Should religion be taught in science class?

[Lilith]

[align=center:698fc0f4a7]With so many theories on the creation of this world whether by religion or science it seems to question should religion be active in a science class? This comes up alot with evolution. Evolution is bases only on science theories but some say Creation theory should play apart in science. I am against this. My reason behind it is because evolution is not a religius theory. It is based on factual theories and has nothing to do with religion. Creation is a theory based on religion expecially Christianity. Know if science is about science and not religion why place religius theories in the mix? I believe science should be strickly science and religion should be strickly religion. If people don't like their children learning evolution place them in a Christian school. I am not biased against religion being active in school. I think their should be a seperate area for it in school but not in science class. What is everyone's view points on this?[/align:698fc0f4a7]

*If this has been down before I am very sorry.

 

[painted wolf]

in my opinion creation stories should be taught in a comparitive religion class, not science class. Nor should science be taught in a religious studies class...

wa:do

 

[MTAIE]

I have no idea why anybody would teach religion in science class... would probably defeat the purpose of having a science class then, wouldn't it. I'd say that evolution and the ideas presented in various religions (not sure about islam though, I don't have much experience with that) are mutually exclusive.

But I'm a bit stupid though, so I guess I'm not much of a person to listen to

 

[Master Vigil]

Evolution and the big bang theory do not compare well to western ideas. However, it can be taught with Taoism. But neither science nor taoism should be taught together in school. They are 2 separate beginnings to the same end. They must start separate.

 

[Fra.Morelia]

Not to be harsh, but they should keep religion out of scince classes, period. It has NO place there. I agree that a comparative religion class would be a good thing.
I also think the little grommets should be allowed to pray all they want. If someonepraying offends you, well, tough. The constitution promises nothing about freedom from being offended.

 

[Lilith]

Thanks everyone for agreeing with me. ^^ I respect anyone's opinion but I am glad to see many of you agree with me strongly with this.

 

[MustangManiac5.0]

With so many theories on the creation of this world whether by religion or science it seems to question should religion be active in a science class? This comes up alot with evolution. Evolution is bases only on science theories but some say Creation theory should play apart in science. I am against this. My reason behind it is because evolution is not a religius theory. It is based on factual theories and has nothing to do with religion. Creation is a theory based on religion expecially Christianity. Know if science is about science and not religion why place religius theories in the mix? I believe science should be strickly science and religion should be strickly religion. If people don't like their children learning evolution place them in a Christian school. I am not biased against religion being active in school. I think their should be a seperate area for it in school but not in science class.

not so fast... now don't get me wrong, i don't think RELIGION should be taught in public schools, such as distinguishing who the creation being is and from what religion he is worshiped from; however, i do believe public school sciences classes are HIGHLY biased and just as close-minded as certain strongly religious people. i have witnessed this firsthand the past 4 years of my life and it seems ironic that we're supposed to be broadening our horizons, taking electives we might not necessarily and explore other theories, not just force one biased belief down millions of kids throats. the theory of creation is just as validated as that of evolution and each highly debatable. science can't explain how something came from nothing (deep down we all know they can't) and creationists have trouble because you can't measure God or faith. lets let kids make up their own minds based on the non-biased presentation of both evolution and creation, especially since there would never be a religious studies class where kids could learn about creation in public schools, so why make that an alternative? thanks

 

[rousley]

Creation science is real but both creation and evolution should be presented together as long as nonprovable information is identified as nonprovable. Moreso, science really has more to do with chemistry and physics than creation or evolution. My only problem with creation "and" evolution is that so many people, teachers, and scientists don't seem to be interested in finding "everything" on all points of view before coming to conclusions. If we can't listen to each other's opinions all the way through then our opinions are biased rather than informed. I'm not a scientist and I believe that the majority of people making decisions on how my taxes are spent have mostly only heard evolutionst theories. So I would like to refer you to a fantastic set of "free" MP3 downloads that primarily discuss creation with an extreme amount of scientific data, research, and documentation at http://www.drdino.com/Downloads/Seminar/mp3/index.jsp Dr Kent Hovind is a scientis, has taught science, debates world renowned scientists on the subject, AND has offered a substantial reward since 1990 to anyone who can "give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution" (read more about this at http://www.drdino.com/Ministry/250k/index.jsp). The challenge has been made unsucessfully several times to Dr Hovind and with the reward currently up to $250,000 you would think that an evolutionist could do it. People can say anything they want to but until they listen to the whole creation series it's not a complete discussion.

 

[painted wolf]

Lets let kids make up their own minds based on the non-biased presentation of both evolution and creation, especially since there would never be a religious studies class where kids could learn about creation in public schools, so why make that an alternative?

Actually, I went to a high-school that had a class that taught the basic premices of the worlds major religions. It was a terrific experience. We also lerned about their creation myths and how they influenced the history of the world around them.

Its a shame more schools aren't as open minded as mine was.

Creationism was mentioned, albeit breafly in my science class because there was a rule by the school bord that it had to be. So my teacher mentioned not only biblical creation but native american, hindu and nordic creation myths.

Then we moved on to science, which is what my science teacher wanted to be teaching all along. (and no, he isn't agnostic, just annoyed with certen people telling him what he can and cant teach in HIS class.)

wa:do

 

[Master Vigil]

I think creation stories are fun to learn about, but not to be taken literally. I would love to have learned about other creation myths, not just the christian one. We studied roman and norse mythology in english class. But we didn't about the creation stuff. It is always good to learn and broaden your palate. Not just to take one thing for truth, just because thats all you know.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I've always looked at most of the organized religions as man's attempt to find solace in an often harsh world. I see the attempt to use science to "justify" or confirm one's religious beliefs rather curious. Rather like quoting Marx to give credence to one's stance in favor of capitalism.

 

[dolly]

Creation science is real but both creation and evolution should be presented together as long as nonprovable information is identified as nonprovable.

Saying "God did it," and spouting ridiculous "proofs" doesn't make it science. Face it, creationism is religious and faith-based. It is not a science, and thus has no place in a science class.




I am all for creationism being taught in a religions class as long as they teach a variety of creation stories including, but not limited to, Christianity and its offshoots.

 

[rousley]

I apologize if my statement was confusing in any way. I do believe that “creation” is faith based. By saying that “creation is real” I intended to imply that many people aren’t taking it as seriously as it should be. Even though I believe in creation I also believe that evolution is real, but not in the ways that it is predominantly taught. Evolution is still theory even though it is taught as cold, hard fact. Dr. Hovind does cover this in The Hovind Theory at http://www.drdino.com/Downloads/Seminar/mp3/index.jsp and his challenge for anyone to prove evolution $250,000 has still not been accomplished. I understand people’s hesitation in listening to such a clear and definitive description of creation vs. evolution as so many “religious” people have resisted all facets of evolution so dogmatically. I leaned against believing creation as the religious mainline believers did a few years ago, and still disagree with some of their beliefs. I knew that evolution is theory and did not dogmatically believe that either, but I returned to an even more complete understanding and belief in creation when I saw the evidences of creation throughout nature. Not just by how beautiful it is but how nature is constructed, its architecture, and how the Bible made extremely sophisticated statements concerning nature, the earth, stars, and planets well before and outside of the writers ability to know those things. Dr. Hovind’s recordings are not the only source of information about “creation science” but they are the most complete I’ve found over many years. I’m just making the point that if evolution theory is taught in science class then creation theory is as worthy of attention, but neither of them really “need” to be taught in science class.

As for religious, I agree. Dogmatic, religious jargon is not a way to present either creation or evolution. True faith of any type does not need “religion” to prove its existence. Believing something just because a person wants to believe it is ok, believing in religion because someone needs it is ok too, but it’s not necessary. Faith is more without religion, and people tend to sell their faith in anything short when they decide to be stubborn and shortsighted rather than realistic about it. Religious and shortsighted faith has done a phenomenal job of ruining people’s faith rather than building faith throughout history. www.unidiversal.com

Thanks for your great reply to my post

 

[BIG gibb]

I do not think that religion should be taught in science class but i think that science should be taught or at least discussed in religion class if you have that at your school.

with all of the science that has been proven i think that religion can adapt they views to what science has come up with...

 

[Scott1]

Hi all,

My two cents:

A PUBLIC school should only teach evolution and not any kind of creation.

Sound weird coming from a Catholic Christian???? Well, I am also a Veteran and I believe that in a public school, the kids sent there should be kept from any religion AT ALL.

A teacher is not qualified, in my opinion, to teach about faith...... if he/she was qualified, he/she would be a pastor/priest.......

......... so, I don't personally believe in evolution and I don't want my kids exposed to that, so I send them to a PRIVATE Catholic school.

Easy enough, right? Don't like what the public school teaches, send your kids somewhere that you do agree with or home school them.

Peace,
Scott

 

[Sunstone]

Teaching creationism in a science class is like teaching football to the basketball team. They’re two different “games.” They’re not played by the same rules.

 

[mersault]

Having just finished high school, I have a rather intimate relationship with this issue. I can remember my biology teacher briefly mentioning "alternate creation theories" during class. It was obvious that this is not what he had in mind when he signed up to teach biology. Many states now require science teachers to present "intelligent design theory" as a legitimate alternative to evolutionary theory. This, of course, is just a roundabout way of getting Christian creationist theory into the public school curriculum. As you have probably already guessed, I am strongly against this sort of thing happening. Creationism should be taught in church or, as some have suggested, in a comparative religion class. I believe that teaching creation theory in a science class is blatant disregard of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
For those who answer that evolution is "just a theory," and therefore no more legitimate than creationist theory, let me remind you that gravity is also "just a theory." It also happens that evolution has one of the largest bodies of evidence supporting it of any theory precisely because of such debates as these.
By the way SOGFPP, I think you have some good ideas. However, I would suggest that you may be doing your children a disservice by having them exposed only to one set of ideas. I also wonder what people who cannot afford to send their children to a private parochial school and cannot home school them because of intense work schedules are to do if they share your ideas. What's your take on this?

 

[Ronald]

At my last understanding, gravity was an absolute, proven, fact/law. Try to over come it and it will break you!
None of my family are monkeys! I am not pond scum. My ancestors were created in the image of God. Baruch Hashem/Blessed be He/The Name, creator of the universe.

 

[Sunstone]

Mersault writes,

"Many states now require science teachers to present 'intelligent design theory' as a legitimate alternative to evolutionary theory. This, of course, is just a roundabout way of getting Christian creationist theory into the public school curriculum."

Science has done quite well over the last 500 years (since Galileo) without needing to be legistlated. So why all of a sudden do a few non-scientists -- i.e. creationists -- think that the teaching of science can be improved by laws and regulations mandating that "Intelligent design" is taught in schools? If "intelligent design" had any real merits, it would be accepted science by now, and it would have made it into the text books on its own merits --- made it into the books without requiring the nefarious help of meddling school boards or legistlatures.

 

[Scott1]

By the way SOGFPP, I think you have some good ideas. However, I would suggest that you may be doing your children a disservice by having them exposed only to one set of ideas.

What other ideas? I believe in Christ, so my kids are being raised Christian. To expose them to say, voodoo or ritual killings for the sake of being liberal would be the real disservice.
I am guessing that you don't have kids.........

I also wonder what people who cannot afford to send their children to a private parochial school and cannot home school them because of intense work schedules are to do if they share your ideas. What's your take on this?

Well, I can relate. I work 55-60 hours a week. I bring lunch meat and bread to work EVERY day of my life. I buy my clothes (and I am in sales) at second-hand stores......I drive a 96 Dodge with 150,000+ miles on it......... BUT.....
My kids and my wife always have new stuff, and I sent the girls to a private school..... so, it's all worth it.

I pray for those families that can not send their kids to a private/home school, but I gotta tell ya, that most teaching is done at home.
My daughter and I pray the rosary together at least once a week and that will stay with her more than any talk about evolution.....

Teachers teach, but parents TEACH..... get me?

Peace,