Thoughts on teaching Creation in school...

[Stealth Hunter]

What brought this all on was this article. Came across it a few days ago, and it's been in the back of my mind since then:

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/university-of-california-can-r.html

Just want your opinions on the matter of teaching it in schools. I'm personally against it, but that's just me.

[Digital_Trucker]

I would have to suggest one more option. Neither creation nor evolution should be taught in school. Just a thought.

[Schroeder]

I say no creation!
Religion and state should always be separated!:yep:

The things taught in school should always be based on facts or at least on theories that have a scientific background.
Creation is something for preachers in churches. BTW other religions have different opinions about the creation so why should the Christian one be the only one taught?.

But this is the opinion of an atheistic European so maybe I shouldn't have voted in this poll at all.:hmm:

[antikristuseke]

Creationism, regardles of which religions version, should not be taught in any school anywhere.

But if you don't teach evolution, when/where does History start ?

What does evolution have to do with history? Or did i misunderstand your post?

[Digital_Trucker]

But if you don't teach evolution, when/where does History start ?
So "history" is tied to evolution? What do we actually know to be fact? We know that we are here. We have a relatively good idea of what has happened in the last few hundred years. Beyond that is pure conjecture based on the science that we accept at this point in time or based on religious beliefs. If schools should not be allowed to teach creationism, why should they be allowed to teach the "competing" theory?

[mrbeast]

Although I'm from the UK this issue is rearing its head in British schools.

This issue all boils down to what creationism is taught as:

As theology taught in religeous education classes I have few problems with it as long as it is not taught as dogma but merely what some peole believe.

As a science; I have a big problem with it.

Mainly because creationism (or Intelligent Design as creationists often call it) is simply not science and therefore has no place in the science classroom. Evolution on the other hand is; and there is overwhelming evidence for it.

[SimNut]

They should teach the evolution of creationism.

[Letum]

http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a418c694bc7c6296b3/al-evolution-00.jpg
(as seen on b3ta.com)

[Mush Martin]

Sorry DT Creationism is a belief not a science

Natural selection is an observable process.

your comparing apples and oranges.

in one proof denies faith
and in the other faith denies proof.

I would shoot myself if those folks actually
ever got in charge

all it takes is for good men to do nothing,

Democracy should guarantee freedom from religion outside
the home, not freedom of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeZB2EsPqGE

[Digital_Trucker]

Sorry Mush, but science is a belief based on what think we know at the moment. I never said I believed in creation either, now did I?:D

Mikhayl, if history starts at the big bang, what was there before the big bang? Isn't history supposed to cover "everything"? Was there nothing before the Big Bang? If there was nothing before the Big Bang how the hell did the Big Bang occur?

Wait, we don't KNOW that? That's my whole point, we only THINK we KNOW things.

[Mush Martin]

Sorry Mush, but science is a belief based on what think we know at the moment. I never said I believed in creation either, now did I?:D

Mikhayl, if history starts at the big bang, what was there before the big bang? Isn't history supposed to cover "everything"? Was there nothing before the Big Bang? If there was nothing before the Big Bang how the hell did the Big Bang occur?

Wait, we don't KNOW that? That's my whole point, we only THINK we KNOW things.

I would encourage anyone to question what they think they know.
at every turn and never take whats handed down to you at face
value.:|\\

[mrbeast]

http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a418c694bc7c6296b3/al-evolution-00.jpg
(as seen on b3ta.com)

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: LMAO!

[Digital_Trucker]

Natural selection is an observable process.


Observable over what length of time in the grand scheme of things? If we accept that time started with the Big Bang, we haven't even observed a nanosecond of the first hour.

[Mush Martin]

you wont come down from full scale its all or nothing then?


Ok , there is no object organization or entity that does not
evolve in the presence of time.
not even vacuum as we observe the distance between the
stars Grow litterally even vacuum can expand on itself.

there are no exceptions
headlights
screwdrivers
hotel chains
aircraft
mountains
rivers
lakes
oceans
planets
stars
comets
galaxyies
superstrings.


find a valid exception you can name. :hmm:

[Digital_Trucker]

I would encourage anyone to question what they think they know.
at every turn and never take whats handed down to you at face
value.:|\\

And I would encourage anyone to do the same. That's exactly my point.

[Digital_Trucker]

you wont come down from full scale its all or nothing then?


Ok , there is no object organization or entity that does not
evolve in the presence of time.
not even vacuum as we observe the distance between the
stars Grow litterally even vacuum can expand on itself.

there are no exceptions
headlights
screwdrivers
hotel chains
aircraft
mountains
rivers
lakes
oceans
planets
stars
comets
galaxyies
superstrings.


find a valid exception you can name. :hmm:

That's exactly the freakin' point, there are exceptions that we CAN'T possibly name because they haven't been discovered yet.

[Letum]

Intelligent kids are gonna work out the most rational answer them selves.

Those that can't work it out for them selves probably won't ever need to know
how such things work and may live in ignorance with out any major problems.

One thing that you can be sure will evolve are ideas. Only the fittest survive.
This will be as much of a non-issue as geo-centralism in 50 years.

[Mush Martin]

Human history or canadian history
or earth history or universal history

they sort of all start in different place's

I of course would start human history somewhere
a little before Homo Habilus sure I will go with
austrailopithicus. if were talking human history
but the history of civilization begins later in
the tigris euphrates delta.
(JMO)

[Digital_Trucker]

Letum and I agree on something and he put it a lot simpler than I did. Thank you sir.

Mikhayl I would hardly say something as silly as dinosaur fossils were put there to test our faith. In fact, I've never said what my faith was or whether I believe in creation or not. Give children the evidence that we have and let them make up their own minds.

[Sailor Steve]

But if you don't teach evolution, when/where does History start ?
History starts with recorded written history. Anything before that is speculation and theory. It may be good, sound theory, but it's still speculation.

Besides, evolution falls under science, not history.

And Creation falls under religion, not science.

[mrbeast]

The problem is there is no credible evidence for creationism. All the evidence points to evolution through natural selection. Therefore it would seem a pointless excercise to teach creationism.

[Digital_Trucker]

Evidence does not equal proof (otherwise we wouldn't have debates over whether the death penalty is appropriate or not based on the guilt of the "alleged" offender)

and

Lack of evidence does not equal non-existence (that which we had no evidence of 50 years ago does not disprove what we may discover 50 years from now)

[Blacklight]

This is about the one part of the Constitution that so few people obey. TOTAL SEPARATION of church and state.

Creation is a RELIGIOUS theory. It belongs being taught in a CHURCH. NOT in a public school.

[Sailor Steve]

Very true, but Evolution at least stems from trained scientist looking at the evidence and forming a conclusion; and any reputable scientist lives with the knowledge that today's pet theory might well be tomorrow's bad joke.

Creation, on the other hand, comes from a religious teaching and has no other background. As was said earlier, if you're going to throw Christian Creation into the mix and call it good, then you should also throw in Hindu creation, as well as Ancient Greek and Egyptian Creation stories. Who's to say they aren't correct?

[mrbeast]

Evidence does not equal proof (otherwise we wouldn't have debates over whether the death penalty is appropriate or not based on the guilt of the "alleged" offender)

Certainly, but there comes a point where the evidence puts a proposition beyond reasonable doubt, ie the weight of evidence suggests a conclusion which is inescapable.

Lack of evidence does not equal non-existence (that which we had no evidence of 50 years ago does not disprove what we may discover 50 years from now)

In that case why don't they teach Bertram Russels giant teapot god theory, the fact that there is lack evidence does not equal its non existance? who know what they will find in 50 years?

does this mean they should teach flat earth theory in science also as a counter to the round earth?

[Digital_Trucker]

@MR Beast

We could debate this until the end of time and not come to a conclusion. There are no "inescapable conclusions" to be found here. I never said I believe in creationism or am a proponent of it's teachings. I also never said that I believed that any religion of any sort should be taught in school. I never suggested that we should just make up whatever crap we want to make up and teach it in school.

All I ever said was that we should give children the evidence and let them make up their own mind. Edit : If the conclusion is "inescapable" then they will come to it, won't they?

[Blacklight]

I know I may offend some hardcore religious, spiritual people (so please don't be offended :D ) with this but here's my take.

Religion comes from stories and teachings passed down through the ages. There's no direct, substantial proof of anything it teaches or purports to be true. This is true of any religion. Everything is based on faith in the stories and teachings of whatever texts the religion is bassed on. There is no and can be no absolute fact checking to verify anything as being true within them. Therefore, the theories derived from them about the nature and creation of the universe is forever safe to the faithful because it cannot be proved that it is there, yet cannot be disproved either.
Science on the other hand is based on testing, and reproducable results. Scientific theories can usually be proven by preponderance of experimental evidence. Religions don't have that. All they tend to have is a lot of hear-say. Stories that have been passed down through the centuries and translated so many times and with so many different version that it's impossible to even tell if the current texts and beliefs even partially match what the original texts and beliefs are.

Does this mean that we should totally give up on religion ? Heck no. I believe that there is a lot to learn from studying various religions. There's a lot of wisdom and interesting things to think about in their texts. Are they true, factual documentations of actual events ? Probably not. While including the names of actual places and occasionally real events did filter in, these stories were often embellished by those who wrote them. Also, not to mention the centuries of versions of these books being copied, re-copied, and copied more, probably embellished them further.

Before I get jumped on by the hardcore religious, I'd like to mention that I'm a member of a Unitarian Universalist church. We are tolerant of all religions. We have in our congregations Christians, Jews, Muslems, Aitheists, Bhuddists...and the list goes on. I share the Unitarian belief that if studying and following a particular religion betters you as a person, by all means I will support you and aid you regardless of your religious (or non-religious) choice. So as I may not be religious of the spiritual kind, I do support those who are.

As for teaching creation and religious doctrine in public schools ? That's a big no-no. Religion belongs being taught by a church, mosque, etc...

[Mush Martin]

Letum and I agree on something and he put it a lot simpler than I did. Thank you sir.

Mikhayl I would hardly say something as silly as dinosaur fossils were put there to test our faith. In fact, I've never said what my faith was or whether I believe in creation or not. Give children the evidence that we have and let them make up their own minds.

Give them the evidence and let them sort it out?

creationism is a dogma taught to them prior to critical
thinking skills development at an age whereby they
are unable to judge in an effectively objective manner
as the programming of a dogma comes from there
whole world of input their parents.

there is no evidence to observe in creationism even if
your teaching it. It wont hold water against real
science if you wait until they arent vulnerable and offer
them a data source that doesnt dominate them emotionally
and spritiually.

Promoting Creation Science as an activity
(not saying U R D.T.)
is in my mind equivalent to denying the legitmacy
of Copernicus. We dont teach the earth at the
centre of the universe because we cant deny
the repeatable observable evidence.

[Letum]

Letum and I agree on something and he put it a lot simpler than I did. Thank you sir.

Mikhayl I would hardly say something as silly as dinosaur fossils were put there to test our faith. In fact, I've never said what my faith was or whether I believe in creation or not. Give children the evidence that we have and let them make up their own minds.
Give them the evidence and let them sort it out?


Just to be clear, that is not what I was saying.

[Mush Martin]

No nore is my statement actually meant to imply anything about anyone
present in this debate.


I may have been wrong though I did find one single non evolving exception.
the christian right.:doh:

[mrbeast]

@MR Beast
We could debate this until the end of time and not come to a conclusion. There are no "inescapable conclusions" to be found here. I never said I believe in creationism or am a proponent of it's teachings. I also never said that I believed that any religion of any sort should be taught in school. I never suggested that we should just make up whatever crap we want to make up and teach it in school.

All I ever said was that we should give children the evidence and let them make up their own mind. Edit : If the conclusion is "inescapable" then they will come to it, won't they?

I never said you were a proponant of creationism or believed it etc etc. I'm taking your position as a devils advocate.

What I am trying, and probably not putting over very well (its late where I am going to get some shut eye soon :zzz: ) is that there is no equivalance between creationism and evolution.

You would be teaching scientific fact, suported by evidence on the one hand and something very different on the other. So in a way the bright kids might come to a rational conclusion but it would have been a waste of time.

A further problem would be if you started teaching creationism, which is in effect making up 'crap' and teaching it to kids as competing scientific theory (albeit made up a long time ago) then what other outlandish theories could be put up as counter theories so children can weigh the evidence? Hence my mention of flat earth? What would rank as too outlandish? Astrology?

[Mush Martin]

I know I may offend some


:rotfl:Me too.

[UnderseaLcpl]

of course, if parents could choose what schools to send their children to, and the state had no authority over what was taught, this wouldn't be an issue.;)

Is it annoying when I link social and economic capitalism to everything?

[Digital_Trucker]

Letum and I agree on something and he put it a lot simpler than I did. Thank you sir.

Mikhayl I would hardly say something as silly as dinosaur fossils were put there to test our faith. In fact, I've never said what my faith was or whether I believe in creation or not. Give children the evidence that we have and let them make up their own minds.
Give them the evidence and let them sort it out?

creationism is a dogma taught to them prior to critical
thinking skills development at an age whereby they
are unable to judge in an effectively objective manner
as the programming of a dogma comes from there
whole world of input their parents.

there is no evidence to observe in creationism even if
your teaching it. It wont hold water against real
science if you wait until they arent vulnerable and offer
them a data source that doesnt dominate them emotionally
and spritiually.

Promoting Creation Science as an activity
(not saying U R D.T.)
is in my mind equivalent to denying the legitmacy
of Copernicus. We dont teach the earth at the
centre of the universe because we cant deny
the repeatable observable evidence.
I tried to drop it and you have to bring it up again. I never said I believed in creationism, per se (but it is my right to do so, or to believe in a non-strictly interpreted version of it, if I bloody well care to). I never said it should be taught in school. Whatever dogma is taught to children in their homes is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS OR THE GOVERNMENTS. I FECKING AGREE THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?

I do, however, happen to believe that there is the possiblity of a power greater than the all-omniscient human mind (extreme sarcasm most definitely intended).

[Mush Martin]

Letum and I agree on something and he put it a lot simpler than I did. Thank you sir.

Mikhayl I would hardly say something as silly as dinosaur fossils were put there to test our faith. In fact, I've never said what my faith was or whether I believe in creation or not. Give children the evidence that we have and let them make up their own minds.
Give them the evidence and let them sort it out?

creationism is a dogma taught to them prior to critical
thinking skills development at an age whereby they
are unable to judge in an effectively objective manner
as the programming of a dogma comes from there
whole world of input their parents.

there is no evidence to observe in creationism even if
your teaching it. It wont hold water against real
science if you wait until they arent vulnerable and offer
them a data source that doesnt dominate them emotionally
and spritiually.

Promoting Creation Science as an activity
(not saying U R D.T.)
is in my mind equivalent to denying the legitmacy
of Copernicus. We dont teach the earth at the
centre of the universe because we cant deny
the repeatable observable evidence.
I tried to drop it and you have to bring it up again. I never said I believed in creationism, per se (but it is my right to do so, or to believe in a non-strictly interpreted version of it, if I bloody well care to). I never said it should be taught in school. Whatever dogma is taught to children in their homes is NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS OR THE GOVERNMENTS. I FECKING AGREE THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH?

I do, however, happen to believe that there is the possiblity of a power greater than the all-omniscient human mind (extreme sarcasm most definitely intended).

Oh I agree that its place is in the home and not in school
and I wasnt missing what you were saying thats why the
part in my post says......

" (not saying U R D.T.)"

I further agree that there may indeed be a power beyond
our understanding or comprehension
Particularly the comprehension and understanding we as a species
enjoy at the moment.

M

[Digital_Trucker]

In going back and reading my posts, I see where some misunderstanding may have occurred. When I said evidence, I DID NOT, REPEAT, DID NOT, mean "evidence" of creationism, I meant the evidence of evolution. I thought I had stated enough already my stand on the teaching of creationism in school.

Letum : That's why I though we agreed that the "evidence" (of which I admit there is none for creationism) we were speaking of was the evidence of evolution.

Edit : That is also the source of my increased agitation. Believing to have made myself clear, I wondered why the point was continuing to be argued.

Edit 2 : As for the U.R.D.T., I'll tell you the same thing I tell my wife. Don't expect me to read between the lines (or in this case the letters), you have to hit me over the head with it.:D

[Mush Martin]

In going back and reading my posts, I see where some misunderstanding may have occurred. When I said evidence, I DID NOT, REPEAT, DID NOT, mean "evidence" of creationism, I meant the evidence of evolution. I thought I had stated enough already my stand on the teaching of creationism in school.

Letum : That's why I though we agreed that the "evidence" (of which I admit there is none for creationism) we were speaking of was the evidence of evolution.

But creationism was being held up as equal theory as part of the dialogue
and as part of the OP.
(btw SH jump back in anytime)

I am not intending any real adversarialism nor really to disrespect even
though it does I am sure at times sound that way.
I feel the need to communicate that which I have learned because
it has not left me wondering. No doubts no act of faith. a certainty
equivalent to faith in the traditional sense of the word. I supect actually
the need to nurture knowledge and understanding is actually a gift of
my mothers orthodox catholic influence.

ps. dont yell at me.

yer pal
Mush.

[Digital_Trucker]

In going back and reading my posts, I see where some misunderstanding may have occurred. When I said evidence, I DID NOT, REPEAT, DID NOT, mean "evidence" of creationism, I meant the evidence of evolution. I thought I had stated enough already my stand on the teaching of creationism in school.

Letum : That's why I though we agreed that the "evidence" (of which I admit there is none for creationism) we were speaking of was the evidence of evolution.
But creationism was being held up as equal theory as part of the dialogue
and as part of the OP.
(btw SH jump back in anytime)

I am not intending any real adversarialism nor really to disrespect even
though it does I am sure at times sound that way.
I feel the need to communicate that which I have learned because
it has not left me wondering. No doubts no act of faith. a certainty
equivalent to faith in the traditional sense of the word. I supect actually
the need to nurture knowledge and understanding is actually a gift of
my mothers orthodox catholic influence.

ps. dont yell at me.

yer pal
Mush.
I'LL FECKIN' YELL IF I FEEL LIKE IT. I just don't feel like it at the moment:D

The original question (which I seem to have derailed) was whether to teach creation, evolution or both [EDIT in school]. I merely suggested the possibility of teaching neither. And then all hell broke loose:doh:

[Mush Martin]

thats georgia old son thats georgia :up:

[Letum]

There is one theory set taught in all schools that is known to be untrue and
produces false and inaccurate results. Despite being replaced by modern theories
in the scientific community, schools continue to teach this false, 400 year old idea
that was created by a alchemist and mystic who spent his time looking for codes
in the bible. It is taught as if it where fact.
In many cases the children are not even told about the alternate and correct theory
until they are in college or university.


http://orchard.sbschools.net/library/authors/haas/apple1.gif

[Mush Martin]

There is one theory set taught in all schools that is known to be untrue and
produces false and inaccurate results. Despite being replaced by modern theories
in the scientific community schools continue to teach this false, 400 year old idea
that was created by a alchemist and mystic who spent his time looking for codes
in the bible as if it where fact.
In many cases the children are not even told about the alternate and correct theory
until they are in college or university.

Uhm weird ... I have never heard of this. Seriously! and you dont name what it is really? bible code is taught in school where? the states?

[Letum]

....not that I object to anyone teaching Newtonian physics. ;)

[Mush Martin]

....not that I object to anyone teaching Newtonian physics. ;)

Now I get it, Im on to M theory these days and havent thought about
my what I would consider Good Catholic education in a long time. nor
really curriculum in School really. We never succeeded in having kids:cry:
of course the upshot of that is that when we make a clean spot in april
it stays clean all year and is quiet the whole time:up:

[jpm1]

in France all religious objects crosses , scarves , kippas etc ... are forbidden in schools (President Chirac initiative) so the problem 's settled for us french . Personnally i don't think it's a good thing i think it's a very good thing . The principe 's simple as long as somebody doesn't inflict suffering to another he can do whatever he wants and you don't have to tell him what he has to do (article 4 of the 1789 human and citizen rights declaration) . Concerning the poll as non-american i didn't voted but my comment speaks for itself

[Blacklight]

There is one theory set taught in all schools that is known to be untrue and
produces false and inaccurate results. Despite being replaced by modern theories
in the scientific community, schools continue to teach this false, 400 year old idea
that was created by a alchemist and mystic who spent his time looking for codes
in the bible. It is taught as if it where fact.
In many cases the children are not even told about the alternate and correct theory
until they are in college or university.



Well... Newtonian Physics does work for certain things. All you need is his calculations for space travel. That's why they use Newtons' equasions for all our space travel. We're so good with it that we can get our spacecraft within a foot or two of exactly where we want them to be when flying.

[Mush Martin]

There is one theory set taught in all schools that is known to be untrue and
produces false and inaccurate results. Despite being replaced by modern theories
in the scientific community, schools continue to teach this false, 400 year old idea
that was created by a alchemist and mystic who spent his time looking for codes
in the bible. It is taught as if it where fact.
In many cases the children are not even told about the alternate and correct theory
until they are in college or university.


Well... Newtonian Physics does work for certain things. All you need is his calculations for space travel. That's why they use Newtons' equasions for all our space travel. We're so good with it that we can get our spacecraft within a foot or two of exactly where we want them to be when flying.

Math is music music is math
both are wonderful

[Letum]

Well... Newtonian Physics does work for certain things. All you need is his calculations for space travel. That's why they use Newtons' equasions for all our space travel. We're so good with it that we can get our spacecraft within a foot or two of exactly where we want them to be when flying.

Perhaps they most practical set of theories ever.
Wrong, but practical! :D

[Stealth Hunter]

Glad to see we're getting some good, fair, clean debating. Keep it that way.:up:

[Skybird]

Don't get me started...

[Takeda Shingen]

of course, if parents could choose what schools to send their children to, and the state had no authority over what was taught, this wouldn't be an issue.;)

But, of course, this is already largely true. For example, within the district in which I reside there are, aside from the public school, two Catholic primary schools, a Catholic high school, a Mennonite primary school, a Mennonite high school, four main-line Protestant primary schools and two main-line Protestant high schools. It would appear that the opportunities for the coverage of Creation are ample. You can go to the public school if you don't want it. One can also home-school. Thus, it is already a viable choice, rendering the preceeding arguments academic. They are the empty rhetoric of politicians and pundits.

[StdDev]

Of course Creationism and Evolution should both be taught in schools!
School learning should not be about "facts" but rather about "The Human Condition".
Without the background information on what people generally believed (ie creationism, earth centralism.. etc),
what happened to Copernicus seems like just arbitrary cruelty... it was NOT arbitrary!! It may have (IMHO definitely was) wrong, but there was a reason for it.
As someone remarked early in this thread, the important thing is HOW it is taught.
I believe that most people with a "normal" IQ will see the elegance and veracity of the theories of Copernicus, Mendelson, and Darwin (plus many others).
Yet the other theories (I'm being generous here) have certainly had an effect on human behavior, and are therefore part of human history.
There will always be "competing theories" cobbled together to explain some aspect of our universe (ever hear of Sir Fredrick Hoyle’s "Steady State Universe" theory ?). Children must be educated enough so they can make reasonable decisions about these things.. that is one of our best hope for the future! ..Remember that at one time creationism, earth centralism, and other such things were generally believed in. Where would we be if competing theories like Evolution and Genetics were proscribed from being taught because they didn’t jive with what many people believed?

PS.. what would it take to get Skybird "started" ? :)

[DeepIron]

:lol: Well, the next time I hear someone cry out "Oh My Charles!" or "Darwin dammit!" when they're suddenly scared or surprised, I'll concede that Darwinian Evolution should be the only regimen taught in schools...

[Tchocky]

Teach creation all you want. It's creationism that bothers me.

[antikristuseke]

:lol: Well, the next time I hear someone cry out "Oh My Charles!" or "Darwin dammit!" when they're suddenly scared or surprised, I'll concede that Darwinian Evolution should be the only regimen taught in schools...

Your wit cuts with the dullnes of Uwe Boll movies.

[DeepIron]

:lol: Well, the next time I hear someone cry out "Oh My Charles!" or "Darwin dammit!" when they're suddenly scared or surprised, I'll concede that Darwinian Evolution should be the only regimen taught in schools...
Your wit cuts with the dullnes of Uwe Boll movies.
"Boll does not shy away from his critics".
"Boll made headlines by challenging his critics to "put up or shut up".

Cool! Anyone with the balls to adapt movies from video games is fine by me. Better to try something and be panned than to sit back and let the critics dictate policy... :up:

[August]

I don't really want creationism, as defined here, to be taught in our schools. On the other hand I don't want some atheist jerk teaching evolution to be telling my kid they are stupid for believing in God either.

Can I have it both ways?

[Schroeder]

Can I have it both ways?
In Germany, yes.;)

We teach religion at school (to those who want it, we don't force anybody). Meanwhile we also have history and biology which teach evolution. Everyone can make up his/her own mind about that.

BTW I had to attend to the religion lessons while I was in elementary school (my parents insisted although they don't believe in god themselfes they wanted me to learn a bit about religion to understand my own culture better). Here they don't teach you that Christianity is the only truth on earth. They just teach you what the main religions (Christianity, Islam..etc) are believing in. Never saying: "This is the right way and that is the wrong one and you WILL go to hell for it..." They just say :"In the christian belief this is right and that is wrong..."

You just learn what the religions are based on to understand them.

[Blacklight]

AugustI don't really want creationism, as defined here, to be taught in our schools. On the other hand I don't want some atheist jerk teaching evolution to be telling my kid they are stupid for believing in God either.


Thankfully not many of us are jerks who tell people that they're stuped for believing in God (Albeit there are some jerks out there). This is why I really like the Unitarian way of doing things.

[Skybird]

Can I have it both ways?
In Germany, yes.;)

We teach religion at school (to those who want it, we don't force anybody). Meanwhile we also have history and biology which teach evolution. Everyone can make up his/her own mind about that.


but we do not teach religious dogmas as biological or scientific thoeries, and we do not teach religion in biology or physics lessons, and we do not allow missionosing or making religious lessons obligatory, and we do not allow discrimination whatever if somebody does not join such lessons.


I was banned from religious lessons, twice, for the rest of the schoolyears. I asked too many questions (and called one teacher dumb). :p Was ein Häkchen werden will, krümmt sich beizeiten! :smug:

[Schroeder]

but we do not teach religious dogmas as biological or scientific thoeries, and we do not teach religion in biology or physics lessons, and we do not allow missionosing or making religious lessons obligatory, and we do not allow discrimination whatever if somebody does not join such lessons.

Never said we do, I only pointed out to August that it is possible to get lessons about religion and science in school.
Seperated from each other.:D

BTW
here the state is teaching religion in school and not some private fanatics.

[Skybird]

However, it should not have any place at school at all. Except in history lessons: on the effect religious trends had for the forming of a culture, in good and bad. the state should also not see it is it'S duty to teach religion. It should enforce that religion and state keeps separate instead.

[August]

but we do not teach religious dogmas as biological or scientific thoeries, and we do not teach religion in biology or physics lessons, and we do not allow missionosing or making religious lessons obligatory, and we do not allow discrimination whatever if somebody does not join such lessons.

Never said we do, I only pointed out to August that it is possible to get lessons about religion and science in school.
Seperated from each other.:D

BTW
here the state is teaching religion in school and not some private fanatics.
Oh I'm sure you can get religion separated from science but can you keep a science teacher from voicing his opinion about religions (either in general or in particular) in class?

Like when little Johnny comes home and says that his teacher told him that all religions are superstitious clap trap and those that believe in a supreme being are fools or worse.

Y'know kind of like how some people around this forum talk about religion. I say both have to be kept out of school and that includes science class.

[Mush Martin]

Y'know kind of like how some people around this forum talk about religion. I say both have to be kept out of school and that includes science class.

:hmm:Thats fair, I'll try to check my behaviour a bit.

[Sailor Steve]

Maybe opinion itself should be kept out of the classroom, with the possible exception of when opinion is the subject.

[August]

Maybe opinion itself should be kept out of the classroom, with the possible exception of when opinion is the subject.

I totally agree, but as a teacher myself i must admit that this is sometimes easier said than done, especially when we're passionate about a subject and we have inquisitive students.

[Sailor Steve]

Maybe opinion itself should be kept out of the classroom, with the possible exception of when opinion is the subject.

I totally agree, but as a teacher myself i must admit that this is sometimes easier said than done, especially when we're passionate about a subject and we have inquisitive students.
I fully understand. I knew I was suggesting the impossible even as I typed. It would be nice if everyone knew where to draw the line, but that's impossible too.

[trekchu]

:lol: Well, the next time I hear someone cry out "Oh My Charles!" or "Darwin dammit!" when they're suddenly scared or surprised, I'll concede that Darwinian Evolution should be the only regimen taught in schools...
Your wit cuts with the dullnes of Uwe Boll movies.
"Boll does not shy away from his critics".
"Boll made headlines by challenging his critics to "put up or shut up".

Cool! Anyone with the balls to adapt movies from video games is fine by me. Better to try something and be panned than to sit back and let the critics dictate policy... :up:

Ehm... Postal isn't exactly high-end gaming. Where you talking about say Red Alert 2 I'd agree.... :rotfl: