Plea from a Christian: Keep My Religion out of the Science Classroom!!!!

Plea from a Christian: Keep My Religion out of the Science Classroom!!!!



I am a Christian. I believe that God spoke the universe, and all life in it, into existence - in whatever manner it is that God speaks. I believe that natural world, its four dimensions of space and time, was a designed one - planned out in the mind's-eyes of an all powerful being. This is why I plea to my fellow Christians, legislators, and religious leaders: Keep my religion out of the Science Classroom!

I believe that the attempt to teach the theology of creationism as science is nothing less then a conspiracy. Organized groups, which I'm ashamed to say, share my same faith are working today to pass off my holy-scripture as a science textbook. They seek to influence leaders and school boards to teach (usually only the Christian version of) creationism as an alternative to evolution. This is not only a possible violation, a subversion, of the Establishment Clause of our constitution but, I believe a detriment to my faith.

That's right, I argue this, not for the sake and benefit of science but for the sake and benefit of religion.

Here are my 2 reasons, presented as questions to my fellow Christians.

1. Who do you trust to teach your child theology?

Do you trust a minister, yourself, or a government employed science teacher? If you feel that our religion is important enough to be taught, then surely you feel that it is important enough to be taught correctly. In a theology classroom, a teacher who has devoted a large part of their education to serious thought and study about our faith speaks to students who have come to learn. What do you imagine it is like in a science classroom? I received a short lesson on creationism in my ninth-grade biology class and, let me tell you, it's not pretty....

The teacher was disinterested and flippant. He taught the basics of Genesis all wrong and turned every question by students into a joke. I kept my mouth shut. How could I be angry at this teacher? How could I expect him to understand a faith that's not his own, or even if he did understand, to teach it fairly? The truth is, you can't expect such things. Which leads me to my greater questions.

2. Do you want your belief in an all powerful creator to hinge, in the eyes of every public school student, on the validity or invalidity or Evolution?

Christianity has changed over time, it has accepted new scientific and social insights and incorporated them into its world-view. I ask you, did Galileo have to be a black eye on the history of Christianity when his findings were eventually accepted and incorporated into our religion anyways? Of course not.

When Creationism is taught in school, it is taught as the "alternative" to evolution. Disgusting. Christianity is not the "alternative" to any science. Many Christians claim to believe in both creation and evolution (as I do), yet (unlike me) say that is all the more reason to give the two ideas "equal time" in the science classroom...

Equal Time? As if the two ideas are political candidates vying for your one, binary, vote? If you believe in both evolution and creationism then the question is not binary at all, and therefore there is no reason to call for 'equal time.' When you call for equal time and the teaching of our theology as an alternative to science, you hinge the validity of our theology on the invalidity of science. If you choose to go down this path, first remember Galileo, and then be prepared for 1,000 more black eyes to our faith!

You will have an entire generation of children thinking that the answer to existence is either one, or the other. That if they choose to accept the evidence science presents, then there is no room for God left in their life. You are driving God out of lives! Is that not the opposite of what you are commanded to do by your own scripture? So, I conclude by synthesizing point one and two...


IMAGINE, for a moment, a world where each child is to be receive daily education from a secular, government employee, disinterested in your faith. This employee's job is to teach your child what measure of science he knows, with the full weight of text books and his college education behind him. He is then to present a warped and demeaning version of your religion to the children. He resent this and takes every opportunity to deride it while he does so. Finally, at the end of each lecture he tells the children that these are "alternatives" that they must pick one or the other; the silly-superstition or science. For many students this is their first view of Christianity, as ugly, simple and the exact-opposite of enlightenment.

This is the world you ask for when you try to put our theology in schools.

Be Careful What You Pray For,
Snusfanatic

Originally posted by snusfanatic
Plea from a Christian: Keep My Religion out of the Science Classroom!!!!

I am a Christian. I believe that God spoke the universe, and all life in it, into existence - in whatever manner it is that God speaks. I believe that natural world, its four dimensions of space and time, was a designed one - planned out in the mind's-eyes of an all powerful being.

Fair enough - you appear, thus far, to be a Christian.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
Christianity has changed over time, it has accepted new scientific and social insights and incorporated them into its world-view.

Amazing - this is patently false. Christianity is the set of beliefs that one derives from the Bible. The Bible explicitly states that every part of it is true in its literal interpretation. The Bible has not changed for many centuries - it is merely that people who claim to be "Christians" can no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence against their beliefs. They are forced to discard the more untenable beliefs. In so doing, they have become the cherry-pickers, the "wannabe Christians". Why do you cling to parts of the Bible and yet discard other parts? Why don't you condemn homosexuality and adulterous women to death, why don't you accept that the universe was created in about a week (literally), why don't you accept that Noah built a boat large enough to fit all the animal species in existence?

You are not a true Christian. I just think it's amusing how you think you are. Your faith is not as strong as the fundamentalists.

reply to post by imnotbncre8ive


Jesus did not condemn homosexuals and he saved an adulterous woman from being stoned to death. He came to perfect the law. My bible tells me that on the first day, god created the heavens and the earth, so i guess they can't be literal days, because without a sun, there is no day or night the way you interpret it. As for Noah, if the son of god taught in parables why not the father also?

You insult my personal character by calling my beliefs disingenuous. But its hardly an original argument so it doesn't bother me. You tell me that I can either be a thinking person or a religious person, a logical person or a christian. You create a false choice between me being a genuine believer who is hateful and ignorant or a false believer who's distaste for hate and ignorance gives me a way.

Its all too circular.

You're letting your prejudices project on a belief system you don't share in but choose to paint with broad colors anyways. Despite not being a Christian yourself, you feel comfortable telling me that I am in fact not a true believer of my religion? Is it because I don't sound enough like some unfavorable, intolerant, charicticture that you harbor in the back of your mind?

Originally posted by snusfanatic
reply to post by imnotbncre8ive

 

Jesus did not condemn homosexuals and he saved an adulterous woman from being stoned to death. He came to perfect the law. My bible tells me that on the first day, god created the heavens and the earth, so i guess they can't be literal days, because without a sun, there is no day or night the way you interpret it.

Jesus tacitly supported slavery - he obviously did not "come to perfect the law". The Bible condemns homosexuals and adulteresses. With respect to "day", the fact that (supposedly) the sun did not yet exist is beside the point. It obviously refers to the length of time that would comprise a day: 24 hours. The fundamentalists are correct on this point because, much as you may hate to admit it, the fundamentalists are far more knowledgeable about the contents of the Bible than the wannabe Christians. You misinterpret "day" as being not literally the length of a day because you were born into a world that knows more about cosmology and geology - thus you are forced to make concessions in your beliefs so that they better align with the genuine knowledge we have accumulated.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
You insult my personal character by calling my beliefs disingenuous. But its hardly an original argument so it doesn't bother me. You tell me that I can either be a thinking person or a religious person, a logical person or a christian. You create a false choice between me being a genuine believer who is hateful and ignorant or a false believer who's distaste for hate and ignorance gives me a way.

I insult your beliefs and your cherry-picking of a holy book that explicitly states that it is not meant to be cherry-picked from. In this regard, you are not a terribly logical person. I'm not sure how you equated that with being a criticism of your "character", whatever that even means. Certainly I did not mean to imply that you were dangerous or inclined to violence and hate against others - that would be the realm of the fundamentalists. You invented a false dichotomy in order to play the persecution card.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
You're letting your prejudices project on a belief system you don't share in but choose to paint with broad colors anyways. Despite not being a Christian yourself, you feel comfortable telling me that I am in fact not a true believer of my religion? Is it because I don't sound enough like some unfavorable, intolerant, charicticture that you harbor in the back of your mind?

I am prejudiced against all religions - including Islam, Buddhism, astrology, and homeopathy. I do not have to be a so-called "Christian"' to tell you that you cherry-pick from the Bible - you are not a true Christian who accepts the inerrant word of the Bible. Just like I don't need to be a Muslim to know that liberal Muslims are not true Muslims who accept the inerrant word of the Koran (and consequently hate all infidels). Cherry-pickers are not true believers - they change some of their beliefs when the evidence arrayed against them is overwhelming. Being a cherry-picker is, for the most part, better. I just wonder why you don't go the whole nine yards and discard all the superstition entirely.

ya see, this is a splendid argument for
why the gubment needs to abandon
all public education. u will have to enroll
ur child in a school of your own choosing
and thus have control over what is taught.
Or you can home school for the same
reason. I have a feeling that if public
education comes to a close, you will
see individual teachers doing private
tutoring class rooms basically like
an individual contractor. Thus you can
see exactly what that teacher believes
when you see their resume.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
ya see, this is a splendid argument for
why the gubment needs to abandon
all public education. u will have to enroll
ur child in a school of your own choosing
and thus have control over what is taught.
Or you can home school for the same
reason. I have a feeling that if public
education comes to a close, you will
see individual teachers doing private
tutoring class rooms basically like
an individual contractor. Thus you can
see exactly what that teacher believes
when you see their resume.

I doubt if there will ever NOT be public schools in America. What would America be like with out football and basketball HS teams. And cheerleaders. Breeding ground for future gridiron heroes! That's what American education is really about anyway.

Topic...I don't want my kid to be exposed to anything I deem BS; in science class, homeroom, etc. He can choose for himself if he needs religion. Leave him alone you bunch of Jesus freaks with your guilt and arrogance.

reply to post by imnotbncre8ive


Your right. Southern-American, evangelical, right-wing, fundamentalist-pentecostals are the only remaining image of true Christians. Everyone else is just cherry picking. The inquisitors were the last real Christians in full I guess. And Jesus was a 6-foot tall white man who walked around beating women, drinking beer and standing outside the temple with a sign that says "God Hates F*gs."

Excuse me if I don't reply after this. I have 2 reasons for doing so.

1. You seem to have penetrated so deeply into my beliefs, beyond what I even knew about myself, that I have to go away now and find out what I truly believe at once. When I do, I'll be back to seek your counsel on whether or not I truly believe it.

2. A vision came to me, like I guess one came to you, and informed me that you're actually a deep-fundamentalist christian masquerading here as something else. Having this special secret knowledge about each other is fun, but burdensome. Lets chat again when I show myself as an athiest and you as a fundamentalist christian.

reply to post by snusfanatic


Look my Christian friend you will never be able to talk reason to a fundamental literalist. Its like a grown up trying to speak to a child.

I commend you for your faith that is based on reason, tolerance, and understanding.

I myself as a Muslim face the same ignorance from fundamentalist in my faith.

It’s a waste of time talking to them because they are really expressing an inner ethnocentric condition that is in possession of their minds.

Only until they progress out of that state will light be able to enter their minds that they can accept.

reply to post by snusfanatic

You make some excellent points, though an unwillingness to hold religious belief up to scientific scrutiny suggests a fear that it will not pass. This is only a problem for Biblical literalists, though.

The main reason I post in this thread is to highlight this statement of yours:

I believe that the attempt to teach the theology of creationism as science is nothing less then a conspiracy

I'd just like to point out that this is the very reason why this forum was created in the first place--for the discussion of the acknowledged conspiracy by obscurantist Christians to hijack science education to spread their views. Well done for bringing us all back to the point.

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
You are not a true Christian.

Are you? If you are then you are qualified to debate what a "true Christian" is or is not. If you are not one, then you have no basis to stand on.

/TOA

reply to post by snusfanatic

Speaking as a scientific materialist and a non-Christian, I sympathize with you and support your position.

In America--and only in America, let it be noted--the Christian faith has been hijacked by a group of refugees from real life who have not even read the book they insist on taking so literally. This is obvious because no-one who has actually read much of the Bible can possibly take it literally. Not in this day and age, at any rate.

reply to post by imnotbncre8ive

Jesus tacitly supported slavery - he obviously did not "come to perfect the law"

This is doubly incorrect.

First, it implies that a perfected law would accord with modern ideas of individual liberty. This is anachronistic; you're taking the moral standards of your own society (or standards of your own making) to be universal. In fact, there are no universally accepted moral standards.

Second, it suggests that Jesus's silence on the subject of slavery implies that he supported it. That's assuming too much--does a slave's silence imply support for slavery? Perhaps you're getting Jesus confused with St. Paul, whose epistles suggest he thought slavery was perfectly okay.

But why believe anything in the Bible at all? The New Testament is just as full of errors and lies as the Old. Although one or two of its canonical texts date back to the first century AD, many are much newer; and the canon itself attained its final form only in and after the third century. Some texts as old as the canonical ones were rejected, mostly because they didn't fit with later Christian doctrine or contradicted events described in books of the canon. We may rest assured that very little of what the historical Jesus (if there was one) actually said, taught and did has been transmitted accurately.

reply to post by snusfanatic


Thank you for your post. It honestly makes me think there might be some hope for this world yet. Those who push for creationism in the classroom don't realize the negative effects that would have on their religion. There is the point you made about the science teachers being uncomfortable teaching religion and ending up presenting the ideas reluctantly and poorly. Also if evidence is to be presented there will only be evidence for the evolution side as there is no scientific evidence supporting the idea that life was spoken into being or that the first man was conjured from dirt by a supernatural being.

Presenting Creationism and Evolution together would end with Evolution being the obvious winner. This is why most Creationists advocate what's called "Teaching the Controversy". They don't really want to offer a theory of their own, because Creationism isn't a scientific theory, heck it isn't even a hypothesis. What they want is to allow their straw-man arguments against Evolution into the science class so that the kids will be confused and reluctant to accept the facts that way they come Sunday they can fill the kids heads with something that SEEMS solid, Creationism...

Thanks for your post, star and flag for being on the right side of this debate

reply to post by imnotbncre8ive

The Bible explicitly states that every part of it is true in its literal interpretation.

The Bible says no such thing. While there are several verses that make the claim that the Bible is inspired by God the Bible never makes the claim that it should be taken literally. Not only does it not make this claim explicitly it doesn't make this claim implicitly either. And, in fact, there are parts to the Bible that cannot or obviously should not be taken literally (the poetic language of some of the Psalms, the parables of Christ, etc)

You are not a true Christian.

This statement is a No True Scotsman Fallacy. You cannot decide who is and isn't a Christian.

Given that the original meaning of 'science' is 'knowledge' - then you cannot keep it out of the classroom.

I believe that children have the right to learn about all religions, and should not be brainwashed into just one religion.

That is why I don't believe that children should belong to organized religions. They should be taught the fundamental decencies regarding themselves and others, and they should be taught that there are a lot of choices within those parameters.

And they should be taught about all spiritual leaders - Jesus, Buddha, and all the others.

When they have been taught about these leaders, they should then be taught about their beliefs.

Then it grinds to a halt...we all know that is not going to happen.

And that is where we fail our children, and where every parent has always failed their children, among other things.

I respect completely one's right to hold differing beliefs with regards to the origin and maintenance of the universe. However, imagine if you will two islands each with 10 children and a library. On one island the library is filled with religious books, prayers and testaments. On the other island, the library is filled with only books on science, mathematics and biology.
Let us fast forward several years, with the islands having remained completely isolated. Imagine for a moment that a storm passes both islands and a horrible virus is unleashed. Which island will be in a better position to protect themselves and allow the population to keep growing? Which will have a better farming system? Which will have greater shelter and protection?
I would also like to suggest that after many years, the religious island would have begun to seperate into smaller groups due to different interpretations of the many belief systems. Perhaps they would even fight to defend their belief/god. Thus it would be shown that true morals are not born of religion. On the science island, morals I have no doubt of would have grown strong, with the want to protect and unite human life. When children are sick the science island would make attempts to understand and fix. The religious island would pray to the skies while the children died.
If there is a God, which island do you think this God would be more proud of? The one that chose to investigate and learn of the wonders of the universe and to use the tools of discovery, or the one that is divided with beliefs and a slave to ego?
Religion has a place and it is called your heart. Trying to host it anywhere else is a truly sad display of one needing to present their ego to the world for compliment. So I agree, keep religion out of every classroom and leave it deep within your heart. If you truly have a relationship with God, your ego should have no needs. Just smile, and agree it is truly a wonderful universe we have found ourselves a part of. I guess this is a challenge to all who subscribe to particular text based Gods. Just smile, and keep it in your heart.

reply to post by snusfanatic


A science classroom teaches science. It doesn't mean that the science is correct - it just teaches what is currently believed by science. As with relativity, quantum chemistry, etc, science makes no claims that what they teach is the truth - it merely teaches the current beliefs of scientists based on the available evidence.

I am absolutely for science teaching science. Censorship of science teachings would negate the entire discipline, which is based on openness.

I also believe that the theology/religious studies class should teach the alternative viewpoint.

Evolution has nothing to do with religion. Teaching it in science class is an attempt to account for evidence WITHOUT bringing religion into it - the exact opposite of the thread title.

reply to post by snusfanatic


Wonderful. I completely agree with your views on this. Evolution is the theory that came from one examination of corporeal development and creationism is the theory that came from the examination of the beginning of the relationshuip between humanity and God. Two very different examinations. Neither directly challenges the other unless you misunderstand one or the other or both.

Theology is not science. Theology - like Philosophy - is pre-science. Science is like the dog that's chasing the car that Theology and Philosophy are riding in. God help science if it ever catches that car.

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive

Originally posted by snusfanatic
Plea from a Christian: Keep My Religion out of the Science Classroom!!!!

I am a Christian. I believe that God spoke the universe, and all life in it, into existence - in whatever manner it is that God speaks. I believe that natural world, its four dimensions of space and time, was a designed one - planned out in the mind's-eyes of an all powerful being.

Fair enough - you appear, thus far, to be a Christian.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
Christianity has changed over time, it has accepted new scientific and social insights and incorporated them into its world-view.

Amazing - this is patently false. Christianity is the set of beliefs that one derives from the Bible. The Bible explicitly states that every part of it is true in its literal interpretation. The Bible has not changed for many centuries - it is merely that people who claim to be "Christians" can no longer ignore the overwhelming evidence against their beliefs. They are forced to discard the more untenable beliefs. In so doing, they have become the cherry-pickers, the "wannabe Christians". Why do you cling to parts of the Bible and yet discard other parts? Why don't you condemn homosexuality and adulterous women to death, why don't you accept that the universe was created in about a week (literally), why don't you accept that Noah built a boat large enough to fit all the animal species in existence?

You are not a true Christian. I just think it's amusing how you think you are. Your faith is not as strong as the fundamentalists.

I see that you joined the board two days ago.

I've been on many Internet forums over the years, and most of them are all about aggressive assertions and being bold in how one depicts others in exchanges. It might be a good idea for you to allow the general atmosphere of each specific forum to reveal itself to you before you commit yourself to a participation temperment.

The subject of Origins and Creationism might be considered controversial, but it's not as immediately influential as Politics, and needn't be as personally vitriolic. This person may very well be a faithful Christian, and hold beliefs that the Catholic Church has recently adopted. After all, if not for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't even know who Jesus was or have any idea what the term Christian means. As painful as that is for an American Evangelical to accept, this is the truth. The Catholic Church is responsible for the Bible, and for the Christian faith as we know it today.

And the Catholic Church sees no issue with the concept of Evolution.

That said, there are less offensive ways to present your point. It'd be nice to not see that kind of behavior in forums that deal with more sophisticated levels of debate.

Originally posted by snusfanatic


Your right. Southern-American, evangelical, right-wing, fundamentalist-pentecostals are the only remaining image of true Christians. Everyone else is just cherry picking. The inquisitors were the last real Christians in full I guess. And Jesus was a 6-foot tall white man who walked around beating women, drinking beer and standing outside the temple with a sign that says "God Hates F*gs."

If you choose to ignore the less appetizing portions of the Bible, then why don't you simply cut it out with scissors and call the new book something entirely different? Perhaps Bible 2.0

Originally posted by snusfanatic
1. You seem to have penetrated so deeply into my beliefs, beyond what I even knew about myself, that I have to go away now and find out what I truly believe at once. When I do, I'll be back to seek your counsel on whether or not I truly believe it.

Lol, perhaps you could actually address something substantial instead of misinterpreting all of my posts as an ad hominem attack.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
2. A vision came to me, like I guess one came to you, and informed me that you're actually a deep-fundamentalist christian masquerading here as something else. Having this special secret knowledge about each other is fun, but burdensome. Lets chat again when I show myself as an athiest and you as a fundamentalist christian.

Huh?

Originally posted by inforeal
reply to post by snusfanatic

 

Look my Christian friend you will never be able to talk reason to a fundamental literalist. Its like a grown up trying to speak to a child.

I commend you for your faith that is based on reason, tolerance, and understanding.

"I commend you for your faith that is based on reason..."
This is a contradiction and worthy of a joke, considering that faith (in this context) is the belief in propositions with no (or even contradictory) evidence. So much for "reason".

Originally posted by inforeal
I myself as a Muslim face the same ignorance from fundamentalist in my faith.

It's great that you're a liberal Muslim. Thus, you presumably don't enjoy subjugating women. I just wonder why you cling to any bits of the Koran at all.