reply to post by octotom
I totally agree that we should allow the teaching of "religion" - not any specific one either: the majority of both mono and poly - but in an
entirely secular, non-biased environment. Even though that is what these people claim to want as well, in most cases they are trying to deceive us and
sneak in their dogma.
Near the end the caller finds the supposed curriculum for this "religious studies" course and sure enough "taught as an alternative theory to
or something like that. I don't doubt there are those that do
wish it to be taught from a philosophical standpoint, and don't
intend to force it on anyone, but the problem, as I see it, is religion is so subjective to the individual - while some wish it as a simple elective
option, others are going to try and shove it down kids throats. If we set a precedent allowing it to appease one group, all of a sudden every other
fundamentalist group and denomination is going to be up in arms as well.
Also, as you try to cling to this notion "evolution" is flawed, the fact they DON'T
teach about the gaps explains exactly why evolution is
part of science and religion isn't. No scientist would ever claim such arrogance, to know what goes in that gap without having any backing or
evidence to support such a claim. These gaps you speak of don't really exist either - the fossil record is broad enough and diverse enough (it is
amazing we even managed to find transitional fossils, if you understand the process of how to make one) that it shows us time and time again where and
when evolution fits in. Evolution is also a fact - it makes predictions
that have been observed
. Does "Creation
Science" do that? No way in hell...
ID is a joke by the way, calling yourself a "creation scientist" is a kin to to a janitor calling himself "sanitation engineer".
ID is rejected by every major scientific body - except those of a faith base ofcourse - because all it does is pretend to do valid research and then
when as you say, a gap or a unknown variable comes along, they posit god as the reason or explanation.
ID does not equal or even come close to a scientific theory.
Back to your original point - I would gladly welcome a religious studies option. It goes against the constitution to make it mandatory, and I don't
think you should be allowed to force kids to learn that stuff.
I even went to a Catholic high school, where I took religion class from grade 7 to 11. Funny thing ofcourse, they call it "Religion/CAPP" - career
and personal planning - but we did exactly 2 weeks of CAPP and 3.5 months of Religion. As for looking at all faiths, we studied 4 or 5 different
dogmas - each for about a week - then spent the remainder learning about why
Jesus and the bible are true.
That is why these religious folk can not be trusted. No matter what they say, personal bias will always manifest, and in the end, they will want kids
to believe what they do. Scam artists...
[edit on 28-7-2009 by makinho21]