Post Reply
Page 2 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Creation in schools.
4 years ago  ::  Nov 13, 2009 - 9:54PM #11
Vistronic
Posts: 1,830

Nov 13, 2009 -- 2:17PM, TPaine wrote:


Nov 13, 2009 -- 2:17PM, TPaine wrote:


Nov 13, 2009 -- 1:02AM, Vistronic wrote:


 


Are you suggesting that the public school students be taught that it is possible that an intelligent power, much like the deistic First Cause, had something to do with the beginning of the universe[/qoute]


 


Yes that is what I am suggesting, I am not asking for a bible study,  I am not even asking a name be put on the creator. But because we are so paranoid it appears I am asking to much!


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 13, 2009 - 10:19PM #12
amcolph
Posts: 16,242



If it doesn't change the science,


that is, if the same science is taught whether the assumption of a creator is made or not


(and it shouldn't make any difference to the science)


Then the assumption of a creator (or not) should be made by each individual student to suit his or her own individual beliefs.


You seem to be under the impression that if no mention is made of a creator in science class it is an implicit denial of the possiblilty of a creator.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2009 - 8:37AM #13
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

Nov 13, 2009 -- 8:49PM, amcolph wrote:


Nov 13, 2009 -- 7:55PM, Vistronic wrote:


Nov 13, 2009 -- 1:51AM, Eve510 wrote:


Oh buddy, I don't know where your from, but in my district they even stopped doing the allegiance to the flag because it mentions GOD.  Its a Miracle they haven't stopped using the dollar!  I don't think that is going to happen, for our taxes went up even higher.  One tax for the state and one for the district.




Things have become quite pathetic, PC gone mad.




Not 'political correctness' so much as fear of giving the religious extremists an edge.


As a Christian I would have to say that it is better to do without any mention or acknowledgement of God at all by our public institutions than risk letting the "Bible-believers' make any advantage of it.



Oh thats fair, listing all Bible Believers as Religious extremists; I guess that means every Wahabist is member of Al Qaeda? with at least 45% (if not more) of the US population claiming that they literally interpert at least parts of the Bible are sure you want to label such a large minority as being extreme?

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2009 - 8:40AM #14
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

Nov 13, 2009 -- 10:19PM, amcolph wrote:




If it doesn't change the science,


that is, if the same science is taught whether the assumption of a creator is made or not


(and it shouldn't make any difference to the science)


Then the assumption of a creator (or not) should be made by each individual student to suit his or her own individual beliefs.


You seem to be under the impression that if no mention is made of a creator in science class it is an implicit denial of the possiblilty of a creator.




 


and you seem to be under the impression that if one is taught creationism as an alternate theory in High School that one can not progress in college level science-there used to be a time when origins were not adressed at all in High School Science-that it was not considered "core" science

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2009 - 9:42AM #15
DGMelby
Posts: 968

Nov 14, 2009 -- 8:37AM, davelaw40 wrote:


Oh thats fair, listing all Bible Believers as Religious extremists; I guess that means every Wahabist is member of Al Qaeda? with at least 45% (if not more) of the US population claiming that they literally interpert at least parts of the Bible are sure you want to label such a large minority as being extreme?





Not all bible believers are religious extremists, but they are a very large subsect of the Christian majority in the United States, and the extremists are their public face.  And just about every minority in this country, outside of race these days, is on their proverbial hit list:  atheists, non-Christians, Christian off-shoots like the Mormans, progressive Protestants, Catholics, LGBTs, liberals, and even women.  And sometimes I wonder about the race thing.


The idea that "We are right, they are wrong, and we have not only the right, but the moral responsibility, to crush wrongness," is very seductive.  It starts with what seems to be very sensible suggestions, like mentioning God in science class, or witholding rights to certain minorities, and if left unchecked, it becomes something that should horrify any civilized human being.  People blinded by the glory of their self rightness are not paragons of compassion or rationality, and being right seems to be a basic human desire.


I see no reason to violate the Constitution to give those extremists any succor.


There is only one place for teaching the creation myths of modern religions in public schools:  a comparative world religion class.  And the reason why we don't have those in public schools today is because a certain subset of Christianity finds even the hint that they aren't the only ones right, that their beliefs are only one of many equal beliefs, even within the Christian religion, to be highly offensive.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2009 - 9:43AM #16
amcolph
Posts: 16,242

What does this discussion have to do with 'progressing to college level science?'


And what do you mean by "creationism?"


Vis apparently wants it to be explicitly taught that some kind of higher power might be responsible for our existence.


It appears that he assumes that if no such possibility is mentioned explicitly as an official part of the curriculum then it is being tacitly denied.


I don't see why it needs to come up in science class at all.  Science is the same whether you put a God behind it or not.  What's his point?


Perhaps it is that teaching about evolution and an old Earth upsets conservative Christians and they need to be reassured that science considers that the existence of God is still possible not withstanding.


Still, I don't see why it is the reponsiblility of a science teacher to provide that reassurance and teaching about a deistic-type supreme being (for which there is no scientific evidence--in science class???) is liable to offend the sensibilities of not only atheists, but students of faith whose religion abhors such a concept of a supreme being.


 


 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2009 - 9:46AM #17
amcolph
Posts: 16,242

Nov 14, 2009 -- 8:37AM, davelaw40 wrote:


Oh thats fair, listing all Bible Believers as Religious extremists; I guess that means every Wahabist is member of Al Qaeda? with at least 45% (if not more) of the US population claiming that they literally interpert at least parts of the Bible are sure you want to label such a large minority as being extreme?




DGMelby has made my point for me most eloquently.

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2009 - 9:53AM #18
DGMelby
Posts: 968

Nov 14, 2009 -- 8:40AM, davelaw40 wrote:


and you seem to be under the impression that if one is taught creationism as an alternate theory in High School that one can not progress in college level science-there used to be a time when origins were not adressed at all in High School Science-that it was not considered "core" science





But Creationism, in its various guises, isn't an alternative scientific theory.  It is theology, and many Christians consider it to be bad theology, insulting to God, embarrassing to the Christian faith, an obstacle to the Great Commission, and biblidolatry as well.  It doesn't even have the guts to present itself as theology, but wraps itself in pseudoscientific technobabble, and outright deception, and pretends to be science.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2009 - 12:15PM #19
davelaw40
Posts: 19,669

and despite all that millions taught that way-still go to receive college educations; that being said I would rather all origins wait til College-its not any of import to a High School student than String Theory

Non Quis, Sed Quid
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2009 - 12:26PM #20
amcolph
Posts: 16,242

Nov 14, 2009 -- 12:15PM, davelaw40 wrote:


and despite all that millions taught that way-still go to receive college educations; that being said I would rather all origins wait til College-its not any of import to a High School student than String Theory




So your position is that we should avoid teaching certain aspects of science--that the Earth is more than 6000 years old, for example--because it conflicts with the theology of certain religious sects?


That's kind of a big elephant in the room, isn't it?  Kind of hard to talk around?


 

This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 6  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook