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

reply to post by Astyanax

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.

They have basically captured the conservative party in Australia too. Former Prime Minister John Howard was known to to bend over backwards to kiss the backsides of the "Exclusive Brethren" (the Australian equivalent of "The Family", only worse), and the current Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbot is a young earth creationist (though he does his best to hide it these days).

reply to post by snusfanatic

My bible tells me that on the first day, god created the heavens and the earth

This is a common mistake Christians and theologians make when they read Genesis 1:1
This verse is clearly NOT embedded into the six creative days, and modern science supports this.
Here is something to think about, it takes billions of years for the light of stars to reach our earth, if they are billions of light years away. Thus "In the beginning" is a period of unknown time but we do know it is at least into the billions of years.
If you think the entire universe was created in one 24 hour period, because that's what your church teaches I urge you to reconsider that theory.

I agree that neither evolution or creation should be taught in schools, let parents decide what to teach their children, eventually they will formulate their own idea's anyways.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

I agree that neither evolution or creation should be taught in schools, let parents decide what to teach their children, eventually they will formulate their own idea's anyways.

This is one of the most extremely un-American opinions I have read on this site.

I know you mean well, but the absolute fact is the American education system is exactly what 'has made America great'. Destruction of the American education system, as your sentiment implies, will drive America to the wall. The damage to the education system over the last 30 years or so is already so extreme that it will take more than a couple of generations to repair the damage.

The damage is obvious to those of us who were in school when the education system was valued and the results of the destruction is obvious to the most casual reader of this site.

The agenda of those working to destroy the American education system is to ensure that we raise an under educated class of uncritical drones who cannot think for themselves and who lock onto the first opinion that impinges on their senses. Fundamental religions and ultra right wing politicians want to be the that first message, and mass media moguls want to be the ones to deliver it. No wonder they working hand in hand to see that it comes about.

That cynical process of controlling the American people by maintaining their mass ignorance is not just unAmerican, IMO, it is anti-American and will condemn America to irrelevance. These folks are wrapping themselves in the flag and claiming to defend the Constitution, while spitting on everything the flag stands for and repudiating the very words in the Constitution. The under-educated, non-thinking, out-of-work drones are buying it, hook line and sinker, and as they do so America is being consigned to the ranks of the once-were-great.

reply to post by snusfanatic


This lady is the only thing that can save you OP.

reply to post by rnaa

I agree that letting parents choose what subjects children are taught in school is foolish and dangerous. They may certainly have a say in the matter, but the final choice of curricula, in any country that hopes to stay civilized, must be up to the state. The more choice parents, or anyone else except the authorities specifically charged with responsibility for it, have on primary and secondary education, the more divided society becomes.

However, the following strikes me as a somewhat paranoid interpretation of the facts.

The agenda of those working to destroy the American education system is to ensure that we raise an under educated class of uncritical drones who cannot think for themselves and who lock onto the first opinion that impinges on their senses. Fundamental religions and ultra right wing politicians want to be the that first message, and mass media moguls want to be the ones to deliver it. No wonder they working hand in hand to see that it comes about.

Wonderfully suitable on ATS, of course, but I wonder whether you, rnaa, actually believe it. You don't seem like a paranoiac to me.

I put it to you that the real reasons for the dumbing-down of primary and secondary education in America (and elsewhere in the world, including my own country) are as follows:

1. A laudable--in principle--desire to provide educational qualifications, and therefore better jobs, to as many people as possible.
   
   
2. Politicians 'giving the people what they want' in order to win votes, even when they know that 'what the people want' is destructive to society in the long run. It's an old, old story.

Of course, no matter what the cause, the effect is the same: an ignorant, divided populace whose members give their primary allegiance, not to the nation-state or republic but to some religious dogma, racial myth, political programme, sports team or youth subculture. The ultimate result of it would be a return to the Dark Ages.

reply to post by rnaa

This is one of the most extremely un-American opinions I have read on this site.

Do really think all Pro-American idea's are the best in the world?

Do you not think parents should play a role in teaching their children about this subject?
Or should they leave to the local school board?

reply to post by Astyanax

Wonderfully suitable on ATS, of course, but I wonder whether you, rnaa, actually believe it. You don't seem like a paranoiac to me.

You are right, I'm not paranoid; I'm observant.

Unfortunately the evisceration of the American public education system is a fact and has been ongoing for 30 years at least. The project to destroy public education is organized, deliberate, and its proponents are outspoken, not conspiratorial. Their goal is to nothing less than to destroy the American Middle Class and split the population into the elite and the drones.

Education is the single most important function that a government must ensure for its people.

"It is an axiom in my mind that our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves, and that, too, of the people with a certain degree of instruction. This is the business of the state to effect, and on a general plan." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1786. ME 19:24

The thing that made America 'great', if such a claim could ever be made, was its Middle Class, and the Middle class was made possible by education and labor unions. Yet many politicians are outspoken in their agenda to destroy the public education system, they will tell you flat out that that is their purpose.

Some, like Rand Paul, will tell it is because they think the Feds have no business telling states what to do about education. These people often quote the Founding Fathers to support them, but the most outspoken Founding Father of them all, Thomas Jefferson was adamant that the primary purpose of a democratic republican Government was to ensure its citizens were properly educated so they could participate in the political life of the nation.

Other will tell you that it is because the education system is the last bastion of Labor Unionism. Media blowhards like Glen Beck and his fellow Faux News talking heads are always spouting off about how "America can be great again", "we need to restore America's greatness", all the while they are also running down the education system that drove any greatness America has ever been able to legitimately claim.

Once upon a time, the media would not let this happen. It took its responsibility seriously and honestly informed the people what was going on. Now the media is monopoly controlled by a very small number of oligarchies. Murdoch in particular, the most powerful of the media oligarchs, is absolutely determined to succeed in being the only source of information to the new under-classes he is helping to breed.

This is happening. It is a fact. The "American Dream" is no more and I consider this result tragic and proponents of it as anti-American.

I put it to you that the real reasons for the dumbing-down of primary and secondary education in America (and elsewhere in the world, including my own country) are as follows:

1. A laudable--in principle--desire to provide educational qualifications, and therefore better jobs, to as many people as possible.

Except that is exactly the opposite of what is happening. Public eduction systems are being driven into bankruptcy, to the point where they can't teach. In frustration parents who can afford it are forced to put their kids into private schools. Parents who can't afford it are forced to watch their kids lose any hope of a decent education and, in many cases, any job better than 'would you like fries with that'?

2. Politicians 'giving the people what they want' in order to win votes, even when they know that 'what the people want' is destructive to society in the long run. It's an old, old story.

In most states, public education is funded from property taxes. People who own property don't want to pay property taxes, and the biggest property owners have the political clout to get what they want. When I was in school in Arizona it had one of the best school systems in the country (but far from the most expensive) and I would put my classroom experience against any in the world at time. It now has one of the worst in the country and few, if any, school systems in the country are 'world class'. Arizona's decline is exactly because the state has done away with property taxes and there is no other replacement funding source, so schools have to compete with parks (that are shutting down), hospitals (that are going broke too), police and fire (always under pressure), etc, etc, etc for funding out of general revenue.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Do really think all Pro-American idea's are the best in the world?

Not necessarily. To which Pro-American idea are you referring?

I was referring to your statement that science should not be taught in public schools. And that basically implies that you would be happy to see public schools disappear and all schooling be home schooling. Perhaps I read more into it than you meant, but I suspect that you didn't think through your opinion.

What is left to a public school if you take out science?

How do you teach Home Ec without science of mathematics or cooking without chemistry? How do you teach music and art without the science of electromagnetic waves both audible and visible?. Or history without navigation or steam ships or animal husbandry? How do you teach wood shop or auto mechanics?

To remove science from schools is to remove schools. That is the un-American idea to which I was responding. Public education has been the bedrock that the American nation was built on. Just ask Thomas Jefferson:

"And say, finally, whether peace is best preserved by giving energy to the government or information to the people. This last is the most certain and the most legitimate engine of government. Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. And it requires no very high degree of education to convince them of this. They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. (Forrest version) ME 6:392

"The value of science to a republican people, the security it gives to liberty by enlightening the minds of its citizens, the protection it affords against foreign power, the virtue it inculcates, the just emulation of the distinction it confers on nations foremost in it; in short, its identification with power, morals, order and happiness (which merits to it premiums of encouragement rather than repressive taxes), are considerations [that should] always [be] present and [bear] with their just weight." --Thomas Jefferson: On the Book Duty, 1821.

"Freedom [is] the first-born daughter of science." --Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795. ME 9:297

"I think by far the most important bill in our whole code, is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness... The tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance." --Thomas Jefferson to George Wythe, 1786. ME 5:396

Do you not think parents should play a role in teaching their children...

Of course they should. Parents have primary responsibility in their children's education. If they aren't involved, they aren't very good parents. But notice that parents also have primary responsibility for their children's health
and wellbeing, but they don't normally endeavor to be the 'doctor' to their children do they? They are involved with their child's care, but they leave the 'doctoring' to the professionals. Just as society has developed a system of professional doctors, it has developed a system of professional teachers.

If you are referring to home schooling, I am, in general, not in favor, except in extreme cases. There are times when it might work well, I will not deny that. However, when it is done to prevent a child's exposure to the real world, which is often the case, the home schooling curriculum often results in a one dimensional education that has denied the child the skills he/she needs to be a productive member of society.

I recognize that this is a generalization that may be unfair to many home schoolers, but it is, in fact, what I have seen. Home schooled kids often mistake their own arrogance for confidence and dogma for thoughtful opinion.

... about this subject?

Again to which subject are you referring?

Religion? The parents and their Church are the only ones who have any role what-so-ever in religious education. Full Stop.

Science? The parents and their School are the only ones who have any role what-so-ever in scientific education. Full Stop.

When the child is in a Religious School, the parents must take great care to ensure that the school is teaching science in science classes and religion in religion classes and not confusing the two.

Or should they leave to the local school board?

Again, assuming you are referring to religion, the local school board should have absolutely nothing to do with religious education except in the way religion has affected the history of the world. It would be pretty difficult to discuss the Crusades without a reference to religion, or the settlement of America without a discussion of religious persecution, etc.That discussion belongs in a history or a Civics class.

The local school board has the responsibility to ensure the schools have the resources to teach science and to keep religion out of the science classroom. Science classes should teach science not religion, but again, it is difficult to discuss Galileo without discussing the religious background he operated in, that is the only way religion should ever be discussed in a science class.

reply to post by rnaa


We are on different brain waves here, of course science should be taught at school, I only have a problem with a theory being taught as factual science. No I don't advocate home schooling as I don't think it prepares children to function within society, particularly the work force, with all it's diversity. And as for the history of religion and it's wars I absolutely want that taught in schools so children see how badly they messed up, not following Jesus commands in the bible. And they will formulate their on perspectives on historical facts that impact religion.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

I only have a problem with a theory being taught as factual science.

This is a really, really, bad mistake, and demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. This is a mistake many people make, so you are not alone, but it has been explained in many threads on ATS.

In science, theory is as close as you get to fact. There are no absolutes. You are mistaking scientific hypothesis with scientific theory.

In the regular world of imprecise language, regular people speak of theory's being guess work, like, "I have a theory why my tire went flat". But in science that is an hypothesis, a working explanation that needs further observation and experimentation and general agreement before it becomes theory.

Science always describes theory as 'provisional' even though it is known to be correct and will hold up to continued scrutiny, simply because you cannot prove a negative. You cannot say that there will never be new data that will disrupt your understanding and require your theory to be updated. However, by the time a theory is recognized, it is pretty darn certain, and new data is only ever likely to fiddle around the edges.

Evolution is no different. In scientific terms, it is considered provisional. At the same time, it is the most tested, most confirmed theory in history. As a theory it is rock solid. Of course there are still questions, and new data to consider. Many current notions will be changed in the future, but the entire theory will not be overthrown.

The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a scientific theory and as such is a scientific fact.

This link explains it more succinctly than I: CA200: Only a Theory. You can review the entire site for answers to any other objections you may have.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by snusfanatic

 

I agree that neither evolution or creation should be taught in schools, let parents decide what to teach their children, eventually they will formulate their own idea's anyways.

That's an excellent idea, let's not teach anything which coud conflict with beliefs the parents may hold.

So obviously evolution is out.

Cooking, well do you teach vegetarian cooking, or how to quickly braise a still-quivering sirloin? Use sugar or a chemical substitute? Milk or Soy? Ethnic or traditional English? Shellfish, beef, pork? GM, organic, ...?
No can do. Every decision will offend someone. Better let them grow up depending on McDonalds.

Sewing? Not with cloth of mixed fibres, thanks.

Computing? Nah, some people believe technology is evil.

Geography? Sorry, that's based on the spherical Earth theory. The Bible teaches the Earth is flat.

Astronomy? Nope, the Earth is fixed in one place, so all modern theories are wrong. Just read your Bible.

Maths? And teach kids to add up??? Then they'd learn that three days and three nights after Good Friday was Monday, and that Jesus either falsified the Bible by rising on Sunday, or the Bible lied and he didn't rise until Monday.

Law? You have to be joking.


Lastly, schools must stop teaching the theory of micro-organisms causing disease.

I too had swallowed micro-organisms as the cause of most disease until recently, when I rang a local company, Nature First Organic, to complain of my puffed rice being infested with weevils. The lovely Customer Service lady was kind enough to explain about spontaneous generation, and helped me understand one could cause weevils to generate in any cereal by holding the packet too tightly, thus warming it, while pouring it out. She dispelled my silly illusions about mythical "weevil eggs", wanting to know how I thought weevils could get out of my bowl and back to Holland, to lay eggs in the rice there. And besides, everyone knows eggs have to be refrigerated.

Then she proved her point by directing me vaguely to the internet, where there are lots of sites explaining this.

Now who are you going to believe? A young woman who has spent months actually working in the industry, or hundreds of scientists who have probably never eaten a bowl of Nature First puffed rice in their lives?


I guess we'll just have to teach kids about sex.
After all, that's the same the world over, isn't it?

reply to post by rnaa

The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a scientific theory and as such is a scientific fact.

That's where I disagree, my opinion is fair, I won't teach my theory of creation by an intelligent designer, if you don't teach your theory of evolution. It's either that, or teach them both.
For me this is where this discussion ends as we don't agree on it.
My point was simply logical fair assessment for teaching or not teaching both topics.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Sorry been away. Haven't had time to respond.

That's where I disagree, my opinion is fair, I won't teach my theory of creation by an intelligent designer, if you don't teach your theory of evolution. It's either that, or teach them both. For me this is where this discussion ends as we don't agree on it. My point was simply logical fair assessment for teaching or not teaching both topics.

Go ahead and teach your intelligent designer approach anywhere you want as long as it isn't in public school science classes. Or as long as you let the students know that it is not science and give it as much 'air time' as its acceptance in the science community warrants. Since there are about a million scientists that believe in evolution for every scientists that believes intelligent design has merit, more than a passing mention is more than it deserves.

This is exactly the point where you try to take your opinion out of the realm of your freedom to think what you want to the un-American idea of keep the kids ignorant of science and destroy their future. Don't teach kids evolution and there won't be anymore doctors, did you consider that? Or pharmaceutical scientists? Or medical research? Or crop scientists? Or etc, etc, etc. Is this the kind of America you want to leave to your kids, a backwards, ignorant, poor, living off the largess of Mexicans and Canadians and Chinese?

What the heck is wrong with you? The Framers of the Constitution specified the separation of Church and State for exactly this reason, to keep one group' religious ideology from imposing its will on every one else.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
That's where I disagree, my opinion is fair, I won't teach my theory of creation by an intelligent designer, if you don't teach your theory of evolution. It's either that, or teach them both.
For me this is where this discussion ends as we don't agree on it.
My point was simply logical fair assessment for teaching or not teaching both topics.

Do you also want children taught the Earth is flat?

The only reason to take the Biblical account of creation lierally is if you believe every word of the Bible is true.

If you believe you must teach creation, then you must also teach the Earh is flat, because the Bible also makes that clear.

And, according to the Bible, the Earth does not move, the Sun moves across the sky, and there is a region of water above the "firmanent", (that flat region above us where the stars are.)

If you are not going to teach every aspect of the Bible because you don't take it all seriously, you have no right to deprive your childrenof vital education bypointing to one part and deciding you'll teach that, and forgetting the rest.

When is the last time you murdered a witch for God?

reply to post by snusfanatic

You make some valid points! All religious belief has a spiritual basis! I wholly condemn existentialism... John Paul Sartre is probably responsible for so many students taking their lives in the 1960's... when he advocated the philosophical premise that Life was meaningless and worthless! You cannot propose a concept like this to impressionable young people, without thinking about the possible consequences thereof! Christianity is a beautiful faith when practised right! And Everyone has their own personal God (or not)! However, Atheists and Agnostics have the right to think as they do! Scientific theory is fact... and there's no denying that... But there are more things under the sun... Waiting to be discovered ... In this, or another reality!

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


I agree. I use the word day as its used in the Bible, which I feel cannot be literal for the reason that you state and for may others. I first became aware of how fallacious the six day argument was as a 10 year old, when I wondered how there could be a day before there was a sun. People need to learn to accommodate their faith to science and to leave room in their science for a creator in my opinion. Arguing against evolution, or the Big Bang is just as arrogant for a Christian, in my opinion as Richard Dawkins or Steven Hawking are when they claim to have basically dis proven God.

The fact is, the Athiest's best argument against a creator is that its an unprovable/non-disprovable hypothesis and the Christian's best defense is that the religion has always been about FAITH not about proof of God. An emphasis on the unprovable/unknowable nature of God is something that we should all be able to find common ground on; the Athiest by eschewing faith because of that doubt and the Theist by emphasizing their faith in the face of doubt.

Its OK to come out on different sides of this question. But what frustrates me is that instead of coming out on different sides of a rational argument like the one above, both sides choose to create their own irrational arguments. Its sane to doubt God. We cannot prove his existence scientifically. If that leads you not to believe cool, but belief can be as much about faith as it can proof. I just want us to get on the same page, despite what our eventual answer is.

reply to post by Culdeeson


Exactly, thank you for your support. We need to find common ground on religion by admitting that belief can come from both PROVABLE FACT and SIMPLE FAITH. There's not reason to tell someone to pick one or the other. No one can prove or disprove God. Let those who base their beliefs on fact have the science classroom and let those who base their beliefs on faith have their theology. I'm also a strong believer in optional theological education in public schools. But it needs to be kept separately and scholarly in its own distinct category.

reply to post by rajaten




Thank you for putting the fear of God...oh wait, I mean... the fear of crazy rednecks in me.

reply to post by quantum_flux


I disagree. There are different ways of finding truth. Science is a great one, but not the only one. Truth comes in many forms and is therefore accessible in more ways then one. Science is great because it advances our ability as a species to prosper and survive. I feel Religion also has a positive impact on society when practiced correctly. Both can be destructive and both can be beneficial. Scientific facts can be disproven and become fallacious overnight, the truth or fallaciousness of religion can rarely be tested by the methods of science. That is why I want them to remain separate.

reply to post by cyberfenix


That is a splendid argument to show how science advances our prospects as a species. I believe God would be proud of both islands. But he would weep for the religious island's ignorance and would weep for the science island's lack of access to other truths outside of our measurable, physical reality.

Religion when practiced correctly and tolerantly can be a tremendously positive force. There have been times in history when the subjigation of blacks was justified by psuedo science of eugenics and people were starving in the streets because of the psuedo science of social darwinism. Meanwhile, there were plenty of religious movements around that time that spoke of higher truths and human dignity...both of which cannot be measured or 'proven.'

Religion ofcourse has its fair share of atrocities. But the two are not mutually exclusive. We are no on two islands. We can have the best of both worlds, if we are rational and respectful to eachother.