Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens

Pericolos0

Newbie
Joined
Nov 30, 2004
Messages
99
Reaction score
0
Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens

By Peter Slevin, Washington Post Staff Writer

WICHITA – Propelled by a polished strategy crafted by activists on America's political right, a battle is intensifying across the nation over how students are taught about the origins of life. Policymakers in 19 states are weighing proposals that question the science of evolution.


The proposals typically stop short of overturning evolution or introducing biblical accounts. Instead, they are calculated pleas to teach what advocates consider gaps in long-accepted Darwinian theory, with many relying on the idea of intelligent design, which posits the central role of a creator.

The growing trend has alarmed scientists and educators who consider it a masked effort to replace science with theology. But 80 years after the Scopes "monkey" trial -- in which a Tennessee man was prosecuted for violating state law by teaching evolution -- it is the anti-evolutionary scientists and Christian activists who say they are the ones being persecuted, by a liberal establishment.

They are acting now because they feel emboldened by the country's conservative currents and by President Bush (news - web sites), who angered many scientists and teachers by declaring that the jury is still out on evolution. Sharing strong convictions, deep pockets and impressive political credentials -- if not always the same goals -- the activists are building a sizable network.

In Seattle, the nonprofit Discovery Institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls and media pieces supporting intelligent design. In Fort Lauderdale, Christian evangelist James Kennedy established a Creation Studies Institute. In Virginia, Liberty University is sponsoring the Creation Mega Conference with a Kentucky group called Answers in Genesis, which raised $9 million in 2003.

At the state and local level, from South Carolina to California, these advocates are using lawsuits and school board debates to counter evolutionary theory. Alabama and Georgia legislators recently introduced bills to allow teachers to challenge evolutionary theory in the classroom. Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico and Ohio have approved new rules allowing that. And a school board member in a Tennessee county wants stickers pasted on textbooks that say evolution remains unproven.

A prominent effort is underway in Kansas, where the state Board of Education intends to revise teaching standards. That would be progress, Southern Baptist minister Terry Fox said, because "most people in Kansas don't think we came from monkeys."

The movement is "steadily growing," said Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution. "The energy level is new. The religious right has had an effect nationally. Now, by golly, they want to call in the chits."
Not Science, Politics

Polls show that a large majority of Americans believe God alone created man or had a guiding hand. Advocates invoke the First Amendment and say the current campaigns are partly about respect for those beliefs.

"It's an academic freedom proposal. What we would like to foment is a civil discussion about science. That falls right down the middle of the fairway of American pluralism," said the Discovery Institute's Stephen C. Meyer, who believes evolution alone cannot explain life's unfurling. "We are interested in seeing that spread state by state across the country."

Some evolution opponents are trying to use Bush's No Child Left Behind law, saying it creates an opening for states to set new teaching standards. Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) (R-Pa.), a Christian who draws on Discovery Institute material, drafted language accompanying the law that said students should be exposed to "the full range of scientific views that exist."

"Anyone who expresses anything other than the dominant worldview is shunned and booted from the academy," Santorum said in an interview. "My reading of the science is there's a legitimate debate. My feeling is let the debate be had."

Although the new strategy speaks of "teaching the controversy" over evolution, opponents insist the controversy is not scientific, but political. They paint the approach as a disarming subterfuge designed to undermine solid evidence that all living things share a common ancestry.

"The movement is a veneer over a certain theological message. Every one of these groups is now actively engaged in trying to undercut sound science education by criticizing evolution," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "It is all based on their religious ideology. Even the people who don't specifically mention religion are hard-pressed with a straight face to say who the intelligent designer is if it's not God."

Although many backers of intelligent design oppose the biblical account that God created the world in six days, the Christian right is increasingly mobilized, Baylor University scholar Barry G. Hankins said. He noted the recent hiring by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of Discovery Institute scholar and prominent intelligent design proponent William A. Dembski.

The seminary said the move, along with the creation of a Center for Science and Theology, was central to developing a "comprehensive Christian worldview."

"As the Christian right has success on a variety of issues, it emboldens them to expand their agenda," Hankins said. "When they have losses . . . it gives them fuel for their fire."
Deferring the Debate



The efforts are not limited to schools. From offices overlooking Puget Sound, Meyer is waging a careful campaign to change the way Americans think about the natural world. The Discovery Institute devotes about 85 percent of its budget to funding scientists, with other money going to public action campaigns.

Discovery Institute raised money for "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," a DVD produced by Illustra Media and shown on PBS stations in major markets. The institute has sponsored opinion polls and underwrites research for books sold in secular and Christian bookstores. Its newest project is to establish a science laboratory.

Meyer said the institute accepts money from such wealthy conservatives as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," and the Maclellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture."

"We'll take money from anyone who wants to give it to us," Meyer said. "Everyone has motives. Let's acknowledge that and get on with the interesting part."

Meyer said he and Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman devised the compromise strategy in March 2002 when they realized a dispute over intelligent design was complicating efforts to challenge evolution in the classroom. They settled on the current approach that stresses open debate and evolution's ostensible weakness, but does not require students to study design.

The idea was to sow doubt about Darwin and buy time for the 40-plus scientists affiliated with the institute to perfect the theory, Meyer said. Also, by deferring a debate about whether God was the intelligent designer, the strategy avoids the defeats suffered by creationists who tried to oust evolution from the classroom and ran afoul of the Constitution.

"Our goal is to not remove evolution. Good lord, it's incredible how much this is misunderstood," said William Harris, a professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City medical school. "Kids need to understand it, but they need to know the strengths and weaknesses of the data, how much of it is a guess, how much of it is extrapolation."

Harris does not favor teaching intelligent design, although he believes there is more to the story than evolution.

"To say God did not play a role is arrogant," Harris said. "It's far beyond the data."

Harris teamed up with John H. Calvert, a retired corporate lawyer who calls the debate over the origins of life "the most fundamental issue facing the culture." They formed Intelligent Design Network Inc., which draws interested legislators and activists to an annual Darwin, Design and Democracy conference.

The 2001 conference presented its Wedge of Truth award to members of the 1999 Kansas Board of Education that played down evolution and allowed local boards to decide what students would learn. A board elected in 2001 overturned that decision, but a fresh batch of conservatives won office in November, when Bush swamped his Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record) (D-Mass.), here by 62 to 37 percent.

"The thing that excites me is we really are in a revolution of scientific thought," Calvert said. He described offering advice in such places as Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio and Cobb County, Ga., where a federal court recently halted an attempt to affix a sticker to science textbooks saying evolution is theory, not fact.
'Liberalism Will Die'

Despite some disagreement, Calvert, Harris and the Discovery Institute collectively favor efforts to change state teaching standards. Bypassing the work of a 26-member science standards committee that rejected revisions, the Kansas board's conservative majority recently announced a series of "scientific hearings" to discuss evolution and its critics.

The board's chairman, Steve Abrams, said he is seeking space for students to "critically analyze" the evidence.

That approach appeals to Cindy Duckett, a Wichita mother who believes public school leaves many religious children feeling shut out. Teaching doubts about evolution, she said, is "more inclusive. I think the more options, the better."

"If students only have one thing to consider, one option, that's really more brainwashing," said Duckett, who sent her children to Christian schools because of her frustration. Students should be exposed to the Big Bang, evolution, intelligent design "and, beyond that, any other belief that a kid in class has. It should all be okay."

Fox -- pastor of the largest Southern Baptist church in the Midwest, drawing 6,000 worshipers a week to his Wichita church -- said the compromise is an important tactic. "The strategy this time is not to go for the whole enchilada. We're trying to be a little more subtle," he said.

To fundamentalist Christians, Fox said, the fight to teach God's role in creation is becoming the essential front in America's culture war. The issue is on the agenda at every meeting of pastors he attends. If evolution's boosters can be forced to back down, he said, the Christian right's agenda will advance.

"If you believe God created that baby, it makes it a whole lot harder to get rid of that baby," Fox said. "If you can cause enough doubt on evolution, liberalism will die."

Like Meyer, Fox is glad to make common cause with people who do not entirely agree.

"Creationism's going to be our big battle. We're hoping that Kansas will be the model, and we're in it for the long haul," Fox said. He added that it does not matter "who gets the credit, as long as we win."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/washpost/20050314/ts_washpost/a32444_2005mar13

this is quite scary. The whole idea of teaching 'intelligent design' in science classes is rediculous. Intelligent design is not a science.
 
"God has no place within these walls(science in this case), just as facts have no place within organized religion".


if they want to teach creationism in religion class go right ahead, but it's contrary to the principles of science to teach it as fact
 
Imposing religious beliefs (creationism is based purely on God) inside a public classroom is against the very laws our country was founded on (U.S. Constitution and its ammendments most notably in 1947). It is biased, unfair (to atheists etc.), and almost completely scientifically unsound. Let's keep the absurd fairy tales in the first grade english classes, and keep fact in the science classes.
 
I think that teaching evolution in a class environment should be allowed, so long as it also addresses the skeptical viewpoints of it.

The theory of intelligent design, however, should never exist in a science class. I'm even opposed to an optional "Religion" course that teaches it, since that has no place in a school curriculum. Faith is not something that should be endorsed by school education. It's something that needs to be dealt with in your own free time on a personal level.
 
CptStern said:
"God has no place within these walls(science in this case), just as facts have no place within organized religion".


if they want to teach creationism in religion class go right ahead, but it's contrary to the principles of science to teach it as fact


Exactly, the is the way British schools teach it and the way all schools should teach it. Is it just American schools that have this huge problem?
 
Razor said:
Exactly, the is the way British schools teach it and the way all schools should teach it. Is it just American schools that have this huge problem?

It's spearheaded in America; the religious right there have enough money and political sway
 
Intelligent Design, heh, Crappy Design would be a better word if you look at the faults in organisms, but that's besides the point here :)

But it's a horrible, horrible development, faith should never be taught in schools. And that's what it is, faith, not science. It's not science because it works outwards from a fixed dogma (We were designed) they seek stuff that fits their views and then call it proof.
 
PvtRyan said:
Intelligent Design, heh, Crappy Design would be a better word if you look at the faults in organisms, but that's besides the point here :)

But it's a horrible, horrible development, faith should never be taught in schools. And that's what it is, faith, not science. It's not science because it works outwards from a fixed dogma (We were designed) they seek stuff that fits their views and then call it proof.


Faith should be taught in schools, but it should be confined to the Religious Education classes, Evolution should be confined to the Science classes. The pupils then have an equal sway as to which they want to follow, follow god, or follow science.
 
Razor said:
Faith should be taught in schools, but it should be confined to the Religious Education classes, Evolution should be confined to the Science classes. The pupils then have an equal sway as to which they want to follow, follow god, or follow science.

I even disagree with that. Having a class about religion in which the students are taught about a variety of beliefs is OK. But any class that preaches the dogma of a particular belief as fact should be done away with immediately.
 
Absinthe said:
I even disagree with that. Having a class about religion in which the students are taught about a variety of beliefs is OK. But any class that preaches the dogma of a particular belief as fact should be done away with immediately.

Sorry, that is what i ment. Have a class that teaches religion, but gives an over view of all of them, from Judaism to Islam to Buddhism to Christianity.
 
Razor said:
Sorry, that is what i ment. Have a class that teaches religion, but gives an over view of all of them, from Judaism to Islam to Buddhism to Christianity.

Sounds like my old school.

I'm not sure if evolution was taught in science (probably was, can't remember being taught it), and we learned what these religions believed in, not told what to believe in.

Anyway, if some these schools don't want to teach the theory of evolution, why do they even bother teaching science at all?

It's important to be able to look at many ideas, and judge which one you prefer for yourself, not just one idea, that's what causes narrowmindedness.
 
Its called theology.

Religion has no place in schools.
If evolution is taught it should be made clear it is not the be all end all.
 
For the schools that only teach Creationism, is it just taught in the religious education class and Evolution is excluded from science, or is Creationism actually taught in science class?
 
Razor said:
For the schools that only teach Creationism, is it just taught in the religious education class and Evolution is excluded from science, or is Creationism actually taught in science class?

I have never seen creationism taught in a school here in Kentucky, unless it is a private christian school. In that case I would assume creationism is taught and evolutionism is disregarded.
 
Razor said:
Faith should be taught in schools, but it should be confined to the Religious Education classes, Evolution should be confined to the Science classes. The pupils then have an equal sway as to which they want to follow, follow god, or follow science.

No, students should be educated about religions (not only Christianty, but every major religion in history) they should never, not under any circumstances, be taught faith in any religion.
 
Sainku said:
Its called theology.

Religion has no place in schools.
If evolution is taught it should be made clear it is not the be all end all.

Except it is the be all end all as far as the biological sciences are concerned. There is NO alternative scientific theory. Period. They stopped questioning whether or not evolution was how it happened about a century ago when the evidence became so overwhelming it would have just been self-delusional to deny it... the only people still making noises about it are the people who object on religious grounds.
 
gcomeau said:
Except it is the be all end all as far as the biological sciences are concerned. There is NO alternative scientific theory. Period. They stopped questioning whether or not evolution was how it happened about a century ago when the evidence became so overwhelming it would have just been self-delusional to deny it... the only people still making noises about it are the people who object on religious grounds.

indeed, somehow the intelligent design people managed to get evolution in everyone's mind as 'just a theory'. Evolution is a fact. evolution theory is what is explaining the fact. This ofcourse is still incomplete. But doubting that species evolve from another is just ignorance at its worst.
 
PvtRyan said:
No, students should be educated about religions (not only Christianty, but every major religion in history) they should never, not under any circumstances, be taught faith in any religion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Absinthe
I even disagree with that. Having a class about religion in which the students are taught about a variety of beliefs is OK. But any class that preaches the dogma of a particular belief as fact should be done away with immediately.


And then i said:
Sorry, that is what i ment. Have a class that teaches religion, but gives an over view of all of them, from Judaism to Islam to Buddhism to Christianity.

6char.
 
gcomeau said:
Except it is the be all end all as far as the biological sciences are concerned. There is NO alternative scientific theory. Period. They stopped questioning whether or not evolution was how it happened about a century ago when the evidence became so overwhelming it would have just been self-delusional to deny it... the only people still making noises about it are the people who object on religious grounds.

Talk about dogma.
 
alehm said:
Talk about dogma.

You want to argue about evolution? Take it to Apos' thread :)

Dogma isn't dogma when it's backed up with verifiable scientific argument
 
alehm said:
Talk about dogma.

Yeah, almost as bad as those dogmatic idealogues who absolutely insist the earth orbits the sun!!! :O

Why can't they be more open minded to my alternative "giant holographic projector in the sky" theory??????
 
I believe faith should be taught in schools- but only as far as teaching the concept and understanding of faith, not actually promoting it.

It's possible that my secondary education was a fluke, but, despite having vaguely Christian leanings, I felt my own experiences were satisfactory. Although I'm not blindly supporting our pathetic schooling system (yes, I have to insert embittered post-education angst somewhere) the UK method- which may well have changed in my absence- seems sensible to me, teaching evolution in science, as recommended, and reserving Creationist learning to RE classes.
 
Yeah, RE in my school was pretty good atch - I think the priority given to Christian material was just because Christianity is the UK's no. 1 :)

Lot's of good stuff on Buddhism and Hinduism tho', it was fine
 
Yes, my religious education taught me well - I'm now an agnostic (closer to athiesm, but eh) and my trip to the holocaust memorial centre was an incredible changing force to a lot of things I percieve and thought.

Inviting us to throw a stone on a 5 foot tall pile (each stone representing a child's life lost) was in a weird way an amazing way to end the trip. A sense of closure.
 
heh i even god evolution in my RE classes. My teacher believed that evolution did happen, albeit guided by god. He couldnt believe that stuff like the eye evolved without a deity being involved in the process (eventho i explained to him how an eye could evolve from start to end). I got taugh you have to read the bible between the lines, and that its the main message whats important, not every detail thats said.

you think i got brainwashed? :p
 
I really dont understand the problem. Evolution is the science of Biology's explaination. Creationism is Christianity's explaination. Evolution should be taught in Biology class, Creationism in Religious Education and if the Christains want to really hammer it home into their followers, thats where church services come in.
 
they should atleast start teaching the basic concept of the Vaccum matrix in schools. and how matter... the atom for example, is simply no more than a concentrated force of energy sustained in Vaccum, that is mistaken to be some kind of static solid because of our visual limitation.

the force field like operation of the atom, of course redirect's other energies such as the photon, which gives it its visual solidity in our macroscopic world.
 
clarky003 said:
they should atleast start teaching the basic concept of the Vaccum matrix in schools. an

Not trying to be facetious, but... why?
 
You know, that one quote in particular from that idiot pastor saying if they could just get people doubting evolution liberalism would die really reminded me of the Young Earth Creationist Theme Song (Originally written by a poster on another board I used to post on whose name I can no longer recall but whose post I saved for it's chuckle value...).

YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST THEME
( to the tune of "What A Wonderful World This Would Be" )

Don't know much about biology,
Don't know much paleontology,
Don't know much about no science book,
And big numbers always get me shook.
Don't know much about Geology,
Don't know much of Embryology,
Don't know much about no DNA,
It's all Satan's doing anyway.
But I know that none of it is true.
And if I could make you doubt it too.
What a wonderful world this would be.
I don't claim to be an "A" student;
I don't want to be.
'Cause maybe by being an "A" student baby,
I'd learn somethin' real bad for me.
Don't know nothing 'bout no rocks and ages.
I see the pictures and I turn the pages.
Don't know how those oak trees ran so fast
'till the Flood caught up with them at last.
But Hovind’s story's good enough for me,
And if all those scientists could see,
What a wonderful world this would be
What a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful world...

So you see, THAT'S why they have to get it taught in science class and stamp out the teaching of evolution... they have the best intentions. Really. :upstare:
 
clarky003 said:
they should atleast start teaching the basic concept of the Vaccum matrix in schools. and how matter... the atom for example, is simply no more than a concentrated force of energy sustained in Vaccum, that is mistaken to be some kind of static solid because of our visual limitation.

the force field like operation of the atom, of course redirect's other energies such as the photon, which gives it its visual solidity in our macroscopic world.

yeah, this stuff is taught completely wrong at schools. And hard to change because most teachers aren't xtremely active on the subject.
I always thought they were incredibly small massive spheres before i started reading up on the subject myself
 
I think as we are developing as a race, it would be informative, to provide insight into new theories.. at the moment the text book science isnt including some of this basic new science, its not hard to grasp... the only problem is , even though an ether, or Vaccum is slowley becoming very obvious through such proven effect's such as the Bifield brown effect (electrostatic propulsion - antigravity)

alot of mainstream science theories are getting lost in a wedge of mathmatical numbers and babble, instead of being objective and studying our universe carefully through these new technologies and perceptions, they get so transfixed, some peoples theories discard the vaccum and replace it with ideas like M theory,and start applying mathmatics to something that isnt even physically calculateable!

there are those who go wild and create universal mathmatical equations that they think are right, but dont quite add up for their theory, so they add 'imaginary' elements into the math to make their theory work, but that is totally obsurd, its making things up as you go along to make numbers work, which for all we know could end up being very very misleading., at the end of the day , what im seeing are desperate scientist's trying to search for the answer, often in an egotistical attempt to keep or create a reputation... when the answer is right under our nose. as vaccum theory includes one neglected factor, conciousness , which is very important in scientific study, because the experimenter is part of any experiment and he/she being part of the vaccum yourself have different experiences in life which influence your interaction, also our unique perspective is quite materially facadial that realisation is needed. Vaccum theory is by far the most solid of all the concept's. I dont know how M theory can be talked about, and then have no mention of Vaccum theory.. even though there are similar concepts in both, but Vaccum theory quantify's the Bifield brown effect, and the relationship between electricity mass and gravity, and infact goes onto unifying it all as different manifestation's (vibrations) of the one sea of energy known as Vaccum.

Jondyfun, its simple, people need to learn about the Vaccum because we learn about electricity and magnetisim but not electricity and gravity, its all in one triangle if you remember from high school physics, Vacuum is directly linked to a deeper understanding of what our universe actually is outside of our superficial view, and quantify's why capacitor's have unexplicable electrokinetic (antigravity) abilities in a complete vacuum.

Its technological application can be realised by the younger generations, developing our understanding of the universe that binds us all.
 
clarky003 said:
I think as we are developing as a race, it would be informative, to provide insight into new theories.. at the moment the text book science isnt including some of this basic new science, its not hard to grasp... the only problem is , even though an ether, or Vaccum is slowley becoming very obvious through such proven effect's such as the Bifield brown effect (electrostatic propulsion - antigravity)

alot of mainstream science theories are getting lost in a wedge of mathmatical numbers and babble, instead of being objective and studying our universe carefully through these new technologies and perceptions, they get so transfixed, some peoples theories discard the vaccum and replace it with ideas like M theory,and start applying mathmatics to something that isnt even physically calculateable!

there are those who go wild and create universal mathmatical equations that they think are right, but dont quite add up for their theory, so they add 'imaginary' elements into the math to make their theory work, but that is totally obsurd, its making things up as you go along to make numbers work, which for all we know could end up being very very misleading., at the end of the day , what im seeing are desperate scientist's trying to search for the answer, often in an egotistical attempt to keep or create a reputation... when the answer is right under our nose. as vaccum theory includes one neglected factor, conciousness , which is very important in scientific study, because the experimenter is part of any experiment and he/she being part of the vaccum yourself have different experiences in life which influence your interaction, also our unique perspective is quite materially facadial that realisation is needed. Vaccum theory is by far the most solid of all the concept's. I dont know how M theory can be talked about, and then have no mention of Vaccum theory.. even though there are similar concepts in both, but Vaccum theory quantify's the Bifield brown effect, and the relationship between electricity mass and gravity, and infact goes onto unifying it all as different manifestation's (vibrations) of the one sea of energy known as Vaccum.

Jondyfun, its simple, people need to learn about the Vaccum because we learn about electricity and magnetisim but not electricity and gravity, its all in one triangle if you remember from high school physics, Vacuum is directly linked to a deeper understanding of what our universe actually is outside of our superficial view, and quantify's why capacitor's have unexplicable electrokinetic (antigravity) abilities in a complete vacuum.

Its technological application can be realised by the younger generations, developing our understanding of the universe that binds us all.

I think we need a Grand Unified Theory that incorporates gravity as a gauge boson first.
The only things we know about possible quantum gravitation are that the quantised particle would be called the graviton, and it would have a +2 spin.
Only with this theory would we be able to understand the link between electromagnetism and gravity, and hence develop systems to exploit it, and possibly yes even anti-gravity - but that would require a negatively massive particle.

And almost all forces we encounter in our everyday lives are down to electromagnetism. The other forces just don't have the flexibility of this force, at least in the low energy range of the spectrum.

As for the mathematics, I have seen many derivations of formula, and it is only when you come to Quantum Mechanics, some formulas are seen as postulate, like Schrodinger's equation. Thing is, this postulate has been used to develop many successfully proved theories in conjunction with classical and relativistic laws.

Trial and Error are a big part of science, these guys spend years until they get the right formula out...but at the end of the day, this formula is the best we have (until something else comes along)
The mathematical models are developed, because it is the most simple way a human mind can understand something, saying F=ma for example is better, and more accurate than saying if you push a mass with a force it will accelerate.
We need to be able to quantify things, things like DVD players, computers are built on the formulas of Quantum Mechanics.
 
The only thing that should happen in US public schools is for an optional religious studies class to be offered to children, that gives a summary of the major religions and their beliefs. Which could include that some christians (probably not even the majority of them) believe that Adam and Eve in the bible in Genesis is exactly how the world was made. I have spoken to fundamentalist Catholics (sorry being of Catholic background I cannot research my knowledge of fundamentalism any further afield) and the ones I have talked to said that Genesis is in their view a simplified version of what happened to educate people, with its true principles (that God created man and man defied God, so things are bad now) as the important stuff, and that evolution was a fact - but God still made it all, evolution or not.

I think most mainstream Catholics, and probably mainstream protestants, believe in God and so one but think Creationism is just silly.
 
that gives a summary of the major religions and their beliefs.
World Geography anyone? That gives a decent summary on major religions. Infact we had to do a big thing on muslisms and judism which also taught us how alot of things started. That is a REQUIRED class.

The fact is that in US public schools is owned by the goverment. The goverment in our society is ment to not deal with religion. That is why there are Parchol(Spelling?) schools for religion that are not totally goverment sponsered.


I would rather tell somebody I don't know why something is or happened then to know a 1,000 reasons on how it could of happen. Thus to me having No reason at all and still be seraching for a reason is better than to have a reason with no proof.

The thing about Science is Theories are ideas based on what we know. Theories are Ideas, they are simply saying this is how it could of happened.

With religions the wording is a bit diffrent. If you have a belief in god that he created humans then that is what you believe that is how according to you it happened. With an idea its how it could of happened.

Err whatever.. I really don't care but if you want to learn creationism go to a parchial school...
 
Religion is something people should do on their own time.
 
clarky003 said:
I think as we are developing as a race, it would be informative, to provide insight into new theories.. at the moment the text book science isnt including some of this basic new science, its not hard to grasp... the only problem is , even though an ether, or Vaccum is slowley becoming very obvious through such proven effect's such as the Bifield brown effect (electrostatic propulsion - antigravity)

If there were such thing as an actual antigravity field, you could create a perpetual motion machine pretty easily. That doesn't seem likely.

I dont know how M theory can be talked about, and then have no mention of Vaccum theory.. even though there are similar concepts in both, but Vaccum theory quantify's the Bifield brown effect, and the relationship between electricity mass and gravity, and infact goes onto unifying it all as different manifestation's (vibrations) of the one sea of energy known as Vaccum.

To be honest, I've never heard of this "theory" and it sounds pretty crackpot. In other words, it sounds a lot like this theory:

http://www.timecube.com
 
People say that religion should not be taught in school - but hell look at its implications. The Crusades, the War on Terror, French muslims upset they cannot wear headscarves to school. Not teaching about religion at all, ever, is silly stuff and ignores an important part of world history.,

What should not be taught is the religion you should believe is X. Govt schools can have a role to educate children, including about the important events in world history and the religious place in that. Knowing that Sikhs are not Muslims just because they both wear turbans would be helpful too.

A fair criticism that is made of the USA is that its people are ignorant of a lot of things, about the rest of the world. As much as I support the USA, this is true. Even knowledge of Australia, is woefully inadequate. And we are probably their best ally. So educating children about religions throughout the world, is in no way a sponsorship of any particular religion. Its just teaching them about things they should know.
 
I definatly agree with Calanen. Religion should be taught in schools but only either in an optional religion class or in social studies to show how it influenced history. No religion should be promoted in school, but teaching us how the beleifs of certain religions affected world history helps us understand cultures and important events more. This is coming from an athiest.
 
Yep, so like the Theory of Evolution we should teach it in schools- but in the appropriate classroom, of course.

I think we're all agreed that the focus should be learning tolerance and understanding, not necessarily promoting any particular belief or way of life.
 
Back
Top