Should religion be taught in science class?

[Tawn]

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

and

i am a biology major first off

Someone is either lying, bending the truth or cheated.
How can you possibly ask us to believe your second statement when you make statements like the first? Surely any Biology major knows that Evolution has nothing to do with the big bang or (directly) abiogenesis.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

i am a biology major first off, ...

That is very sad ...

..., and secondly if humanism isnt a religion then why do humanist keep referring to it as a religion.

From the back of my American Humanist Association membership card:

Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity..​

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

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.

Henry Ford dropped out of school in the 6th grade because he did not fit the 'norm'. Yet, he still managed to invent the automobile. He may not have finished school, but he got out of it what he needed to do what he did best. Now I cannot rewrite history, but I think if his parents had forced him to conform, we might still be riding horses to work.

Einstein also did not graduate from High School. My point is not to do away with education. My point is, by the time a kid is in high school, if they are not good in science, but are excellent carpenters, let them focus on what they are good at, instead of making them feel inferior for not being good at something else.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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

You are stretching the meanings of several terms here, namely religion, humanism, and viable proof. Others have demonstrated that humanism is not a religion, it is a philosophy.

Perhaps you view this philosophy as a religion because you appear to broadly apply it to anyone who rejects Christianity for an intellectual scientific naturalistic approach to understanding and relating to the world. Apparently, you relate to the world through Christianity first and "science" second, with the Bible serving as a trump card to anything produced by humanity (eg, the Bible says that the world was created in seven days, therefore any human attempt to understand otherwise from science is a humanistic *religious* response).

 

[Tawn]

Einstein also did not graduate from High School. My point is not to do away with education. My point is, by the time a kid is in high school, if they are not good in science, but are excellent carpenters, let them focus on what they are good at, instead of making them feel inferior for not being good at something else.

Actually I agree.. in England Maths, Science and English form the core subjects that cannot be dropped. The value of English is obvious.. everyone should be taught to advance their native language. Maths is one which I think is taken too far.. some people dont see the applications.. but it is almost as essential as language whatever you do. Should be an option for basic maths..
Science is slightly worse, but it has applications for many careers and should be an important study at the earlier stages of school - but it isnt for everyone.. and I wouldnt be adverse to allowing some children to drop it towards the end of school if they proved to be both weak in that subject and strong in an alternative subject.
Of course a religious person might think differently. However, im puzzled. Why would Christians be adverse to learning what is essentially a method for investigating the world around us. Religion has managed to combine its dogma (with some upsets) with science.. and Evolution certainly doesnt deny the possibility of Christianity being true. Science and Religion are compatible.

 

[johnnys4life]

No, because instead there should be private schools for people of different religions and everyone should get a voucher that can be used for private or public schools.

Christian parents have no business sending thier children to public schools nowadays. They just come back either filled with nonsense, illiterate, depressed, or in a box.

I went to one of the high schools that had a school shooting. I've never forgotten that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, because instead there should be private schools for people of different religions and everyone should get a voucher that can be used for private or public schools.

Christian parents have no business sending thier children to public schools nowadays. They just come back either filled with nonsense, illiterate, depressed, or in a box.

I went to one of the high schools that had a school shooting. I've never forgotten that.

Perhaps no one should send their child to public schools if this is the case, and your post could be used as a call for public school reform rather than sounding a retreat for Christians. Are so much better than everyone else that public schools do not deserve the presence of our children? Traditionally, private religious schools are famous for their stifling of research, art, and creative thinking in order to forcibly impress the current unscientific scholastic othrodoxy upon the mind.

As far as education is concerned, we as humans really need eachother, no matter what our religious affiliations are. We need to share research from what interests us. Being a Muslim or Christian or whatever is not going to affect our abilities in math or science or any other field of objective research.

The isolation that you suggest would not be constructive. Religion has no place in public schools unless it is being taught objectively as history or sociology and not as a scientific option.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

....and your post could be used as a call for public school reform rather than sounding a retreat for Christians.

As far as education is concerned, we as humans really need eachother, no matter what our religious affiliations are. We need to share research from what interests us. Being a Muslim or Christian or whatever is not going to affect our abilities in math or science or any other field of objective research.

Religion has no place in public schools unless it is being taught objectively as history or sociology and not as a scientific option.

I agree with you on all counts. We definitly need to share information with each other, and this should include a sharing of religious beliefs, as well, keeping the religions isolated has caused wars, and persecution.

Even today, a lot of us have made judgements against the Muslim community because of recent events. However, those same people have no idea what the religion is based on. If they had been taught the fundamentals of each religion, they would realize that Muslims and Christians are not that much different. It is the ones who used their religion to cause pain and suffering, not the religion's doctrine.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

They just come back either filled with nonsense, illiterate, depressed, or in a box.

This is a blanket statement that is deeply flawed. If a parent works with their child at home, stresses the importance of good grades, and does not accept mediocrity, the child will reach as much of their potential as possible. This is true, whether the child attends public or private schools.

Blaming public education for your child's depression, illiteracy, or ignorance is a pitiful case of blaming others for your shortcomings. Without a doubt, there are public schools that run the gamut from excellent to poor. This is also true of private schools.

The two factors that have been shown to have the highest correlation to a child's education is the mother's level of education, and the importance placed on academic excellence at home.

It is of paramount importance to stress academic excellence to your child, and it would ring hollow to a kid that has a parent trying to exclude science because it clashes with their personal dogma. Kid's are smarter than you think - and they can smell BS a mile away. If you don't want your child to be exposed to scientific data, you will have to home school them, send them to a private school that will lie to them (not all do), or send them to Kansas, where the ultra-conservative religious right appears to be gaining power.

TVOR

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As far as education is concerned, we as humans really need each other, no matter what our religious affiliations are. We need to share research from what interests us. Being a Muslim or Christian or whatever is not going to affect our abilities in math or science or any other field of objective research.

The isolation that you suggest would not be constructive. Religion has no place in public schools unless it is being taught objectively as history or sociology and not as a scientific option.

Very, very well said.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong. Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science.

Broad, but increasingly precise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.

Notice, this does not mean the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event. Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause.

 

[Druidus]

Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools. That is wrong.

Since no such evidence exists, it's not wrong.

Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science.

There was never a global flood, and Noah never existed. There were, however, two full freezings of Earth, with Earth's entire surface covered in ice (once before oxygen creators existed, and once shortly after).

The simple fact is, you cannot teach any religion in science, because which religion would you choose? Why Christianity? Why not Druidry, Wicca, Satanism, Asatru, Islam, Judaism, etc.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

The simple fact is, you cannot teach any religion in science, because which religion would you choose? Why Christianity? Why not Druidry, Wicca, Satanism, Asatru, Islam, Judaism, etc.

Oh, yeah, you are right. Religion should not be taught in science class, but the theory of creationism should be. And Christianity, Druidry, Wicca, Satanism, Asatru, Islam, Judaism, etc. should all be taught in history.

 

[Pah]

Oh, yeah, you are right. Religion should not be taught in science class, but the theory of creationism should be. And Christianity, Druidry, Wicca, Satanism, Asatru, Islam, Judaism, etc. should all be taught in history.

Which religious theroy of creation? There sooooooo many

 

[painted wolf]

so general 'creation theory' could be summed up as: "something did it"

Would that be on the test? :biglaugh:

wa:do

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Problems with carbon 14 and other dating methods.

This was a copywrited site, so I could not copy any of it. But it is very interesting how they took the body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years, however carbon dating showed it to have died 4600 years ago. And the shell of a live mollusk was dated to have been dead for 23000 years.

 

[painted wolf]

that shows a basic misunderstanding of C14... it can not relyably date young things... thus it provides bad info... only those who don't understand or wish to discredit C14 would do so.

Again most problems with the dating methods are due to intentional misuse with the aim to discredit... multiple dating methods are used at once by reputable scientists to provide a relyable date.

intentional misuse and misinformation. :tsk:

now to get back on subject what does that have to do with teaching religion in science class?

wa:do

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

that shows a basic misunderstanding of C14... it can not relyably date young things... thus it provides bad info... only those who don't understand or wish to discredit C14 would do so.

Again most problems with the dating methods are due to intentional misuse with the aim to discredit... multiple dating methods are used at once by reputable scientists to provide a relyable date.

intentional misuse and misinformation. :tsk:

now to get back on subject what does that have to do with teaching religion in science class?

wa:do

There is no way to tell that the earth's elements reacted at the same speed in the beginning as it does now. Science says that the Earth is moving slowly away from the sun. But according to the numbers, it would have put the Earth way to CLOSE to the sun just a couple of million years ago. We can not assume that the rate of decay of any material was the same then as it is now.

 

[Druidus]

ES, the weak nuclear force responsible for atomic decay has always been the same. So has gravity, and the strong nuclear force, or electromagnetic forces. All are the same as they alway have been.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

ES, the weak nuclear force responsible for atomic decay has always been the same. So has gravity, and the strong nuclear force, or electromagnetic forces. All are the same as they alway have been.

How can you possible say that with such certainty? How do we know that the gravitational force has always been the same as it is today? Were you there? And what experiment proves it?