyone could misinterpret my words to such a degree. I do not claim that that we should be trying to "sugar-coat" the history of religion, I simply offer up my opinion that this should not be the only way that religion is presented to students as it undermines religiously held beliefs. I believe we should teach on the subjects such as the crusades as it is an important part of history.

Also the I find the fact that you would compare major world religions to the tooth-fairy disturbing.

Unfortunately, since I am a full time student working a full time job I do not have time to address all of your replies, however I will do my best to do so throughout the coming days, I would ask however that these replies stick to the topic of discussion and not focus on the fact that I used a run on sentence or the dictionary.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2008 11:32 AM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Rahvin, posted 04-22-2008 12:20 PM Serdna has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 18 of 59 (463972)
04-22-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Serdna
04-22-2008 12:05 PM


Re: The False Dichotomy
I do not see how anyone could misinterpret my words to such a degree. I do not claim that that we should be trying to "sugar-coat" the history of religion, I simply offer up my opinion that this should not be the only way that religion is presented to students as it undermines religiously held beliefs. I believe we should teach on the subjects such as the crusades as it is an important part of history.

Let's face it: events like the Crusades and the Inquisition are historically relevant. How religion may or may not "touch a person's life" is not historically relevant. History classes will continue to teach the events that have shaped the world over the course of human history. Quite a few of these events were religiously motivated, and were absolutely horrendous. Religion itself is left alone in school, as it must be - the actual beliefs of any given religion are not discussed. Their activities as political and historically important groups are.

It's not the History teacher's fault that religions have committed so many atrocities.

And it's not like the non-religiously motivated horrors of human history are ignored, either. Vietnam had nothing to do with religion, for instance, but it was historically important.

Also the I find the fact that you would compare major world religions to the tooth-fairy disturbing.

Awww. Yes, religions are identical to belief in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, fairies, imaginary friends, and any other subjective belief that has no basis in objective evidence. If you believe differently, please feel free to join us over in the "Equating Science with Faith" thread that's still active.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Serdna, posted 04-22-2008 12:05 PM Serdna has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 19 of 59 (463991)
04-22-2008 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Serdna
04-21-2008 10:18 PM


Basically I believe that mandating the teaching of any religion in public schools is wrong and should instead be a journey that the student embarks on of his or her will. At the same time teachings such as the evolutionary theory which attempt to undermine any religious beliefs also fall into the same category and therefore the mandating of these teachings undercut our most base ideals as americans, Freedom.

Let me empasize the point that evolution does not undermine any religious beliefs, just some of them.

Here's a broad outline of evolutionary thought:

quote:
All the evidence (and there's a great deal of evidence) is consistent with the premise that all terrestrial species evolved from a few forms or one, over billions of years, in accordance with the theory of evolution, i.e the laws and facts of genetics, such as mutation, recombination, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, and the laws and facts of genetics.

Now, here's a statement of religious belief. You may have heard of it, it's called the Apostle's Creed:

quote:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

Can you see any conflict between them? No, me neither. 'Cos they're talking about comletely different things. Nor can hundreds of millions of people who have no problem with both statements:

Here, by contrast, is a religious belief which is in conflict with evolutionary biology. This is a quote from Henry Morris, father of "scientific creationism".

quote:
Behind both groups of evolutionists one can discern the malignant influence of 'that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world'.

There's no way to teach the facts about evolution without "undermining" Morris's religious beliefs. But only because he has made undermining science part of his religion.

As for the "ideal of freedom", I don't see how this is served by letting any crank or crackpot prevent every public school teacher in America from contradicting him just by incorporating his crankery into his religion. I'm pretty sure that's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind, and the American judiciary seem quite satisfied that that's not what the Constitution means.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Serdna, posted 04-21-2008 10:18 PM Serdna has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Serdna, posted 04-22-2008 7:22 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Phalanx
Member (Idle past 4051 days)
Posts: 31
From: Old Bridge, NJ, US
Joined: 10-12-2006


Message 20 of 59 (464004)
04-22-2008 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Serdna
04-21-2008 10:18 PM


Serdna writes:

...however when schools are teaching evolution as absolute fact, and not theory which is what it is...

To begin with, please peruse this forum so you come to an understanding of what a scientific theory is, before attempting to converse intelligently here. By not understanding the nuances of the language that you use, you will appear to be ignorant.

Serdna writes:

...it is forcing children to learn and accept the evolutionary theory as fact voiding any religious beliefs...

Evolutionary theory does not void any belief in God. The big bang theory, also, does not void any belief in God. If you'd like to remove anything from the curriculum that might make a student question their religious beliefs, you may as well remove the entire science department, as well as the history departments. It is not my problem that scientific fact contradicts what you teach your child. That is your problem.

If you taught your child that the sun revolved around the earth, and this theme was central to your beliefs, would it be my duty to not teach the opposite to your child? I don't think so. I don't believe that it is my duty to tie a little bow around the construct that you have taught your child.

Also, I find it a disservice to say that evolution undermines your faith. If all it takes for you to question what you believe is something like evolution and the big bang, you have larger problems than what your child is taught in school. Don't blame science for you questioning your faith.


And the Ignorant shall fall to the Squirrels - Chip 2:54

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Serdna, posted 04-21-2008 10:18 PM Serdna has not yet responded

  
Serdna
Junior Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 8
From: Florida
Joined: 04-21-2008


Message 21 of 59 (464020)
04-22-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dr Adequate
04-22-2008 1:47 PM


First of all I just wanted to make a brief apology to Bluejay, as I feel that I may have made my response a bit too directed at him instead of at the subject as it should be. Secondly I would like applaud him and everyone else that does their best to make these discussions as civilized and intellectually beneficial as possible.

Here's a broad outline of evolutionary thought:

All the evidence (and there's a great deal of evidence) is consistent with the premise that all terrestrial species evolved from a few forms or one, over billions of years, in accordance with the theory of evolution, i.e the laws and facts of genetics, such as mutation, recombination, genetic drift, lateral gene transfer, and the laws and facts of genetics.

Now, here's a statement of religious belief. You may have heard of it, it's called the Apostle's Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. Amen.

Can you see any conflict between them? No, me neither. 'Cos they're talking about comletely different things. Nor can hundreds of millions of people who have no problem with both statements:

The origins of the apostles creed, which you have cited, are still unsure. However it is generally agreed on that It was not written by the apostles of Jesus as once believed. It is basically a revised version of what is commonly referred to as the "old roman creed". It was used initially during the rise of christianity in rome as well as the rest of the world. Because of the rapid expansion of christianity it was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain uniformity throughout the church.In order to remedy this, church leaders used the "old roman creed" in order to lay a basic outline of what the christians of that day believed. It was later revised around 700A.D. into what we know today as the Apostles Creed. We have to realize that this was used during a time in history when people generally did not question whether or not there was a god, but rather which faith and religion had the real one, or in some cases which had the most powerful one. As a result there was not a large necessity for explaining the origin of the world as it was generally accepted that it was a god or group of gods, the question instead was which one did it.

It is also important to recognize that this was a basic summary of the early christian beliefs and that it in no way limits what christianity teaches.

If you don't believe me then read a history book, if you don't have one then I suggest you check out these websites.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_beli.htm
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/apostlescreed.html

I will also give reference to how Christianity and the bible conflicts with the theory of evolution since it seems pretty obvious that that was what you were trying to prove.
Please keep in mind that this post is not an attempt to disprove the theory of evolution, but instead it is to prove that it is in conflict with the bible what many christians believe.

One of the most basic teachings of most christian faiths is that the earth was created in perfect balance and that the sin that the sin of man, originating from Adam, let to the downfall of creation including death. Obviously death is an essential part of the theory of evolution, however since it claims that humans evolved much later in the evolutionary time line after the death of innumerable living organisms. Hopefully you can see how these two time lines don't sync up. This as well as the order of creation accounted in the book of Genesis which also goes against what is largely accepted as plausible by science. Which means either or the theory of evolution was wrong, or the infallible, omnipotent God of the bible was wrong and thereby voiding all subsequent biblical entries as not trustworthy because if He is wrong about something so simple as an order of events then what else did He "get wrong".

These are just two examples of conflict with evolution with only one of the many religions in the world. I am not making the argument that evolution is wrong, instead I am making the argument that the evolutionary theory and the bible/christian faith are in conflict with each other. If you would like to see some more information I suggest visiting the following websites, as well as doing some research yourself.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_big_bang_theory_vs_gods_word
http://www.tima.com/~kls/controversy2.html

Some of you point to the catholic church and the fact that it does not take an official position on evolution and how many respected members and leaders of the catholic church have come out and publicly endorsed the theory of evolution. In response to this I would say that I cannot say why it has taken this course of action, and as a non-catholic I can say that it does not affect me or the majority of christians in america who do not follow the catholic church, keep in mind there was a split between the Catholic church and protestants who disagreed with many of its teachings. Also it is an institution run by human beings(although based on the words and teachings of God) and is thereby subject to corruption as well as human error. If I had to guess as to the reason behind Catholic churches position I would assume that it is because they foresee evolution as the eventual victor against Intelligent design in the public's mind, however this is purely speculative and irrelevant as their decisions do not affect my faith nor the truth of the bible either way.

Once again, I ask that you PLEASE keep in mind that this post is a response to claims that the christian faith, as well as the bible, are not in conflict and the theory of evolution. I am NOT attempting to prove that the evolutionary theory is wrong and I would ask also that you please read all of my post before replying as it seems to be a habit for some of you to take my words out of context.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2008 1:47 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by platypus, posted 04-22-2008 9:04 PM Serdna has not yet responded
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2008 9:30 PM Serdna has responded
 Message 32 by PaulK, posted 04-23-2008 4:05 AM Serdna has responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 4093 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 22 of 59 (464021)
04-22-2008 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Serdna
04-22-2008 7:22 PM


Some of you point to the catholic church and the fact that it does not take an official position on evolution and how many respected members and leaders of the catholic church have come out and publicly endorsed the theory of evolution. In response to this I would say that I cannot say why it has taken this course of action, and as a non-catholic I can say that it does not affect me or the majority of christians in america who do not follow the catholic church

A quick point. The Catholic Church likely accepts evolution because they have no problem with the evolution timeline. In fact, one of their own members created Big Bang Theory by solving Einsteins equation. Once their own astronomist set the several billion year timeline, evolution fell right into place. And they accept the creation story for what it is, a myth that contains truths, rather than the source of historical truth.


You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Serdna, posted 04-22-2008 7:22 PM Serdna has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 8.3


Message 23 of 59 (464023)
04-22-2008 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Serdna
04-22-2008 7:22 PM


The origins of the apostles creed, which you have cited, are still unsure. However it is generally agreed on that It was not written by the apostles of Jesus as once believed. It is basically a revised version of what is commonly referred to as the "old roman creed". It was used initially during the rise of christianity in rome as well as the rest of the world. Because of the rapid expansion of christianity it was becoming increasingly difficult to maintain uniformity throughout the church.In order to remedy this, church leaders used the "old roman creed" in order to lay a basic outline of what the christians of that day believed. It was later revised around 700A.D. into what we know today as the Apostles Creed. We have to realize that this was used during a time in history when people generally did not question whether or not there was a god, but rather which faith and religion had the real one, or in some cases which had the most powerful one. As a result there was not a large necessity for explaining the origin of the world as it was generally accepted that it was a god or group of gods, the question instead was which one did it.

It is also important to recognize that this was a basic summary of the early christian beliefs and that it in no way limits what christianity teaches.

If you don't believe me then read a history book, if you don't have one then I suggest you check out these websites.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_beli.htm
http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/apostlescreed.html

Yes. None of this invalidates my point that there are religious beliefs, including such beliefs in the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Resurection, Heaven, Hell, et cetera which are not in the least in contradiction with the theory of evolution. Science does not undermine "any" religious beliefs, it undermines those religious beliefs that science happens to prove wrong.

Some of you point to the catholic church and the fact that it does not take an official position on evolution and how many respected members and leaders of the catholic church have come out and publicly endorsed the theory of evolution.

Which proves that science does not contradict "any" religion, just the sects that incorporate being wrong about science into their dogma.

It is your use of the word "any" that I object to. If you will just say "science contradicts all those religious sects that contradict science", then I have no problem with this mere harmless tautology.

Also it is an institution run by human beings(although based on the words and teachings of God) and is thereby subject to corruption as well as human error.

Golly, just like creationists then.

Please keep in mind that this post is not an attempt to disprove the theory of evolution, but instead it is to prove that it is in conflict with the bible what many christians believe.

One of the most basic teachings of most christian faiths is that the earth was created in perfect balance and that the sin that the sin of man, originating from Adam, let to the downfall of creation including death. Obviously death is an essential part of the theory of evolution, however since it claims that humans evolved much later in the evolutionary time line after the death of innumerable living organisms. Hopefully you can see how these two time lines don't sync up. This as well as the order of creation accounted in the book of Genesis which also goes against what is largely accepted as plausible by science. Which means either or the theory of evolution was wrong, or the infallible, omnipotent God of the bible was wrong and thereby voiding all subsequent biblical entries as not trustworthy because if He is wrong about something so simple as an order of events then what else did He "get wrong".

These are just two examples of conflict with evolution with only one of the many religions in the world. I am not making the argument that evolution is wrong, instead I am making the argument that the evolutionary theory and the bible/christian faith are in conflict with each other. If you would like to see some more information I suggest visiting the following websites, as well as doing some research yourself.

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_big_bang_theory_vs_gods_word
http://www.tima.com/~kls/controversy2.html

Or, to put it more briefly, evolution contradicts those sects that insist that the Bible is the perfectly transmitted word of God and should be taken entirely literally. Yes, we had noticed.

Similar arguments were used by Cosmas Indicopleustes against people who thought the world wan't flat, and by Protestants and Catholics alike against Galileo, and by Martin Luther against people who thought that the stars were distant suns rather than little lights stuck to a solid firmament.

Here's a question for you. In the Bible, people always think with their hearts. The word "brain", in fact, does not occur anywhere in the Bible.

Which of these options should you follow:

(1) Abandon your faith because this "voids all subsequent biblical entries".

(2) Adopt a non-literalist view of these passages.

(3) Demand that science teachers should stop teaching about neuroscience and about how the function of the heart is to pump the blood, on the grounds that it would breach the First Amendment for a biblical literalist to have his faith in biblical literalism shaken by a public school teacher.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Serdna, posted 04-22-2008 7:22 PM Serdna has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 12:50 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Serdna
Junior Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 8
From: Florida
Joined: 04-21-2008


Message 24 of 59 (464033)
04-23-2008 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Dr Adequate
04-22-2008 9:30 PM


Here's a question for you. In the Bible, people always think with their hearts. The word "brain", in fact, does not occur anywhere in the Bible.

Which of these options should you follow:

(1) Abandon your faith because this "voids all subsequent biblical entries".

(2) Decide that this is a metaphor or figure of speech that need not be taken literally.

(3) Demand that science teachers should stop teaching about neuroscience and about how the function of the heart is to pump the blood, on the grounds that it would breach the First Amendment for a biblical literalist to have his faith in biblical literalism shaken by a public school teacher.

You are putting words straight into my mouth. I never called for teachers to remove or add anything from their curriculum in any way and I certainly do not think that we should force teachers to teach on creationism. I do think it is wrong that the students and parents are forced to agree with this by forcing the student to put pen to paper and say this is fact no matter what their beliefs. Nor should they be forced to take any actions that violate their beliefs as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.

Yes. None of this invalidates my point that there are religious beliefs, including such beliefs in the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, the Resurection, Heaven, Hell, et cetera which are not in the least in contradiction with the theory of evolution. Science does not undermine "any" religious beliefs, it undermines those religious beliefs that science happens to prove wrong.

Whether or not what you believe is right or wrong, according to science or history, should have no bearing on this.

As a country we do not force people to take actions that go against their beliefs, as long as it does not cause harm or violate the rights of others. We don't force students who are vegans to eat meat, although they certainly are a minority. They are permitted to bring their own lunches and some schools go as far as to offer a vegetarian menu.

The government has a system for deciding whether or not to officially recognize a religion, and once that religion is recognized we should do our best not to interfere or hinder its practice, provided that it does not interfere with other citizens rights, and schools should do their best to make accommodations for students with religious beliefs.

If you are a hindu you should not be forced to choose between dissecting a cow heart or getting an F.

I also believe that muslim students should be allowed to step out of a classroom for prayer as their religion dictates that they do so 5 times a day at certain times of the day. They should not however be allowed to do so in the middle of the classroom during a lesson because this interferes significantly with the other student's education.

In this same way we should not force anyone to say that something they believe to be true is false, or vice versa. I would simply suggest that you allow the student or students be allowed to go to another room and have a study period while the subject that the student finds offensive is taught, or at the very least be excused from any sort of exam which forces the student to write or declare something that is contrary to what they believe.

In the case of public schools, I would say that if the school is not willing, or not able, to make appropriate accommodations then the government should step in.


Which proves that science does not contradict "any" religion, just the sects that incorporate being wrong about science into their dogma.

Then in your own admittance of this you have helped me make my point. Perhaps I should not have used the word "any", however it does not change the point that I am trying to make which is that we should not be forcing students, nor any citizen of the United States for that matter to do or say anything that goes against their religion or beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-22-2008 9:30 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taz, posted 04-23-2008 12:57 AM Serdna has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Blue Jay, posted 04-23-2008 1:10 AM Serdna has not yet responded
 Message 27 by DrJones*, posted 04-23-2008 1:35 AM Serdna has responded
 Message 29 by platypus, posted 04-23-2008 2:02 AM Serdna has responded
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-23-2008 10:18 AM Serdna has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1631 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 25 of 59 (464034)
04-23-2008 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Serdna
04-23-2008 12:50 AM


Serdna writes:

In this same way we should not force anyone to say that something they believe to be true is false, or vice versa.


I'm confused. Are you saying that christian theology, or at least to some, forbid believers from learning about the crusades, inquisitions, and witch burnings?


I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 12:50 AM Serdna has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 1037 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 26 of 59 (464037)
04-23-2008 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Serdna
04-23-2008 12:50 AM


Serdna writes:

I do think it is wrong that the students and parents are forced to agree with this by forcing the student to put pen to paper and say this is fact no matter what their beliefs.

Serdna, I do not believe that this has ever happened to me, throughout my life. Certainly, I've run into and communicated with professors who are extremely anti-creationist, but I've never been in the situation where a teacher has "forced" me to contradict my religion in any way.

If this has happened to you, there are channels to report it. As far as I know, it isn't legal to make someone deny their religion for a grade (except in those privately-owned, fundy, materialist institutions that I've never heard of).

Let me see if I understand your concerns before I say something stupid and wrong again. When you say students are being forced to accept as truth things that contradict their religion, are you referring to things like Neanderthals and the Paleolithic Age? Or, are you referring to things like "Jesus was just a man?"

Edited by Bluejay, : Just a few clarifications.


I'm Thylacosmilus.

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 12:50 AM Serdna has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2022
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 27 of 59 (464039)
04-23-2008 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Serdna
04-23-2008 12:50 AM


I do think it is wrong that the students and parents are forced to agree with this by forcing the student to put pen to paper and say this is fact no matter what their beliefs

So if I beleive that 2+2 =5 I should get a free pass in math?


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 12:50 AM Serdna has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 1:59 AM DrJones* has responded

  
Serdna
Junior Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 8
From: Florida
Joined: 04-21-2008


Message 28 of 59 (464042)
04-23-2008 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by DrJones*
04-23-2008 1:35 AM


So if I beleive that 2+2 =5 I should get a free pass in math?

If you can provide reasonable support and evidence for the fact that your governmentally recognized religion is in contradiction with math, then yes. However I do not foresee that happening as getting the government to recognize a religion takes a bit more than filling out some paper work and writing "Math is bad" under "List your religion's beliefs here".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by DrJones*, posted 04-23-2008 1:35 AM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by DrJones*, posted 04-23-2008 4:48 AM Serdna has not yet responded
 Message 58 by steeley42, posted 05-06-2008 9:56 PM Serdna has not yet responded

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 4093 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 29 of 59 (464044)
04-23-2008 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Serdna
04-23-2008 12:50 AM


If you are a hindu you should not be forced to choose between dissecting a cow heart or getting an F.

I also believe that muslim students should be allowed to step out of a classroom for prayer as their religion dictates that they do so 5 times a day at certain times of the day. They should not however be allowed to do so in the middle of the classroom during a lesson because this interferes significantly with the other student's education.

In this same way we should not force anyone to say that something they believe to be true is false, or vice versa.

Wait, wait. A student stepping out of class or not dissecting a cow is completely different from refusing to be taught a certain curricula. In your examples, other options can be given. The Hindu can dissect another animal. The Muslim can stay after school for an additional lesson. These student do not object to the material itself, they just want the ability to practice their religion. Nothing in evolution prevents a creationist from practicing any part of their religion. If something is said in a science classroom that directly contradicts your religious belief, then there is something wrong witht eh science classroom or the religion belief. Science should never address religious belief, and religion should never make statements about science. This was settled centuries ago.

Please back this up with specifically what might be said in a biology class that is directly in conflict with a religious belief.

Edited by platypus, : No reason given.


You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 12:50 AM Serdna has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Serdna, posted 04-23-2008 2:36 AM platypus has responded

  
Serdna
Junior Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 8
From: Florida
Joined: 04-21-2008


Message 30 of 59 (464046)
04-23-2008 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by platypus
04-23-2008 2:02 AM


Wait, wait. A student stepping out of class or not dissecting a cow is completely different from refusing to be taught a certain curricula. In your examples, other options can be given. The Hindu can dissect another animal. The Muslim can stay after school for an additional lesson. These student do not object to the material itself, they just want the ability to practice their religion. Nothing in evolution prevents a creationist from practicing any part of their religion.

Im not saying that the hindu or islamic belief systems contradict the evolutionary theory and honestly I don't know enough about their beliefs to confidently comment on them. Instead I am using these as examples of what is and should be tolerated in public institutions such as schools and that the same tolerance must also be applied to potentially offensive teachings whatever they may be.
Please back this up with specifically what might be said in a biology class that is directly in conflict with a religious belief.

Like I said I am not confident enough to comment on what other religions believe, however if you want to know how the theory of evolution contradicts with the bible and what many christians believe then you should read my earlier post which is number 21 in the list of posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by platypus, posted 04-23-2008 2:02 AM platypus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by platypus, posted 04-23-2008 2:59 AM Serdna has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019