Voice,
Lived my whole life in Louisville.
Lived my whole life in Louisville.
-
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!
Should religion be taught in science class?
- Thread starter Lilith
- Start date
EnhancedSpirit
High Priestess
No, but it should be taught in history class.
EnhancedSpirit
High Priestess
Oh yeah!!! Let us talk about complete new school system :woohoo:
There is a school in New York where the students have the same teacher through all 12 grades. I think this is a great idea. When that class graduates the teacher goes back to kindergarden. And I agree that classes could be mixed, much as life is. And I think they should stop using this cookie cutter system of teaching. By the time a child reaches the 7th or 8th it is already pretty obvious what direction a child is going to take. If a child is struggling with math, but is really good in woodshop, I don't care how much math you shove down that childs throat, he will probably never be good at math, but he might grow up to be a world renowned furniture maker. So why don't we just let children focus on what they are good at.
I mean, look at dear sweet Jessica Simpson. That girl is a box of rocks. But she is extremely talented. And there is nothing wrong with her for not being book smart. It was not her purpose in life. OK now I have gone WAY off the topic.
There is a school in New York where the students have the same teacher through all 12 grades. I think this is a great idea. When that class graduates the teacher goes back to kindergarden. And I agree that classes could be mixed, much as life is. And I think they should stop using this cookie cutter system of teaching. By the time a child reaches the 7th or 8th it is already pretty obvious what direction a child is going to take. If a child is struggling with math, but is really good in woodshop, I don't care how much math you shove down that childs throat, he will probably never be good at math, but he might grow up to be a world renowned furniture maker. So why don't we just let children focus on what they are good at.
I mean, look at dear sweet Jessica Simpson. That girl is a box of rocks. But she is extremely talented. And there is nothing wrong with her for not being book smart. It was not her purpose in life. OK now I have gone WAY off the topic.
Master Vigil
Well-Known Member
Religion has nothing to do with how evolution works, how the cells divide, how molecules combine, etc... Religion should not be taught in science class. Its like teaching martial arts in a basket weaving class. It just doesn't work.
Religion should be teaching goodness, love, respect, tolerance, understanding, etc... This has nothing to do with science.
Religion should be teaching goodness, love, respect, tolerance, understanding, etc... This has nothing to do with science.
No Religion has no place in empirical science. Theology is not a science like physics is. If anything rename religious stuidies, theological science. Yes all courses are interrelated, but it should be upto the student to make the links and decide how to resolve contradictory information.
Unless you advocate teaching chemistry, biology and physics (with a non-religious bias) in Sunday school then I suggest you dont want religion getting into science class. We already have enough religious dogma taught in schools without scientific interferance. Give science the same respect it is due. If you are so confident that religion is the true path - then you shouldnt worry about children getting sidetracked - theyll see the truth if it is presented to them at appropriate times, no?
Unless you advocate teaching chemistry, biology and physics (with a non-religious bias) in Sunday school then I suggest you dont want religion getting into science class. We already have enough religious dogma taught in schools without scientific interferance. Give science the same respect it is due. If you are so confident that religion is the true path - then you shouldnt worry about children getting sidetracked - theyll see the truth if it is presented to them at appropriate times, no?
EnhancedSpirit
High Priestess
I personally do not see how history can be taught without teaching religion. I don't suggest forcing a child to believe any one Religion, but the majority of the worlds history was based on religious crusades.
No but not all history requires full knowledge of religion and not all religous studies requires full knowledge of history. There is crossover in places, but not everywhere.EnhancedSpirit said:
When teaching about the crusades, the history lesson will briefly mention the role of religon - but it will be upto the religous class to fill in the gaps. Likewise, religious studies might mention historical events, but theres no need to explain the entire timeline and context in which those events happened.. thats upto the hostory lessons..
I can see where you are trying to make a comparison, but there is none. Science and religion dont cross over. Science is about observable phenomena. Creationism is not based on observable phenomena but is based on speculation about how such phenomena appeared. Evolution is supported by tons of credible, observable evidence. Creationsim is nothing more than guesswork. Much like the big bang theory, which also should not be taught in science class. There are no credible facts to back up the big bang theory.. and creationism is more comparable to that than evolution.
EnhancedSpirit
High Priestess
My school taught us pretty specific details about Greek mythology, why not Christian and Jewish as well.
PS, Tawn have you been here since 4 this morning, or did you take a break? Oh wait, I forget, you are acros the big water.
PS, Tawn have you been here since 4 this morning, or did you take a break? Oh wait, I forget, you are acros the big water.
Funnily enough I learnt the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism in History tooEnhancedSpirit said:
... and not in Religious Studies.. but then my school wasnt big on Religion.Big water lol.. sounds like the kindof phrase our ancestors would have used to refer to the ocean in biblical times.
Everything is religious.
Everything is historical.
Everything is mathematical.
Everything is scientific.
Everything is linguistic.
(in some way) - you have to teach some of each in order to be scientific.
If science, as a subject cannot be an island. It would have no function or substance.
Likewise you have to teach some of each of the above in order to give context to math, language, religion, & history.
on and on... You can't really seperate these subjects.
Everything is historical.
Everything is mathematical.
Everything is scientific.
Everything is linguistic.
(in some way) - you have to teach some of each in order to be scientific.
If science, as a subject cannot be an island. It would have no function or substance.
Likewise you have to teach some of each of the above in order to give context to math, language, religion, & history.
on and on... You can't really seperate these subjects.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
No, I don't believe it is. The classical definition of theology is "faith seeking understanding".SPLogan said:
For a believer, this study of faith is theology.
For a non-believer, this study of faith is philosophy of religion.
.... or read my signature line for some insight about theology from "my pal" Tom:
EnhancedSpirit
High Priestess
You must spread some Karma around before giving it to SPLogan again.
EnhancedSpirit
High Priestess
Also the way, my ancestors, the American Inians would have called it.Tawn said:
Melody
Well-Known Member
How about let's keep religion out of science class but teach that what we know about evolution and the beginnings of our universe are "theories"...educated guesses....instead of cold fact.
Otherwise we'll be teaching everything from "turtles on top of turtles..." to "And God created the heaven and the earth". There are wayyyy too many religious beliefs to incorporate them into a science class and the truth is that there is less fact to back them up than the current belief being taught in science class.
Otherwise we'll be teaching everything from "turtles on top of turtles..." to "And God created the heaven and the earth". There are wayyyy too many religious beliefs to incorporate them into a science class and the truth is that there is less fact to back them up than the current belief being taught in science class.
SPLogan said:
Isn't that like saying that since they are both sports, you can't teach basketball without teaching football? Obviously, that's not the case. You can teach basketball without teaching football. It's done all the time. And in much the same way, you can teach science without teaching religion, and religion without teaching science.