Intelligent Design Legit or No

[Absinthe]

Religion and "race" have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Solaris]

Not everyone knows that.

Another reason to teach RE.

I would define not hireing muslims as racist,

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Churches are there for a reason.
There's no need to shoehorn religion into school when there's already tax-exempt organizations preaching the same stuff as we speak - to people who actually want to hear it.

 

[T.H.C.138]

Churches are there for a reason.
There's no need to shoehorn religion into school when there's already tax-exempt organizations preaching the same stuff as we speak - to people who actually want to hear it.

thank you for posting the truth!!

kids have a hard enough time with normal reading and writing these days..

no need to add more confusion to the already confused school systems

 

[Solaris]

You don't understand.

Are there minoritys where you live.

Here, there are lots of mosques, and we often see people of different religions doing things that seem strange enough. If people are not educated into why sieghs carry knives, or why some Muslim women cover them selves in public, they draw the wrong conclusions. This ignorance is jumped upoun by right wing Nazi partys such as the BNP, they tell people seighs carry knives becuase there dangerous, and looking to kill all white people, they then say Muslims are terrorists who want to take over britian.

Thanks to RE I know both of these statements couldn't be more wrong, I wouldnt have held thoose veiws anyway, but alot of people would. That is why it is imperitive to teach and educate about races culter and religion.

 

[Raziaar]

all religion should be done away with in education ..except in later high school and university when it is introduced in a social sciences class where the history of religion is taught, not the faith behind it. Religion should not be taught in any other class especially history and science. Creationism should be taught in church/sunday school but should never even be mentioned in school as school is about teaching facts

WHy should religion not be taught in history? I don't think it should be taught in science... but history? HELL YES.

Dude, please... just tell me why you don't think various religion's history, culture, beliefs and customs should be taught in history? Are you ignorant of the fact that much of history has been shaped by religions?

If you had your way, you'd end up with a bunch of the usually intelligent kids coming out of school, with absolutely NO knowledge and understanding about the diversity of the world's populations. This in turn would very likely lead to some VERY stupid policies for those who managed to make it into public offices, as they'd be less sensitive to those around them.

Religion just kept to the institutions that teach them is wrong... because those groups teach religions as a faith, and not as an education. It should be left to schools to teach the facts about various religions and their histories, even the facts that these various religions have certain beliefs in how the world was created. Teaching religion in schools should not be about trying to sway kids to join certain beliefs, but rather expanding their education and sensitivity about this very diverse world.


Your idea would breed ignorance for the young people when they try to interact with their fellow human beings, whom nearlya ll of them practice one religion or another.

 

[diluted]

I agree, religion should certainly be taught in school. There's a difference between teaching about all religions and endorsing a specific one.

 

[TheSomeone]

Religion, epsecially buuhdism, hinduism and Islam (which aren't common in the states) should be taught in American school, otherwise kids will be growing up with a worldview limited by the religion they practice.

 

[gh0st]

i dont know about you stern but i was taught all the basics of zorastrianism, taoism, christianity, confucianism, islam, hellenic religion and so on and so forth. hell they even bothered to tell me about mormanism. religion absolutely belongs in history class, not as indoctrination but simple things people need to know to coexist with people in the world. so you're wrong, it shouldnt be completely taken out of school but i see where you're coming from.

apos.. haha youre embarassing. ILL FIGHT YOU ANY TIME ANYWHERE ON CREATIONISM! AND WIN! anti religion e-thug! DURRRR.

 

[Reaktor4]

religious beliefs are not theories.

 

[Glirk Dient]

i dont know about you stern but i was taught all the basics of zorastrianism, taoism, christianity, confucianism, islam, hellenic religion and so on and so forth. hell they even bothered to tell me about mormanism. religion absolutely belongs in history class, not as indoctrination but simple things people need to know to coexist with people in the world. so you're wrong, it shouldnt be completely taken out of school but i see where you're coming from.

apos.. haha youre embarassing. ILL FIGHT YOU ANY TIME ANYWHERE ON CREATIONISM! AND WIN! anti religion e-thug! DURRRR.

If they did that it could fill up an entire year. People can learn creationism at their church if that is what they believe, school has no place to preach. They can however inform people of the facts of life instead of preaching mythical beliefs.

 

[Raziaar]

If they did that it could fill up an entire year. People can learn creationism at their church if that is what they believe, school has no place to preach. They can however inform people of the facts of life instead of preaching mythical beliefs.

It wouldn't take long to teach the basic beliefs and customs of many various religions.

Again, not teaching to indoctrinate, but teaching so people are aware of the history.

 

[CptStern]

WHy should religion not be taught in history? I don't think it should be taught in science... but history? HELL YES.

Dude, please... just tell me why you don't think various religion's history, culture, beliefs and customs should be taught in history? Are you ignorant of the fact that much of history has been shaped by religions?

If you had your way, you'd end up with a bunch of the usually intelligent kids coming out of school, with absolutely NO knowledge and understanding about the diversity of the world's populations. This in turn would very likely lead to some VERY stupid policies for those who managed to make it into public offices, as they'd be less sensitive to those around them.

Religion just kept to the institutions that teach them is wrong... because those groups teach religions as a faith, and not as an education. It should be left to schools to teach the facts about various religions and their histories, even the facts that these various religions have certain beliefs in how the world was created. Teaching religion in schools should not be about trying to sway kids to join certain beliefs, but rather expanding their education and sensitivity about this very diverse world.


Your idea would breed ignorance for the young people when they try to interact with their fellow human beings, whom nearlya ll of them practice one religion or another.

i dont know about you stern but i was taught all the basics of zorastrianism, taoism, christianity, confucianism, islam, hellenic religion and so on and so forth. hell they even bothered to tell me about mormanism. religion absolutely belongs in history class, not as indoctrination but simple things people need to know to coexist with people in the world. so you're wrong, it shouldnt be completely taken out of school but i see where you're coming from.

apos.. haha youre embarassing. ILL FIGHT YOU ANY TIME ANYWHERE ON CREATIONISM! AND WIN! anti religion e-thug! DURRRR.

ahh knee-jerk reactions from the peanut gallery


tell me if religion is to be taught in history:

what year did Noah sail on the USS:Holdsashitloadofanimals?

what year did Samson slaughter a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass?

what year did Eve bite into that juicy, ultimately evil, apple?

what year did god create the heavens and the earth?


you cant study history without touching on religion, but that doesnt mean that the bible/other religious documents should be used as the sole source of the history of the time. That's contrary to the rules of historical research. You teach events not theology. Again I have no problem with the history of religion being taught in a social science class.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Exactly.

There is a very obvious difference between learning about what a religion is and being taught that the religion is factual.

Also, apos is not being an ANTI RELIGION E-THUG.
He's protesting the practice of faith being taught as fact.
He asks for creationism facts that would be taught in FACT CLASS, and guess what?
No-one has any.
That's not anti-religion. That is pro-science. It's not his fault faith can't cope.

That you chose to dismiss him so frivolously shows something.
I'll leave it up to you to figure out what that something is.

 

[Solaris]

Stern go back a page, and read what I wrote.

Religion should be a class of its own, as it is here in the UK.

 

[CptStern]

I did and my response still applies. Religion can be taught in a social science class which is what you're refering to, not history.

 

[Solaris]

I see.

I still see no problem with it getting an hour a week on its own.

 

[ComradeBadger]

I did and my response still applies. Religion can be taught in a social science class which is what you're refering to, not history.

Religion should be taught in History, not the faith itself, but it's impact, how it's belief system affects causation etc.

 

[Solaris]

To a large extent it is.

 

[CptStern]

Religion should be taught in History, not the faith itself, but it's impact, how it's belief system affects causation etc.

yes that was my point ..cant talk about the renaissance without bringing religion into it ..events and facts not theology. In other words you shouldnt teach anything that isnt fact

 

[Raziaar]

yes that was my point ..cant talk about the renaissance without bringing religion into it ..events and facts not theology. In other words you shouldnt teach anything that isnt fact

Havent you read anything I posted? I've been saying the same thing.

However, you can also explain to people that these various religions all differ wildly in their perception of how the world was born, without touting it as fact.

 

[CptStern]

Havent you read anything I posted? I've been saying the same thing.

However, you can also explain to people that these various religions all differ wildly in their perception of how the world was born, without touting it as fact.

look I dont see why you're having a problem understanding my point. You cant teach historical facts about religion if there's no evidence to support it. In order for say the story of noah to be a historical fact it would have to have physical evidence supporting it, something, anything ..or else it just gets regulated to the atlantis and unicorn type myths: not scientifically or historically accurate but entertaining nonetheless

 

[gh0st]

im not pro creationism at ALL - i personally believe in the big bang and in evolution as darwin and his modern contemporaries believe.

should students not know all theories? in biology class my teacher focused the curriculum on evolution as he rightfully should have. did he not mention creationism? of course he did, not having as many world views in mind as possible is deterimental to a religious society. like it or hate it america is stronger than you and is predominantly christian... we had better know what our neighbors place value in.

religion in terms of specifics and dogma should be left to theology class or seminary, not to public schools. religion in terms of impacts should be left in social studies. religion in terms of science should be SPARINGLY exposed and shown, not as fact, but as theory, in science classes.

 

[Raziaar]

look I dont see why you're having a problem understanding my point. You cant teach historical facts about religion if there's no evidence to support it. In order for say the story of noah to be a historical fact it would have to have physical evidence supporting it, something, anything ..or else it just gets regulated to the atlantis and unicorn type myths: not scientifically or historically accurate but entertaining nonetheless

Don't be an idiot stern. I already understand all that.


And the Unicorn did exist! It died digging out from god's sanctuary after Adam told him too, so he could see eve.

Don't you watch the simpsons?

 

[CptStern]

Don't be an idiot stern. I already understand all that.


And the Unicorn did exist! It died digging out from god's sanctuary after Adam told him too, so he could see eve.

Don't you watch the simpsons?

if you understood that you'd see why you cant use religion as a basis for historical fact

 

[Mechagodzilla]

religion in terms of science should be SPARINGLY exposed and shown, not as fact, but as theory, in science classes.

"Religion in terms of science" does NOT compute.

Religion is inherently the anti-science.
'Theoretically' anything is possible, including unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.
There is a difference between scientific theories (such as gravity)and just semi-randomly guessing at things, which is all creationism does.
It basically goes against most fundamental aspects of science in general (falsifiability, removal of bias, and much more).

I know you're trying to be inclusive but, just as we don't let kids drive squadcars, this is one case where egalitarian inclusiveness does not belong.

So, the sensible option is eqalitarian exclusiveness. Any baseless atheist guesses I make are just as ignored as baseless christian guesses in a logical system.

 

[gh0st]

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssr/

enough said. columbia university seems to have devoted quite a bit of resources to the study of "religion and science". i'd say it does compute and deserves at the very least a mention in any science curriculum. which it will - im not sure what you're trying to change.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssr/

enough said. columbia university seems to have devoted quite a bit of resources to the study of "religion and science". i'd say it does compute and deserves at the very least a mention in any science curriculum. which it will - im not sure what you're trying to change.

Um, that's a university-level religion studies class.
At a privately-run institution, I assume.

Not exactly the same as a public highschool science class being taught that creationism has scientific merit.

 

[gh0st]

im saying religion and science does compute. you made a pretty general statement.

"Religion in terms of science" does NOT compute.

why ignore it? its intristically part of american culture and the mainstream should not be educated ON it but ABOUT it.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

im saying religion and science does compute. you made a pretty general statement.

why ignore it? its intristically part of american culture and the mainstream should not be educated ON it but ABOUT it.

Because, if you teach religion from a scientific standpoint, that intrinsic part of American culture is called directly into question by science.
When that happens, people will complain just as much, or even more, about the treatment of their beliefs.

Fundamentals of how religious people's views affect the world are always taught in any history class. It's inherent to everything historical, practically. Well up into communism and the war on terror.
So why go through all the trouble to have science teachers say "some religious people believe god is responsible for everything, but this view has nothing to do with science and is actually scientifically disproven in some interpretations?"

You can go through a very large list of things that have no scientific basis, as repeatedly pointed out.

Honestly, I think it's naive to believe that christians, by and large, only want to be remind people that they simply exist.

Basically, christianity is already plenty taught in schools, from a sociological standpoint.
there is no need to put it in a science class, and would actually harm the faiths presented more than anything - unless the kids were essentially lied to.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

no, its religion masked as science. religion doesnt belong in public schools. that said, i think students should be taught all applicable theories of evolution/creation etc.

Science is a religion in which man assumes the role of god.

 

[Lemonking]

scary.....

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Science is a religion in which man assumes the role of god.

As deep as that sounds, it doesn't make any sense.

God is allegedly an absolute creator.
Scientists, by contrast, are inventors - in the sense that they only combine pre-existing materials.

God is allegedly omniscient/omnipotent.
Scientists are obviously not so.

God doesn't really do anything, apparently.
Scientists do stuff all the time.

Etc.

Ah well, at least you wowed lemonking. No small feat, that.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

God is allegedly an absolute creator.
Scientists, by contrast, are inventors - in the sense that they only combine pre-existing materials.

The doctrine of science, like all other doctrines, is simply a way of seeing things. It is a way in seeing things that allows man to observe reality as effectively as possible and invent according to these observations.

God is allegedly omniscient/omnipotent.
Scientists are obviously not so.

Scientists are not omipotent, but they have the ability to make creations that gives humanity powers that approach omniscientcy. The doctrine of science has lead to the creation of nukes for example. What is this if it is not mans attempt to harness the ability to be all powerful?

Due to science's objective and nihilistic approach to percieving the world, in which there is no higher truths other than the ones that exist within nature, the pursuit of it's knowledge lacks a teleological basis, resulting in the mindless creation of things that cause suffering for everyone. Also, teaching such a doctrine that lacks a teleological basis to children forms individuals who have been brought up with nihilistic beliefs, which has dire implications for the fabric of society.

In other words, Man in the attempt to assume power for himself so that he may take on the role of god, has killed god.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Man in the attempt to assume power for himself so that he may take on the role of god, has killed god.

Some may consider this to not be a bad thing.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Yeh, because when we have men like George bush sitting in god's throne, its the best thing that can happen isnt it?

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

That's not what I said.
"killing God" may not necessarily be a bad thing.

 

[Raziaar]

That's not what I said.
"killing God" may not necessarily be a bad thing.

God could pwn your ass. He has the life ban button. :E

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

If God turned up on my doorstep, I'd punch the **** in the face and slam the door.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

killing god is bad, because god is a being of perfection, a being that we idolise and strive to abide by. However, man cannot assume this position, as man is not and never will be perfect.