Post Reply
Page 6 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Religious extremists at it again.....
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 5:30PM #51
Girlchristian
Posts: 11,699

Apr 4, 2012 -- 4:52PM, costrel wrote:


The majority of high school science teachers that I have met over the years support creationism and reject evolution. I am going to assume that if this is true in the state that I live in, this will also be true in Tennesee. So what I see happening here is not so much giving the students an opportunity to openly criticize evolution in their science classes, but giving their science teachers an opportunity to openly agree with those students who criticize evolution for religious reasons. If more science teachers actually accepted evolution rather than accepting a Genesis-based form of creationism, I wouldn't be so concerned about this measure. I get the feeling that this measure is a sneaky way for creationist science teachers to get away with criticizing evolution and openly supporting creationism in their classrooms. 




If that happens then deal with it then rather than squashing all opportunity for discussion in case it might happen. I live in a big city and even though it's in the midwest, the science teachers I know believe in God and evolution and wouldn't choose to teach creationism, but probably could facilitate a debate and an analysis of creationism vs. evolution.


I'm not generally a huge fan of saying 'a law could be abused so we shouldn't try it.'

"No matter how dark the moment, love and hope are always possible." George Chakiris

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.” Stuart Chase
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 5:33PM #52
rabello
Posts: 22,229

Apr 4, 2012 -- 4:52PM, costrel wrote:


The majority of high school science teachers that I have met over the years support creationism and reject evolution. I am going to assume that if this is true in the state that I live in, this will also be true in Tennesee. So what I see happening here is not so much giving the students an opportunity to openly criticize evolution in their science classes, but giving their science teachers an opportunity to openly agree with those students who criticize evolution for religious reasons. If more science teachers actually accepted evolution rather than accepting a Genesis-based form of creationism, I wouldn't be so concerned about this measure. I get the feeling that this measure is a sneaky way for creationist science teachers to get away with criticizing evolution and openly supporting creationism in their classrooms. 




I agree with this, although I think it's because school boards and school administrators are selecting for conservative religionists to hire as teachers.  That's why I think everybody in America should get at least 2 years of college after they get out of the public school which is so beholden to local politics rather than intellectual endeavor.

Black Lives Matter
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 5:37PM #53
rabello
Posts: 22,229

Apr 4, 2012 -- 5:30PM, Girlchristian wrote:


If that happens then deal with it then rather than squashing all opportunity for discussion in case it might happen. I live in a big city and even though it's in the midwest, the science teachers I know believe in God and evolution and wouldn't choose to teach creationism, but probably could facilitate a debate and an analysis of creationism vs. evolution.


I'm not generally a huge fan of saying 'a law could be abused so we shouldn't try it.'




Sorry to keep repeating myself, but I'll say it again: it's not about discussions, it's about how teachers chose to handle such discussions.  A teacher who is a religionist or who doesn't understand the theory of evolution isn't going to be teaching science.  And that's whom this law is protecting. 

Black Lives Matter
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 6:17PM #54
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,790

Apr 4, 2012 -- 5:33PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 4:52PM, costrel wrote:


The majority of high school science teachers that I have met over the years support creationism and reject evolution. I am going to assume that if this is true in the state that I live in, this will also be true in Tennesee. So what I see happening here is not so much giving the students an opportunity to openly criticize evolution in their science classes, but giving their science teachers an opportunity to openly agree with those students who criticize evolution for religious reasons. If more science teachers actually accepted evolution rather than accepting a Genesis-based form of creationism, I wouldn't be so concerned about this measure. I get the feeling that this measure is a sneaky way for creationist science teachers to get away with criticizing evolution and openly supporting creationism in their classrooms. 




I agree with this, although I think it's because school boards and school administrators are selecting for conservative religionists to hire as teachers.  That's why I think everybody in America should get at least 2 years of college after they get out of the public school which is so beholden to local politics rather than intellectual endeavor.




Not to mention that one does not discuss religion in science class. Any more then you would discuss English literature in science class. It is patently ridiculous.


It is being done to indoctrinate. Simple as that.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 6:36PM #55
TemplarS
Posts: 6,960

Apr 4, 2012 -- 5:37PM, rabello wrote:


Apr 4, 2012 -- 5:30PM, Girlchristian wrote:


If that happens then deal with it then rather than squashing all opportunity for discussion in case it might happen. I live in a big city and even though it's in the midwest, the science teachers I know believe in God and evolution and wouldn't choose to teach creationism, but probably could facilitate a debate and an analysis of creationism vs. evolution.


I'm not generally a huge fan of saying 'a law could be abused so we shouldn't try it.'




Sorry to keep repeating myself, but I'll say it again: it's not about discussions, it's about how teachers chose to handle such discussions.  A teacher who is a religionist or who doesn't understand the theory of evolution isn't going to be teaching science.  And that's whom this law is protecting. 




 


Well, discuss what? Some subjects are worthy of discussion, others are not.


To use an analogy: you can certainly discuss and debate the Holocaust in a history class.   You can discuss why the Nazis did what they did; you can discuss the knowledge and complicity of the average German citizen; you can discuss and debate what the Pope knew about the Holocaust, or what the American or British governments might have know, or what  might have been done to prevent or mitigate it.  But no history teacher in any school should encourage any discussion which purports to claim the Holocaust never happened.  It happened, and that must be the starting point for any further discussions.


Likewise: evolution happened, and any discussionsin any school science class needs to be based on that premise.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 6:46PM #56
mountain_man
Posts: 40,556

Apr 4, 2012 -- 4:52PM, costrel wrote:

The majority of high school science teachers that I have met over the years support creationism and reject evolution. I am going to assume that if this is true in the state that I live in, this will also be true in Tennesee. So what I see happening here is not so much giving the students an opportunity to openly criticize evolution in their science classes, but giving their science teachers an opportunity to openly agree with those students who criticize evolution for religious reasons. If more science teachers actually accepted evolution rather than accepting a Genesis-based form of creationism, I wouldn't be so concerned about this measure. I get the feeling that this measure is a sneaky way for creationist science teachers to get away with criticizing evolution and openly supporting creationism in their classrooms.


That's exactly their intent.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 6:47PM #57
solfeggio
Posts: 9,550

Mainecaptain is right:


Religion should never, ever enter into any sort of discussion in a science class.  The only time when it would be correct to discuss religion would be, perhaps, in an English literature class in which the writings of John Milton or C.S. Lewis - or even Sam Harris - were being discussed.


However, according to at least one survey, the creationist view seems to be gaining support in America:


www.religioustolerance.org/ev_public.htm


If so, this is a very disturbing trend, indicating that the U.S. is becoming a much more religious nation, which is always a bad sign, because secular countries are always more successful than religious ones.


www.gallup.com/poll/114211/Alabamians-Ir...


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 6:50PM #58
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,901

How is it, in the distinctions that are attendant with Wingoism and fundagelicalism, that one should just default to reading the Genesis or Revelation account of the earth beginning or going "bang!" to show that creationism is right and that GW is a big fraud because no matter how earth becomes polluted, the good Lord will make everything right--at least for the redeemed?  Why not just read from the Bible and discuss that in science class?

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 6:52PM #59
mountain_man
Posts: 40,556

Apr 4, 2012 -- 5:25PM, Girlchristian wrote:

I'm sure they weren't. Some teachers wouldn't be able to handle a true discussion on evolution vs. creationism....


That's not a discussion that belongs in the public school classroom. Teach the science, the facts, not religion.


Fully agree, but too many of them don't learn that until and if they go to college and then you've got 18 years of religious dogma in the way.


That is base on the fallacy that in those 18 years a child has not ever heard about science, modern medicine, or biology. In all those years teachers should be teaching science. THAT is how we counter the religious dogma being taught at home.


It could, which is why one would have to be dilligent and monitor how it's being handled.


There is no "could" involved. This bill's specific purpose is to allow public school teachers to bring religious dogma into the classroom.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Apr 04, 2012 - 6:56PM #60
mountain_man
Posts: 40,556

Apr 4, 2012 -- 6:50PM, mecdukebec wrote:

...Why not just read from the Bible and discuss that in science class?


Which is exactly what this bill is intended to do.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 22  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 22 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook