-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin on trial: Evolution hearings open in Kansas
- Thread starter Unedited
- Start date
Why should the schools give both sides? One side (evolution) is science, and the other side (Creationism and Intelligent Design) are not science. So, why give them equal time. It's a bit like requiring equal time for the football team during a basketball game.
BUDDY
User of Aspercreme
I never really understood why teachers should be teaching on the origins of life to begin with. What is the purpose? You can give a child an excellent education and teach them everything they need to know about biology and the physical sciences without even having to touch on the matter. If a child asks, just tell them to ask their parents. What's wrong with that? It's not like they are going to go through a life in despair if they don't learn in the fifth grade whether there was a big bang, an intelligent design or a creator. In fact, maybe it will help them to develop the thinking abilities to come up with their own answers to these and other questions.
CaptainXeroid
Following Christ
I concur! If they're not going to teach other theories, it would be better not to teach any of them.EEWRED said:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Precisely.Lycan said:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Yes, there is no "other side." Science can speculate evolution, but it cannot speculate ID nor a Creator. Therefore, creation as presented in the Bible (and other myths) and the ID theory do not compete with evolution.Sunstone said:
Ah, the maddess of mass rule (warning stickers on textbooks, lunacy in Kansas). Democracy gives us all a voice, but the insolence of an ignorant few are ringing in my ears.
Personally, I like and respect the response of the real scientists: they didn't even show up. Religion has nothing to day scientifically, unless of course the religion is science and uses the scientific method.
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
I agree.
Hmm... Because some people actually care about their children learning science at school. Evolution is science, creationism is not. Thus, creationism is not taught at school, and evolution is. If you don't like it, you are legally allowed to pull your child out of school for those classes. If you don't want to do that, deal with it.
I've never understood why these people who hate evolution can't just pull their kids out of the class for that particular lesson.
Fat Old Sun
Active Member
It's not enough to keep your own children ignorant. Some people feel the need to make parenting decisions for everyone else's children as well.Druidus said:
It's really not shocking though. Since when has the quest for knowledge been considered a good thing in the context of religion?
BUDDY
User of Aspercreme
Obviously (to me anyway) there is a majority of people out there who care enough about what there children are taught in school, that they want to have a say in it. If there are parents who do not want there children taught evolutionism, and there are parents who do not want there children taught creationism, it would be better to avoid the subject all together so as not to disrupt the class. And by the way, evolution is theoretic science, so please do not try and place is in the same scientific arena as explaining Newton's Laws or the chemical make up of water, 'cause it ain't the same damn thing!!!Druidus said:
You know what I can't stand.....people who scream for tolerance and then flip out when a caring parent wants to limit their childs exposure to something that they personally don't believe in.
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
I agree.
No, as I've said before, it would be better to teach that which is based on science than that which is based on spirituality.
Actually, Newton's "Laws" are theoretical as well. As is Boyle's law, and any other "Law" you might find. They become laws when they are generally accepted as true. They still, however, are theoretical. Should we teach them?
I'm all for tolerance, but the simple fact is that evolution is scientific and creationism isn't. Allow the church to stay at home, and the science to stay in school. If you don't like the particulars of the science, take your child out of it.
You CAN limit YOUR child's exposure to that which you disbelieve merely by removing him from these classes. It would be intolerant to try to limit the exposure of other children, who's parents might want them to learn it, but might not know enough about the particulars (or indeed, at all) to be able to teach them. Science is for the schools, religion is for the church and the home. Keep it that way. I wouldn't want children at school to learn about the Source, or any other aspect of Druidry, at least if presented as fact.
Fat Old Sun
Active Member
I really have no problem with both sides being presented as long as it is made clear that they are theories.
We covered evolution in biology when I was in high school. It was stated more than once that we were examining different theories, and that despite what someone else may say, neither has been proven to be absolute. That is why they are still called theories.
My sister on the other hand, went to a Lutheran school. They only time evolution was mentioned it was accompanied by a pile of half truths, junk science, and out right lies.:tsk:
We covered evolution in biology when I was in high school. It was stated more than once that we were examining different theories, and that despite what someone else may say, neither has been proven to be absolute. That is why they are still called theories.
My sister on the other hand, went to a Lutheran school. They only time evolution was mentioned it was accompanied by a pile of half truths, junk science, and out right lies.:tsk:
Druidus
Keeper of the Grove
The problem with that is that there is no "both" sides. What about the "Raelians", who believe aliens created humans? What about Druidry? We believe that the world and realms are ashes of the Source's flame, and that each being is a spark of the Source (not necessarily literally). What about any other religion? The case is not evolution versus Christianity, there are too many sides to represent, so only the science should be.
Christopher Krajewski
Member
Darwin's theory of evolution in schools needs to be questioned from geographical naivete. This is because the world at present should shown at doubt with the past randomness, a randomness, no doubt, which hinges around the wholly unpredictability of each past future incident. And that could be the more appropriate perspective for recent geography. Many incidents have been alarming like the endangerment of species on the planet. What determines the events in geography has biological justification which interplays between natural and anti-natural types and classes of activity in the physical/natural interface of space and time in broad rather aesthetic perspective on the World. In fact the creation idea is there if the particular events here and there are informingly contained in ARGUMENTS. Why add the extra facts of some divine intervention. That's philosophy. Children can learn from a Godless realm of pasts matching spatially allocated pasts.
Philosophy would be well introduced with teaching about conflicts, very well utter discrepencies for logical deduction. Of course induction and the experimental method can and must show for new discoveries.
I wonder how much judges in courtrooms can be disheartened about misunderstanding, concerning, yes, creation and creativity, like children can.
I also feel religion should be taught in school discriminately.
Philosophy would be well introduced with teaching about conflicts, very well utter discrepencies for logical deduction. Of course induction and the experimental method can and must show for new discoveries.
I wonder how much judges in courtrooms can be disheartened about misunderstanding, concerning, yes, creation and creativity, like children can.
I also feel religion should be taught in school discriminately.
I'm not sure there's even a single sentence in your response, Chris, that I genuinely understand.Christopher Krajewski said:Darwin's theory of evolution in schools needs to be questioned from geographical naivete. This is because the world at present should shown at doubt with the past randomness, a randomness, no doubt, which hinges around the wholly unpredictability of each past future incident. And that could be the more appropriate perspective for recent geography. Many incidents have been alarming like the endangerment of species on the planet. What determines the events in geography has biological justification which interplays between natural and anti-natural types and classes of activity in the physical/natural interface of space and time in broad rather aesthetic perspective on the World. In fact the creation idea is there if the particular events here and there are informingly contained in ARGUMENTS. Why add the extra facts of some divine intervention. That's philosophy. Children can learn from a Godless realm of pasts matching spatially allocated pasts.
Philosophy would be well introduced with teaching about conflicts, very well utter discrepencies for logical deduction. Of course induction and the experimental method can and must show for new discoveries.
I wonder how much judges in courtrooms can be disheartened about misunderstanding, concerning, yes, creation and creativity, like children can.
I also feel religion should be taught in school discriminately.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Exactly--well said, Druidus.Druidus said:
I too am glad to see that most scientists boycotted the event.
Fat Old Sun
Active Member
Ok, the two most common theories that kick and scream and yell that it's not fair when ever someone tries to make a decision in this matter. I say both sides because when this issue comes up, it's always these two theories, evolution and creationism, that are being questioned. Had there been a third or fourth in question, I would have said all.Druidus said:
Lycan
Preternatural
These "worried" parents have the right to send their kids to public school, but they do not have the right to dictate that my child be taught a religious idea. My kids will not be victim to someone pushing their personal religious agendas on them. If these parents want their kids to learn creationism then they can send them to a religious private school or do the home school thing.
Do people think that just because it is called a "theory" that scientists just pulled it out of their butts one day and decided to spread it around? A theory, though not 100% provable, is based on hard facts. The only thing we have to back up creationism are myths (and that includes the bible). Not to mention there are almost as many creation stories are there are different religions, who would decide which one to teach?
Being tolerant to anothers religious views does not mean allowing their religion to run rampant in public where my kids or I are concerned. It also does not mean my kids have to be taught their religion as fact, which it is not.
The Voice of Reason
Doctor of Thinkology
There is only one side that has any evidence to support it - the scientific view of evolution. If you wish to teach children about creationism, it should be done in a "Comparative Religions" class. It is not based on science, it has nothing whatsoever to do with science, and it never will. The only reason for foisting this load of dung off onto children in a science classroom is a blatant attempt to give it credibility that it has not, and will not earn. When you teach creationism in a Comparative Religions class, you will then have the opportunity to teach all the variations of it, and discuss the fact that none of them have any evidence, only anecdotal claims. Oh - and while you're at it, you might want to teach the children that creationism is also not falsifiable, since it is based on revealed faith. A slight (but some would consider significant) difference between it and evolution.jimbob said:
I'm hoping that Falwell or Dobson can find a sugar daddy billionaire that will fund our next drive - to dispell and eradicate that pesky Theory of Gravity. Everyone is focusing on Darwin, and what his writings are doing to our children, when it is really the false teachings of Newton that we should be worried about. That whole Theory of Gravity thing really makes my blood boil...EEWRED said:
I can't frubal you - have to "spread 'em around", but I want you to know that I fell out of my chair laughing. As I read the post by Chris, I would re-read each statement, trying to determine whether or not I was just too slow this morning. I got absolutely nothing from it either.Sunstone said:
TVOR