|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Sept 19, 2011 17:22:33 GMT -6
I believe most religions-christians,buddhist,muslims,etc. have different views on our creation..Will we teach all of them? It would be better than the time that is wasted in our current curriculum. I believe your Daughter has some of the same issues?
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on Sept 19, 2011 19:25:35 GMT -6
I believe most religions-christians,buddhist,muslims,etc. have different views on our creation..Will we teach all of them? JimmyB, Perhaps the solution would be to have a Christian, Buddhist Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Christian Scientist, Pentecostal Baptist, Seven Day Adventist, Presbyterians, etc., go into the Schools and explain their view on the "Theory of Evolution". Perhaps JimmyB, the "Theory of Evolution" should be taught in biology class in high school and the Parents should know this will be presented in the school and then the Parents should discuss what their child believes about the "Theory of Evolution", over the dinner table. PARENT'S INFLUENCE OVER THEIR CHILDREN SHOULD ALWAYS TRUMP THE TEACHERS! g ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2011 4:23:20 GMT -6
I believe most religions-christians,buddhist,muslims,etc. have different views on our creation..Will we teach all of them? JimmyB, Perhaps the solution would be to have a Christian, Buddhist Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Christian Scientist, Pentecostal Baptist, Seven Day Adventist, Presbyterians, etc., go into the Schools and explain their view on the "Theory of Evolution". Perhaps JimmyB, the "Theory of Evolution" should be taught in biology class in high school and the Parents should know this will be presented in the school and then the Parents should discuss what their child believes about the "Theory of Evolution", over the dinner table. PARENT'S INFLUENCE OVER THEIR CHILDREN SHOULD ALWAYS TRUMP THE TEACHERS! g ;D Shoulda', woulda', coulda'...
|
|
XredeemedX
New Member
If your reading this your wasteing your time
Posts: 36
|
Post by XredeemedX on Sept 21, 2011 18:55:07 GMT -6
think Evolution is all rong
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Sept 21, 2011 20:56:21 GMT -6
think Evolution is all rong How so? Please be specific.
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Sept 22, 2011 1:32:15 GMT -6
Scientists have been pointing out the discrepancies with the data since the theory came out! Of course they have! That is why it is SCIENCE!!! It is questioned, tested, studied, over and over and over again. Our understanding of evolution has significantly increased since Origin of Species came out in the middle of the 19th century because of scientists studying Darwin's theory and pointing out and testing the discrepancies. NONE disprove his theory. Of course there are gaps (you say "major gaps", yet provide no examples). That is what scientific study is for, to try to understand the gaps. Others would rather NOT try to understand and just fill the gap with a supernatural being.
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Sept 22, 2011 1:48:42 GMT -6
this falls into religion which you have people who are atheist and don't want gods religion shoved down their throats. they don't believe in god. No, not entirely. Arguments that involve religion are allowed to be discussed in schools. Schools shouldn't be proselytizing or assigning preference to one religious belief over another. This is a separate matter. I see no harm in taking a middle of the road approach, whereby a science teacher presents all reasonable theories and allows the students to decide for themselves which one is meritorious. In all reality, isn't that what everyone does in the real world anyhow? After all, evolution, creationism, intelligent design, etc. are all theories, not scientific laws. There's nothing wrong with debating the merits of reasonable theories, and even noting that evolution is the only one embraced by the majority of the scientific community since it doesn't take into account faith-based arguments. I don't see why everything has to result in a tug of war between varied factions of the populace. Viper, I'm sorry if this has been mentioned already, but I must point out something. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism and ID are not. Evolution is scientifically observable and testable, creationism and ID (they are the same really) are completely UNobservable, and UNtestable. You are an intelligent, well spoken poster who I (and others here I am sure) really appreciate. I regret that you confuse scientific theory with a guess. I would enjoy seeing you post some more in this thread. I enjoy reading what you have to say.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2011 3:03:04 GMT -6
Scientists have been pointing out the discrepancies with the data since the theory came out! Of course they have! That is why it is SCIENCE!!! It is questioned, tested, studied, over and over and over again. Our understanding of evolution has significantly increased since Origin of Species came out in the middle of the 19th century because of scientists studying Darwin's theory and pointing out and testing the discrepancies. NONE disprove his theory. Of course there are gaps (you say "major gaps", yet provide no examples).That is what scientific study is for, to try to understand the gaps. Others would rather NOT try to understand and just fill the gap with a supernatural being. What would be the point? Go to a forum devoted to this topic...they're huge and populated with people who really know what they're talking about. My comments are non-specialist, but accurate.
|
|
|
Post by viper on Sept 22, 2011 5:32:35 GMT -6
Viper, I'm sorry if this has been mentioned already, but I must point out something. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism and ID are not. Evolution is scientifically observable and testable, creationism and ID (they are the same really) are completely UNobservable, and UNtestable. You are an intelligent, well spoken poster who I (and others here I am sure) really appreciate. I regret that you confuse scientific theory with a guess. I would enjoy seeing you post some more in this thread. I enjoy reading what you have to say. Thank you. I do understand that Creationism and I.D. are not accepted as scientific theories, whereas evolution is. What I am arguing, however, is that there are those who believe that some sort of theistic intervention had a hand in the creation of the universe, and that this intervention (i.e., God in the case of Christians) operates outside of the natural laws of the universe, therefore making it essentially impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of such a deity using modern scientific laws. So given that this is a widely held belief, and that a select lot of scholars even believes that it has merit, including some who are "scientists," I would still argue that it's okay to discuss this with students. Of course, I'm certainly not arguing that evolution be shelved by any means, but I also think it's acceptable to allow students to discuss where they or others have found holes in any set of theoretical assumptions regarding the original of the species. Teaching creationism as blind fact in public schools would likely become more of an issue, but since they are all theories, albeit not accepted as scientific where Creationism and I.D. are concerned, none of them are able to be taught as concrete fact anyhow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2011 19:08:20 GMT -6
Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism and ID are not. Evolution is scientifically observable and testable, creationism and ID (they are the same really) are completely UNobservable, and UNtestable. You are an intelligent, well spoken poster who I (and others here I am sure) really appreciate. I regret that you confuse scientific theory with a guess. I would enjoy seeing you post some more in this thread. I enjoy reading what you have to say. I have to agree. Evolution, Natural Selection, adaptation, mutations have all earned their merit and mention in the science or studies of living organisms, past and present. Creationism may have it's place in the study of religions or theology, it has not yet earned merit or mention in science. Although some scientists may have recently looked directly into the light of GOD, it is not scientifically acceptable for them to simply explain away their findings and conclude, "behold, there is GOD". We have to remember we are talking about the curriculum of our public schools in the United States. Math and science are mandatory requirements of the general education curriculum, and theology is not. Before Creationism or theology becomes a mandatory part of the curriculum in our public schools, shouldn't we first consider it's educational value, and more importantly, shouldn't we ask if we are still protected and guaranteed the freedom of or from religion? I do not see any educational value in teaching Creatism in our public schools and more importantly, I find it's mandate in our public school cirriculum in violation of the US Constitution. It is better as it is now and should be left to choice.
|
|
|
Post by viper on Sept 23, 2011 9:41:53 GMT -6
shouldn't we ask if we are still protected and guaranteed the freedom of or from religion? Evolution issues aside, I hope you intended this statement to apply within the proper context of the First Amendment. I have heard those extremists on the other side of the coin argue that absolutely any public displays of free exercise ought to essentially be outlawed for the sake of promoting various secular agendas. If by freedom from religion you mean that federal, state and/or local governmental entities shall not establish a state church (i.e., an ecclesia), promote or favor one religious dogma over another, or interfere with each individual citizen's right to exercise his or her own varied religious preferences, or lack thereof, as s/he chooses (i.e., Free Exercise Clause), then I agree with the concept of freedom from religion. However, I do not believe, nor have the courts ever ascertained, that individuals should be entitled to be free from exposure to religious artifacts, other believers/non-believers or some type of open displays of faith in legitimate public forums (e.g., students can wear religious garb to school and missionaries can hand out bible tracts on the sidewalk). In other words, it is a part of society, and total abrogation of open displays of faith or worship, relegating religion to an entirely underground operative, is not in the spirit of the First Amendment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2011 9:39:00 GMT -6
shouldn't we ask if we are still protected and guaranteed the freedom of or from religion? Evolution issues aside, I hope you intended this statement to apply within the proper context of the First Amendment. I have heard those extremists on the other side of the coin argue that absolutely any public displays of free exercise ought to essentially be outlawed for the sake of promoting various secular agendas. If by freedom from religion you mean that federal, state and/or local governmental entities shall not establish a state church (i.e., an ecclesia), promote or favor one religious dogma over another, or interfere with each individual citizen's right to exercise his or her own varied religious preferences, or lack thereof, as s/he chooses (i.e., Free Exercise Clause), then I agree with the concept of freedom from religion. However, I do not believe, nor have the courts ever ascertained, that individuals should be entitled to be free from exposure to religious artifacts, other believers/non-believers or some type of open displays of faith in legitimate public forums (e.g., students can wear religious garb to school and missionaries can hand out bible tracts on the sidewalk). In other words, it is a part of society, and total abrogation of open displays of faith or worship, relegating religion to an entirely underground operative, is not in the spirit of the First Amendment. I understand and agree with the additional issues you present. My post is only an attempt to address the question and issues of adding Creationism or Theology to the set of required courses within the curriculum of general education in our public schools. I'll simply state I hold the position that Creationism or Theology should not be included in the set of required courses within the curriculum of general education in our public schools, and it should be left as an option, as it is now.
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on Sept 24, 2011 16:52:02 GMT -6
shouldn't we ask if we are still protected and guaranteed the freedom of or from religion? If by freedom from religion you mean that federal, state and/or local governmental entities shall not establish a state church (i.e., an ecclesia), promote or favor one religious dogma over another, or interfere with each individual citizen's right to exercise his or her own varied religious preferences, or lack thereof, as s/he chooses (i.e., Free Exercise Clause), then I agree with the concept of freedom from religion. Viper, I for this sentence! I agree. I would hope every forum member reads that "quote" from you. g ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by octavarium on Sept 25, 2011 0:38:48 GMT -6
On evolution I highly recommend The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins.
Idiot America - How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free, by Charles Pierce offers much more sarcasm. Excellent sections on the creationist museum and the Dover, PA "intelligent design" case. (Dinosaurs with saddles? Really?)
I also recommend any works by Douglas Adams for anyone interested in humor (as in the laughable aspects of creationist "theory")
I also once again appreciate viper's thoughts. I agree with your post, sir. (IMO) Freedom from religion means religious dogma should not be be taught in public schools. (not in science class anyway)
|
|
|
Post by viper on Sept 25, 2011 7:41:52 GMT -6
I understand and agree with the additional issues you present. My post is only an attempt to address the question and issues of adding Creationism or Theology to the set of required courses within the curriculum of general education in our public schools. I'll simply state I hold the position that Creationism or Theology should not be included in the set of required courses within the curriculum of general education in our public schools, and it should be left as an option, as it is now. Okay, I just wanted to make sure that we're all mostly on the same page, and it sounds like Greek and octavarium also agree for the most part. I have several friends who are not devout believers; one is a secular humanist, one is an avowed atheist and the other is what I would probably describe as a content agnostic. However, among the three of them, they essentially take a far more extremist view of freedom from (or of) religion than I do. If it were up to them, private exercises or open displays of faith would not be allowed in government facilities or on public property (the privately funded, erected and maintained religious display in Streator's City Park at Christmastime is a sore subject despite High Court rulings where similar cases passed the litmus test). Students and teachers would not be permitted to wear religious garb to school or work, at least if they are government employees. Churches would lose tax exempt status if any remotely political topic is so much as even mentioned at an organized service. No private religious groups would be permitted to rent public facilities, such as schools, during non-operating hours, and so forth. This type of extremist viewpoint basically ignores the entire intentions of the Free Exercise Clause, but it does exist, just as there are those that almost prefer a theocracy.
|
|