Should religion be taught in science class?

[Jayhawker Soule]

... do away with all religion from the classroom or allow all their ideas to be taught

... thereby transforming the classroom into the intellectual equivalent of landfill.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

... thereby transforming the classroom into the intellectual equivalent of landfill.

Our school system is right now the intellectual equivalent of a landfill. We need to change things. It's one thing to teach the basics. But by age 13 a child knows what he prefers and what he is good at. And each child is unique in his talents and tendancies. This cookie cutter system from 200 years ago is out-dated and ill-equipt to bring the best out of our children.

The schools are an institution that from the beginning ranks children. This gives the children the false belief that some are better than others.

 

[Druidus]

I agree with you, Enhanced Spirit, that is very close to how I feel.

 

[eternalsaint]

okay way off subject but whats with the frubals?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Eternal Saint -

The difference in teaching Christianity (and it's beliefs) in a science classroom and teaching science (i.e. evolution, expansion of the universe, etc.) is that one is testable and falsifiable, while the other places itself above question, and must be accepted blindly on faith. You are more than welcome to enroll your child in a class that teaches any religious belief that you subscribe to. You are not welcome to teach a revealed faith as if it were based on science - unless you have some way to make said religion testable and falsifiable. Which, of course, would redefine the very meaning of the word "faith".

TVOR

 

[Sunstone]

okay way off subject but whats with the frubals?

The subject is way off topic, so I'll PM you with an explanation.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Eternal Saint -

The difference in teaching Christianity (and it's beliefs) in a science classroom and teaching science (i.e. evolution, expansion of the universe, etc.) is that one is testable and falsifiable, while the other places itself above question, and must be accepted blindly on faith. You are more than welcome to enroll your child in a class that teaches any religious belief that you subscribe to. You are not welcome to teach a revealed faith as if it were based on science - unless you have some way to make said religion testable and falsifiable. Which, of course, would redefine the very meaning of the word "faith".

TVOR

There are some things that we cannot know. That is, science and philosophy can only help humanity relate to the natural world and can say nothing about anything which exists seperately from nature: it cannot even say that something is accepted blindly on faith. Since revelation from God, as Christianity claims to have, is not achieved by science or philosophy, it cannot be taught as science or philosophy but as religion or theology.

Its primary subject is untestable, but where the theological reflection touches nature, its content is testable. For example, Christianity participates in history and is historically (eg, scientifically) verifiable and falliable, and thus not conducive to blind faith. We can verify that the historical Jesus and his apostles most probrably lived, and the NT most probrably contains their teachings, which is also not conducive to blind faith.

Faith is only blind to those who insist on using science and philosophy alone to make choices. To use science or philosophy to locate the divine is vainity, particularly when the prophet has confessed that God exists outside of the scope of that which we use to review nature.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But by age 13 a child knows what he prefers and what he is good at. And each child is unique in his talents and tendancies. This cookie cutter system from 200 years ago is out-dated and ill-equipt to bring the best out of our children.

What a pathetic and ignorant little strawman you construct. On the one hand, we have the enhanced spirits of the world, a literal vanguard in the defense of the unique child, who demands that we "do away with the classroom" or, if we're not so inclined, "allow all ... ideas to be taught". On the other side stands the sinister forces defending a "cookie cutter system from 200 years ago". Well, given this quaint little construct, I'm more than willing that you pull your fictive 13 year old out of school and let his or her brain rot if that's the cost of insuring that the excluded middle, those who are excluded from your false dichotomy and who may, in fact, want their children to learn science, have the oportunity to exposed those children to something that deserves to be called science.

 

[eternalsaint]

the problem is, evolution is part of a religion these days. its a belief of humanism. why can their religion's ideas be taught but no one elses can. dont say because its "scientific" because there is no viable proof for the theory of evolution. its just the only thing are taught and therefore put their trust in

 

[Druidus]

What a pathetic and ignorant little strawman you construct. On the one hand, we have the enhanced spirits of the world, a literal vanguard in the defense of the unique child, who demands that we "do away with the classroom" or, if we're not so inclined, "allow all ... ideas to be taught". On the other side stands the sinister forces defending a "cookie cutter system from 200 years ago". Well, given this quaint little construct, I'm more than willing that you pull your fictive 13 year old out of school and let his or her brain rot if that's the cost of insuring that the excluded middle, those who are excluded from your false dichotomy and who may, in fact, want their children to learn science, have the oportunity to exposed those children to something that deserves to be called science.

Deut, I can honestly say that I've never learned something in school. I've always ignored the teacher. However, I've always scored exceptionally high on tests. Why? Because I can read and learn on my own. Everyone is able to do this, at least everybody who should be in school. School may not need to be scrapped, but it does need to be rebuilt from the ground up. Einstein himself expressed how much he despised the western schooling system. The schools today try to fill the students, like water filling a bottle. Education should not be this way. Education should not be the filling of a bottle, but the kindling of a flame.

 

[Druidus]

the problem is, evolution is part of a religion these days. its a belief of humanism. why can their religion's ideas be taught but no one elses can. dont say because its "scientific" because there is no viable proof for the theory of evolution. its just the only thing are taught and therefore put their trust in

My new religion is Mathemachism. Our religion is based entirely on mathematics. We worship the holy "pi".

Can this be taught in school?

 

[eternalsaint]

Eternal Saint -

The difference in teaching Christianity (and it's beliefs) in a science classroom and teaching science (i.e. evolution, expansion of the universe, etc.) is that one is testable and falsifiable, while the other places itself above question, and must be accepted blindly on faith. You are more than welcome to enroll your child in a class that teaches any religious belief that you subscribe to. You are not welcome to teach a revealed faith as if it were based on science - unless you have some way to make said religion testable and falsifiable. Which, of course, would redefine the very meaning of the word "faith".

TVOR

evolution is not testable. there is no way you can recreate the big bang in a lab. evolution is accepted blindly on faith because you can in no way testits truth. scientists admit there is less and less proof of evolution all the time. its just called a science so it can be continue being promoted in the schools

 

[eternalsaint]

My new religion is Mathemachism. Our religion is based entirely on mathematics. We worship the holy "pi".

Can this be taught in school?

so why is it okay to teach one religions beliefs and dicard anothers

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

dont say because its "scientific" because there is no viable proof for the theory of evolution.

Don't confuse pervasive ignorance of the evidence with its absence. Have you ever read any of the science? If so (and I seriously doubt that it's so) you clearly did not understand what you read. In fact, what I find most instructive is the extent to which you exemplify the consequences of the type of education you promote.

 

[Druidus]

The point is, Humanism is not, by definition, a religion. It is a philosophy.

The science of evolution was around before the "religion".

re·li·gion
n.

1. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
   2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

phi·los·o·phy
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Clearly, Humanism fits more as a philosophy, rather than a religion. Thus, it has every right to be in schools.

Even if Humanism was a religion, evolution still belongs in school, as it was around long before Humanism was.

 

[eternalsaint]

i am a biology major first off, and secondly if humanism isnt a religion then why do humanist keep referring to it as a religion. humanistic thinking has been around as long as mankind. im not trying to put creation into schools. i just dont think its fair to promote one groups thoughts over anothers when neither can be proven.

 

[Druidus]

i am a biology major first off, and secondly if humanism isnt a religion then why do humanist keep referring to it as a religion. humanistic thinking has been around as long as mankind. im not trying to put creation into schools. i just dont think its fair to promote one groups thoughts over anothers when neither can be proven.

I can refer to my head as a UFO, but that doesn't make it one. Humanism is a philosophy, clearly, by definition. Humanistic thinking (ie, philosophy) has been around as long as mankind, I agree. Should we promote Newton's Laws? They are only theories, and are impossible to prove. Boyle's Law is based on an impossible theoretical event. Should we teach it?

 

[Yerda]

evolution is not testable. there is no way you can recreate the big bang in a lab.

I fail to see your point.

evolution is accepted blindly on faith because you can in no way testits truth. scientists admit there is less and less proof of evolution all the time.

Crap. Which scientists have you been speaking to? The evidence has been gathering for hundreds of years.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

scientists admit there is less and less proof of evolution all the time. its just called a science so it can be continue being promoted in the schools

What a load of dung. I'm sure that you can find some creationist that has a degree (maybe two or three) - but to make the claim that "scientists admit there is less and less proof of evolution..." shows two things:
First - you are attempting to make it sound as if all scientists are now rejecting evolution - when the truth is that the evidence to support it grows on a daily basis. The overwhelming, vast majority of "scientists" embrace evolution - your handpicked flakes notwithstanding.
Second - you have no realistic grasp of the scientific method - science does not "prove" anything. It merely describes the evidence it finds, and interprets it as best as it can. Religion, on the other hand, claims the conclusion, then twists the evidence beyond recognition, in a self-serving sham of explanation.

i am a biology major first off, and secondly if humanism isnt a religion then why do humanist keep referring to it as a religion. humanistic thinking has been around as long as mankind. im not trying to put creation into schools. i just dont think its fair to promote one groups thoughts over anothers when neither can be proven.

For someone that is majoring in Biology, you certainly have demonstrated no grasp of the evidence that supports evolution, or the fact that science doesn't "prove" anything. You have repeatedly complained that evolution has not been "proven" - you are correct, but then again, it never will be. Nor will the Theory of Gravity ever be "proven".

You'll have to excuse me for questioning the validity of your major in Biology.

TVOR

PS - just out of curiosity, where do you attend school?

 

[Pah]

the problem is, evolution is part of a religion these days. its a belief of humanism. why can their religion's ideas be taught but no one elses can. dont say because its "scientific" because there is no viable proof for the theory of evolution. its just the only thing are taught and therefore put their trust in

Evolution is not a religious system - it is not intregal to humanism. A false claim is hardly justification for inclusion of religion in any science course. It is biology that is today the target of some religious minds. In centuries gone by it was astrology. Both challange a concept of Christianity's God. God lost, if you will remember, to astromomy. God has consistently lost to advances in science and will continue to do so. Your problem is not to chalange science but to make God more relevant