andy
New Member
Posts: 8
|
Post by andy on Feb 10, 2007 20:17:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 10, 2007 20:18:54 GMT -8
10/05:
I'm all for religion not being taught in school's because I do think it is a violation of the Constitution. However, I get so furious when they teach evolution (especially since there are so many holes) as the only way, which in a sense makes it is an absolute science instead of a theory. Since "intelligent design" is now being accepted as a scientific theory, I think it is only fair that it is introduced as a possible theory along with evolution. I want kids to be as educated as possible about all theories so that they can make a choice for themselves. Hopefully schools can present both topics in an unbiased manner, but we'll see about that.
I never took biology in HS, but I did have to take it in college. My professor was a Christian and we completely skipped over evolution. It would have been nice to have learned about it, but I also feel a blessed that I didn't have to sit and listen to a professor spout off a bunch of stuff about evolution as if it is the only way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 20:19:41 GMT -8
10/05:
When you say your against religion being taught in public schools, what do you mean?
|
|
hume
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by hume on Feb 10, 2007 20:20:28 GMT -8
10/05:
Speaking for myself (not Michelle), I'd offer this quote from one of the articles linked in her post (the speaker is Eric J. Rothschild, plaintiff's attorney):
"The law requires the government not impose religious beliefs on citizens -- not because religion is not important but because it is so important."
Practically speaking, no one can seriously object to teaching *about* religion(s) in public school. There's just a critical, and occasionally fine, line between teaching about a subject and proselytizing on its behalf.
Maybe it would help Christians to consider this alternative: imagine your child's public school teacher is a rabid Scientologist, and imagine that he constantly crosses that line I'm referring to. Shoe on the other foot, in other words.
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 10, 2007 20:21:09 GMT -8
10/05:
What I mean is that I don't think it is up to the schools to inform students about religion as a required learning. I think it should be allowed as an elective (for schools that have them) and that all the religions need to be presented in an objective (or at least as objective as possible) way. I agree with the quote that J referred to that in no way should it be pushed on kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 20:21:50 GMT -8
10/05:
"What I mean is that I don't think it is up to the schools to inform students about religion as a required learning. I think it should be allowed as an elective"
How would a teacher teach World History or American history (required classes) without teaching about religion?
|
|
hume
Advanced Member
Posts: 136
|
Post by hume on Feb 10, 2007 20:22:26 GMT -8
10/05:
Once again, it's that distinction between "teaching" and "teaching about."
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 20:23:02 GMT -8
10/05:
Well, I just wanted to clarify with Michelle what she meant.
As a history teacher, I know that it's impossible to teach history without teaching about religion. We might just as well try to teach history without talking about war.
So, I just wanted some clarification there.
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 10, 2007 20:23:51 GMT -8
10/05:
Jason has it right on. I'm not saying you can't include or mention religion when it is necessary, just not teaching..."this is Buddhism and its beliefs and this is Hinduism and this is its beliefs". This is what I believe should be kept out of schools, except on an elective basis. Mentioning that a war was started, etc. because of different religious beliefs is a different story. I'm ok with that. Does that clarify?? It's so hard to have a discussion like this via message board and not face to face.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 20:24:29 GMT -8
10/05:
Well, I do teach to some degree what different religions actually believe... and there is quite a movement in support of just that(among a pretty wide base of supporters, liberal and conservative alike). I think Stacy passed me some information recently right along these lines.
Part of the reason, I think, is that you also can't really divorce theology from history, because so many particular events in history hinge on particular beliefs: like, imagine trying to teach about the Reformation without talking about particular Catholic doctrine and practices. Or about the conflict between Islam and Christianity, etc..
In practice, schools can legally and do teach about the details of religion all the time- it's just when there's an explicit (or, harder to judge, implicit) proselytizing going on that one can get into hot water.
I know it's hard sometimes to communicate via electronica, but I'm just trying to figure out if we're saying the same thing or disagreeing (either of which would be fine). LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by michelle on Feb 10, 2007 20:25:27 GMT -8
10/05:
I think we probably agree more than we disagree. Maybe it would help me to explain if you gave me examples of when you find that it is necessary to teach about religion. I've been thinking about the best way for me to describe what I mean in a way that comes across via message board. It's so hard because I know all the thoughts that are going through my head and I just don't seem to be able to make them come out clearly.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 8, 2008 7:08:07 GMT -8
10/05: I'm all for religion not being taught in school's because I do think it is a violation of the Constitution. However, I get so furious when they teach evolution (especially since there are so many holes) as the only way, which in a sense makes it is an absolute science instead of a theory. Since "intelligent design" is now being accepted as a scientific theory, I think it is only fair that it is introduced as a possible theory along with evolution. I want kids to be as educated as possible about all theories so that they can make a choice for themselves. Hopefully schools can present both topics in an unbiased manner, but we'll see about that. I never took biology in HS, but I did have to take it in college. My professor was a Christian and we completely skipped over evolution. It would have been nice to have learned about it, but I also feel a blessed that I didn't have to sit and listen to a professor spout off a bunch of stuff about evolution as if it is the only way. WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW. I'm blown away from what I read here! I have to say a couple of importnatnt things and I'll try to make it short. We can discuss them in detail if you like later. 1. Evolution is the only explanation matching the standards of science we have for the existence of the specieces. There are holes indeed. But those holes don't mean that the theory is wrong. Matter of factly until this present day, there has been nothing that proved the theory wrong. This is fact whether you go along with it or not. 2. You are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "theory" in science. You are confusing it with a hypothesis I would guess. Even if we had much more evidence for evolution it would still be a theory because science always assumes that it could be different too. The theory of relativity of Einstein is a good example. Evolution is a complicated business. If you want to understand how it works, you must listen to the experts, not to the layperson. A globally renowned expert is Oxford professor Richard Dawkins. Even if you won't believe him, he knows much more about biology than you and me and most definetly any theologian. You can disagree with him, but he's got to be heard. For your own benefit. Even christian scientists such as Jordan Peterson acknowledge Dawkin's authority in evolutionary biology. Peterson for one is convinced of Darwinian evolution too and, don't ask me how, combines it with his faith in the Judeochristian God. 3. Intelligent Design is by no means accepted as real science. It is what scientists call "pseudo science". As I can see, you never really dealt with evolution. By all means, do it! |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 8, 2008 9:06:14 GMT -8
Mo, that's a sweeping statement. Broadly speaking, the theory of evolution is just the idea of naturalistic common descent of all living things on earth. Proving a monolithic idea like that wrong would be almost impossible. Parts of the theory have been disproven, adjustments have been made, like any good theory.
Here's my take, as a teacher, a pastor, and an arm-chair scientist (I say that with a big chuckle):
1. The theory of evolution is (at least currently) a fully-orbed scientific theory on origins. It should be taught. But it shouldn't be taught the way it typically is- ie, pretending that the holes don't exist. And there are significant quandries, not just a few. I mean, I've read textbook after textbooks that, in effect, lie about certain aspects of current research in an attempt to make the theory of evolution more persuasive. Anyway, teaching to the controversies (holes and challenges to the theory) would engage more students in actual learning IMO. Oh no, it might make it interesting!
In particular, what textbooks I've seen say about theories on the origin of life on planet earth (the very first life) is ridiculously over-confident and often based on bad science (Miller experiments for example)
2. I think it should also be mentioned in classrooms that there are those who believe that a God (or gods or other supernatural force) intervened miraculously in the creation of the universe, whether instead of or in conjunction with evolution in some way, and that some religious people believe that there is evidence of this. But leave it at that.
3. Furthermore, I think I'd agree with MO that ID isn't really a competitive theory of origins. It's basically just one piece of the puzzle- mainly concerned with the anthropic principle. I think at some point in the classroom, the anthropic principle needs to be covered (which it isn't, and that's a shame) and ID could be brought up then, but it wouldn't make sense to, say, teach a whole unit on Evolution and then teach a whole unit on ID. There wouldn't be a way to teach ID as a full-fledged theory on origins.
4. In addition to the necessity that the anthropic principle actually be taught, there should be ample discussion about the origin of the universe and the philosophical implications of the hot-big-bang model- namely, that there was some cause of the universe outside of it in some way (mutiverse or god or whatever).
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 8, 2008 12:59:10 GMT -8
Mo, that's a sweeping statement. Broadly speaking, the theory of evolution is just the idea of naturalistic common descent of all living things on earth. Proving a monolithic idea like that wrong would be almost impossible. Parts of the theory have been disproven, adjustments have been made, like any good theory. That's right, every good theory needs adjustment. Finding the truth is a process. But the core of the theory of evolution could easily be disproven. You only need fossils in the wrong bed. Here's my take, as a teacher, a pastor, and an arm-chair scientist (I say that with a big chuckle): 1. The theory of evolution is (at least currently) a fully-orbed scientific theory on origins. It should be taught. But it shouldn't be taught the way it typically is- ie, pretending that the holes don't exist. I'm with you, Josh. I think that's a fair request. No hole should be occulted. If the theory deserves our support it needs to overcome every quandary. But, as I know you know, science is a progress. Having a hole now doesn't mean there'll be a hole forever. Science already explains many things that early scientists would never have dared to dream of. Somettimes I wonder what people like Galilei or Kopernikus would say if they could just see where we are standing now  Anyway, I agree with your point and I'd like to add that many misunderstandings about evolution should be corrected too. Namely misconceptions like "chimps turned into humans". Or "cows into pigs". Or the misconception of the boeing 747, the wasteyard and the hurricane. 2. I think it should also be mentioned in classrooms that there are those who believe that a God (or gods or other supernatural force) intervened miraculously in the creation of the universe, whether instead of or in conjunction with evolution in some way, and that some religious people believe that there is evidence of this. But leave it at that. I'd go along with that too, but I don't think this should be mentioned in Biology. It's rather suited for ethics class (does that exist in the USA) or sociology or philosophy. In Germany religion is being taught in school. The religion classes are devided into catholic, protestant and since recently muslim confession. So that's the place where we put it. 3. Furthermore, I think I'd agree with MO that ID isn't really a competitive theory of origins. It's basically just one piece of the puzzle- mainly concerned with the anthropic principle. I think at some point in the classroom, the anthropic principle needs to be covered (which it isn't, and that's a shame) and ID could be brought up then, but it wouldn't make sense to, say, teach a whole unit on Evolution and then teach a whole unit on ID. There wouldn't be a way to teach ID as a full-fledged theory on origins. 4. In addition to the necessity that the anthropic principle actually be taught, there should be ample discussion about the origin of the universe and the philosophical implications of the hot-big-bang model- namely, that there was some cause of the universe outside of it in some way (mutiverse or god or whatever). Just to get it straight: you don't think the anthropic principle is making a point for religion, do you? |
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 26, 2009 22:19:22 GMT -8
The Bible as Literature?
As a person who had long considered becomng a social studies/literature teacher I have had nightmares about trying to teach any literature written before 1900 without my students first having atleast a basic understanding of scripture. Now let me be clear, I am not telling you that teachers should try to convert their students in school to become followers of Jesus Christ. However since nearly every classic in western libraries makes countless allussions to scripture, the full depth of meaning of any given classical work would be totally lost on a student who does not have a sound backing of understanding bible at the very least as a central point in the literary history of the world, whether or not they actually believe any of the stories is not important. WHAT is important is that they KNOW the stories, otherwise they are going to miss a great deal in reading any of the classics.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 26, 2009 22:20:28 GMT -8
I see ID as the camel getting its nose in the tent. Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 26, 2009 22:37:29 GMT -8
Wouldn't that be the wolf getting it's nose in the sheep?  |
|
