INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Adam on November 01, 2010, 06:31:47 PM
-
lol, No
-
What about religious schools?
-
They should be able to teach "some people believe x, y and z"
But they shouldn't be able to teach it as fact or as some kind of scientific theory
I don't agree with religious schools anyway though - kids shouldn't go to school to be indoctrinated
-
If religious schools should be able to teach 'some people believe x, y, and z' then why not all schools? Am a firm believer in separation of church and state, btw, just found your response interesting and am feeling provocative tonight, and not in a sexy way.
-
Schools are for education and life skills, if you want religious teaching, go to church. There is no room in the educational system for stuff religion, as religion is based on faith more than anything, and is not of value to everyone like a proper school education is.
-
But religious schools are privately funded. It would be similar to saying parents who homeschool shouldn't teach creationism.
-
If religious schools should be able to teach 'some people believe x, y, and z' then why not all schools? Am a firm believer in separation of church and state, btw, just found your response interesting and am feeling provocative tonight, and not in a sexy way.
I agree that non-religious schools should be able to teach that as well. I just don't think ANY schooll, religious or not, private or not, should be teaching creationism/ID as a valid alternative to evolution
-
But religious schools are privately funded. It would be similar to saying parents who homeschool shouldn't teach creationism.
Since churches are taxt exempt, I'd support the teaching of creationism, as soon as churches start teaching evolution from the pulpit. ::) :laugh:
-
They should be able to teach "some people believe x, y and z"
But they shouldn't be able to teach it as fact or as some kind of scientific theory
I don't agree with religious schools anyway though - kids shouldn't go to school to be indoctrinated
I agree with all of that. It's important for schools to teach about religion. They should not teach creationism as a fact though.
I don't think they should teach the big bang theory as a fact either. I think a school should just explain the different point of view, and let the individuals make up their mind.
-
They should be able to teach "some people believe x, y and z"
But they shouldn't be able to teach it as fact or as some kind of scientific theory
I don't agree with religious schools anyway though - kids shouldn't go to school to be indoctrinated
I agree with all of that. It's important for schools to teach about religion. They should not teach creationism as a fact though.
I don't think they should teach the big bang theory as a fact either. I think a school should just explain the different point of view, and let the individuals make up their mind.
The bib bang theory is supported by facts, and should be taught in science class because it's a solid theory.
-
They should be able to teach "some people believe x, y and z"
But they shouldn't be able to teach it as fact or as some kind of scientific theory
I don't agree with religious schools anyway though - kids shouldn't go to school to be indoctrinated
I agree with all of that. It's important for schools to teach about religion. They should not teach creationism as a fact though.
I don't think they should teach the big bang theory as a fact either. I think a school should just explain the different point of view, and let the individuals make up their mind.
The bib bang theory is supported by facts, and should be taught in science class because it's a solid theory.
I'm not sure the big bang theory is a fact. There do seem to be viable alternatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology#Alternative_metric_cosmologies
-
The bib bang theory is supported by facts, and should be taught in science class because it's a solid theory.
I'm not sure the big bang theory is a fact. There do seem to be viable alternatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology#Alternative_metric_cosmologies
Those alternatives aren't supported by the majority of cosmologists though. :-\
-
The bib bang theory is supported by facts, and should be taught in science class because it's a solid theory.
I'm not sure the big bang theory is a fact. There do seem to be viable alternatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology#Alternative_metric_cosmologies
Those alternatives aren't supported by the majority of cosmologists though. :-\
No, and I'm not saying that the big bang is wrong. Just that it hasn't been proven fully to be true. It is still a theory, albeit possibly the most likely one.
-
The bib bang theory is supported by facts, and should be taught in science class because it's a solid theory.
I'm not sure the big bang theory is a fact. There do seem to be viable alternatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology#Alternative_metric_cosmologies
Those alternatives aren't supported by the majority of cosmologists though. :-\
No, and I'm not saying that the big bang is wrong. Just that it hasn't been proven fully to be true. It is still a theory, albeit possibly the most likely one.
NOTHING in science has been proven to be completely true. That goes against how science works. Anything can be overturned on new evidence.
-
I went to a religious school.
Evolution theory was taught in biology. Creationism was treated in religion classes, and we learned that you can't use it as science. And that the bible never was meant as a guide to biology or physics.
-
Creationism in schools? Sure fairy tales can be taught in literature class :lol:
-
Creationism never was big in the Netherlands, but now there is this man with a vision who built Noah's boat. And who even sent door to door flyers all through the country to tell people about creationism. He's also advertising at schools for outings for kids. Unbelievable, but true.
Here's a link to his website (http://arkvannoach.com/en/en.html). He has/had plans to be in London during the olympics of 2012 with a 1:1 size replica.
-
As long as it's classified as "Religious/Mythology literature" and not stated as undeniable fact, I have no problem with it being taught.
It should be treated the same as other mythologies, something of cultural curiosity instead of obsessive belief.
-
Maybe the only creationism that should be taught is 'how to build a chair and table' in woodworking class.
-
As long as it's classified as "Religious/Mythology literature" and not stated as undeniable fact, I have no problem with it being taught.
It should be treated the same as other mythologies, something of cultural curiosity instead of obsessive belief.
:agreed:
-
As long as it's classified as "Religious/Mythology literature" and not stated as undeniable fact, I have no problem with it being taught.
It should be treated the same as other mythologies, something of cultural curiosity instead of obsessive belief.
That won't satisfy the Creatards (or IDiots for Intelligent Design). They want their bullshit taught in science classrooms. Just look at the Dover Trial to see what they're really after.
-
As long as it's classified as "Religious/Mythology literature" and not stated as undeniable fact, I have no problem with it being taught.
It should be treated the same as other mythologies, something of cultural curiosity instead of obsessive belief.
That won't satisfy the Creatards (or IDiots for Intelligent Design). They want their bullshit taught in science classrooms. Just look at the Dover Trial to see what they're really after.
Which is ironic of them, because creationism doesn't even abide by the scientific method. On that big-ass technicality, creationism cannot be considered scientific. However should they subject creationism to the scientific method and generate falsifiable conditions; they'll quickly see how it falls apart as a hypothesis and turns into a faith-based pseudoscience. So their arguments for it being apart of science is ludicrous.
So yeah, either they make it abide by the scientific method, or accept that it must be classified as mythological literature.
-
As long as it's classified as "Religious/Mythology literature" and not stated as undeniable fact, I have no problem with it being taught.
It should be treated the same as other mythologies, something of cultural curiosity instead of obsessive belief.
That won't satisfy the Creatards (or IDiots for Intelligent Design). They want their bullshit taught in science classrooms. Just look at the Dover Trial to see what they're really after.
Which is ironic of them, because creationism doesn't even abide by the scientific method. On that big-ass technicality, creationism cannot be considered scientific. However should they subject creationism to the scientific method and generate falsifiable conditions; they'll quickly see how it falls apart as a hypothesis and turns into a faith-based pseudoscience. So their arguments for it being apart of science is ludicrous.
So yeah, either they make it abide by the scientific method, or accept that it must be classified as mythological literature.
Yeah, that's pretty much what happened to them at the Dover Trial. Michael Behe tried to argue the concept of Irreducible Complexity, but he got blown out of the water by Kenneth Miller who showed how each part of a cell could have evolved on its own.
-
Creationism is silly, both from a scientific point of view, and from the point of view of serious bible scholars.
Treat creationism in school, sure. Learn pupils to think. Learn pupils also to treat Evolution theory as Evolution theory, and not as the belief that in the end humans are the outcome of the chain of evolution, and therefore the goal of evolution.
Taking creation poetry from religious scriptures, and turn it into science is silly.
Taking evolution theory from science, and turn it into the belief that the whole evolution happened with the purpose to end at humans is just as silly.
-
Maybe we are still evolving, but it will take another million or so years to get to the next step. Provided we don't fuck ourselves seriously beforehand.
-
Maybe we are still evolving, but it will take another million or so years to get to the next step. Provided we don't fuck ourselves seriously beforehand.
That's something different than saying evolution had the purpose to be at this step.
We evolved into where we are, because of circumstances. There was no higher goal to get us here than that. Using evolution theory as the belief that humans are the crown of creation is just bogus. And, that argumentation does come up way too much.
Evolution theory is what it is. A scientific theory, that is valid as long as it works. (Don't think it will be replaced by another, but, in theory it is possible that that could happen one day, paradigm shift) It is a scientific theory, not a belief. Lots of people do treat it as a belief. Think they are better than the Neanderthals. We're not better. We're more fit for this time. But, in their time, they fitted a lot better than we would, if someone would transport us back in time.