CDZ Religion vs. Science, American schools edition

[JakeStarkey]

The correct venue is the liberal arts classroom, not the science class. Tis what is.

 

[Josf]

"The correct venue is the liberal arts classroom, not the science class. Tis what is."

I'll consider that a baseless theory, unless you are able to sustantiate that theory of yours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The correct venue is the liberal arts classroom, not the science class. Tis what is."

I'll consider that a baseless theory, unless your able to sustantiate that theory of yours.

Consider whatever you want.

 

[xdangerousxdavex]

"The correct venue is the liberal arts classroom, not the science class. Tis what is."

I'll consider that a baseless theory, unless you are able to sustantiate that theory of yours.

It's based on Republican contempt for the rest of America whom they call liberals. And they don't care what you say against, you can be neutral in politics, anyway you're a liberal in their esteem.

 

[Josf]

As with counterfeit religion, counterfeit science, there is counterfeit law enforcement in at least two forms:

1. Counterfeit conservatives
2. Counterfeit liberals

The first genuine liberals in America were called "levelers" by the first counterfeit conservatives in America.

The first genuine conservatives were those who figured out how to conserve.

Levelers called themselves regulators. The term "leveler" was a false, derogatory, label, or libel used to discredit the first liberals.

The first liberals were up in arms because the counterfeit conservatives were aiding and abetting the criminals through counterfeit government.

So today things may include counterfeit versions of everything too, and it might be a good idea to know which is counterfeit and which is not. Each individual is unique, and most people are misled by these false labels.

Not all.

 

[blunthead]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Science is not necessarily based on facts, especially the "theory" of evolution, which when teachers of it teach they ignore the problem of evolution between species which has yet to shown, and yet is demanded to support the entire "theory". Public education doesn't teach any religion, only private schools do. By=ut public schools teach against some religious beliefs, via evolution and in other ways, and so are hypocritical in doing so.

 

[blunthead]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Do schools teach English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages? If so, what purpose does it serve?

The article attached to the OP mentions science as the main opponent of religious education. I believe that teaching religion norms and values is up to the family, not the school. If religious belief is strong with particular kid, he would be able to make a choice by himself, if not, so be it.
English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages definitely have a point and therefore are included in our education system. These subjects help our kids to broaden their worldview, promote emotional intelligence and understanding of different cultures.

Is not religion and it's variations and values important in the grand scheme of things? Does the majority of the world population not practice some form of religion? Has recorded history included wars based on a religion? Has religion changed boundaries and influenced ruling bodies? Are we not presently engaged in the Middle East, partially due to a religion?

How can one separate religion from any society? Do we expect our children and future generations to be ignorant of religion, and how it's played a major role throughout human history? Was freedom of religion a priority so stated in our own Constitution?

Why would we want to avoid such an important subject, and yet teach such subject matter as English literature and evolution? Do we not have religion expressed in music, movies, books, and in international competitions? Why attempt to discount or minimize the importance of religion, yet place inference on such matters as mythology and other subjects in our educational systems?

Humanity indeed will never be able to separate religion from everything else humanity does. It's an ideal vanity to think we as humans can or even want to exist without the help of faith, in someThing or someOne. That false ideal is a lie and a joke. Evolution is a religion, a belief system, as sure as Christianity or Islam, and to ask what good teaching evolution does is a fair question. Of course, a person will argue that there's no such thing as "good", meaning that they'll promote their own belief system.

 

[paddymurphy]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Science is not necessarily based on facts, especially the "theory" of evolution, which when teachers of it teach they ignore the problem of evolution between species which has yet to shown, and yet is demanded to support the entire "theory". Public education doesn't teach any religion, only private schools do. By=ut public schools teach against some religious beliefs, via evolution and in other ways, and so are hypocritical in doing so.

Evolution is not against the religious beliefs of most Americans. Most religions accept evolution. Frankly, evolution is more evidence of a omniscient intelligence than that hocus pocus described in the Bible.

 

[paddymurphy]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Do schools teach English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages? If so, what purpose does it serve?

The article attached to the OP mentions science as the main opponent of religious education. I believe that teaching religion norms and values is up to the family, not the school. If religious belief is strong with particular kid, he would be able to make a choice by himself, if not, so be it.
English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages definitely have a point and therefore are included in our education system. These subjects help our kids to broaden their worldview, promote emotional intelligence and understanding of different cultures.

Is not religion and it's variations and values important in the grand scheme of things? Does the majority of the world population not practice some form of religion? Has recorded history included wars based on a religion? Has religion changed boundaries and influenced ruling bodies? Are we not presently engaged in the Middle East, partially due to a religion?

How can one separate religion from any society? Do we expect our children and future generations to be ignorant of religion, and how it's played a major role throughout human history? Was freedom of religion a priority so stated in our own Constitution?

Why would we want to avoid such an important subject, and yet teach such subject matter as English literature and evolution? Do we not have religion expressed in music, movies, books, and in international competitions? Why attempt to discount or minimize the importance of religion, yet place inference on such matters as mythology and other subjects in our educational systems?

Humanity indeed will never be able to separate religion from everything else humanity does. It's an ideal vanity to think we as humans can or even want to exist without the help of faith, in someThing or someOne. That false ideal is a lie and a joke. Evolution is a religion, a belief system, as sure as Christianity or Islam, and to ask what good teaching evolution does is a fair question. Of course, a person will argue that there's no such thing as "good", meaning that they'll promote their own belief system.

The advancement of civilization from the dark ages to the present shows that as the place religion plays in society, particularly in government, declines, civilization advances. Name one nation where religion is still part of the government that is not a backwards ass country.

 

[Abishai100]

Cyber-Codicil

I saw an episode of the children's comic book adapted animated television series "Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends" (Marvel Productions), which featured the unusual super-villain Video-Man, a mutant born in side computers and equipped with the ability to move in computer wires and shoot deadly electric beams.

Kids today liberally surf the Internet and browse photos on Facebook, while the NSA monitors terrorist hacker activity, making cyber-intelligence the new dominion.

How should teachers present relevant technocrat-exuberance Hollywood (USA) movies such as "WarGames" (1983) in the classroom? What does religion tell us about machines?





WarGames

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

Cyber-Codicil

I saw an episode of the children's comic book adapted animated television series "Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends" (Marvel Productions), which featured the unusual super-villain Video-Man, a mutant born in side computers and equipped with the ability to move in computer wires and shoot deadly electric beams.

Kids today liberally surf the Internet and browse photos on Facebook, while the NSA monitors terrorist hacker activity, making cyber-intelligence the new dominion.

How should teachers present relevant technocrat-exuberance Hollywood (USA) movies such as "WarGames" (1983) in the classroom? What does religion tell us about machines?





WarGames

View attachment 44797

An an atheist, I normally try to be tolerant of other people's religions, but I find it ridiculous when people think that they have the right to force their beliefs on other people, especially when they think that children should not be taught scientifically proven facts just because they deny its validity.

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

An an atheist, I normally try to be tolerant of other people's religions, but I find it ridiculous when people think that they have the right to force their beliefs on other people, especially when they think that children should not be taught scientifically proven facts just because they deny its validity

 

[PhilosphyBeforeParty]

I fond it ridiculous that people think they have the right to force their beliefs on others. children have the right to be taught true, scientifically proven facts in school.

 

[Skylar]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Do schools teach English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages? If so, what purpose does it serve?

The article attached to the OP mentions science as the main opponent of religious education. I believe that teaching religion norms and values is up to the family, not the school. If religious belief is strong with particular kid, he would be able to make a choice by himself, if not, so be it.
English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages definitely have a point and therefore are included in our education system. These subjects help our kids to broaden their worldview, promote emotional intelligence and understanding of different cultures.

Is not religion and it's variations and values important in the grand scheme of things? Does the majority of the world population not practice some form of religion? Has recorded history included wars based on a religion? Has religion changed boundaries and influenced ruling bodies? Are we not presently engaged in the Middle East, partially due to a religion?

How can one separate religion from any society? Do we expect our children and future generations to be ignorant of religion, and how it's played a major role throughout human history? Was freedom of religion a priority so stated in our own Constitution?

Why would we want to avoid such an important subject, and yet teach such subject matter as English literature and evolution? Do we not have religion expressed in music, movies, books, and in international competitions? Why attempt to discount or minimize the importance of religion, yet place inference on such matters as mythology and other subjects in our educational systems?

Humanity indeed will never be able to separate religion from everything else humanity does.
[/quyote]

What does that even mean? Describe 'separating religion from everything else humanity does'? Does that mean purging all humanity of religion? Or by humanity, are you referring to any given individual?

Evolution is a religion, a belief system, as sure as Christianity or Islam, and to ask what good teaching evolution does is a fair question. Of course, a person will argue that there's no such thing as "good", meaning that they'll promote their own belief system.

Evolution is a scientific theory based on the available evidence. Christianity or Islam is a belief system based on a faith and religious conviction. They two use different metrics, measure different things. While each has their place, I'd no more teach Trigonometry in my bible study class than I would teach the Hindu creation myth in a biology class.

As for 'what good teaching evolution does', its a scientific description of the world we live in. It has as much value as any scientific observation.

 

[Skylar]

Kansas educators are on the defensive for teaching science in science classes, with a pro-creationist group accusing them of “indoctrinating” children into an “atheistic faith-based doctrine.”

Creationist Group Kansas Schools Are Indoctrinating Students into Atheism by Teaching Them Science Alternet

Schools are supposed to provide our kids with common knowledge. Science is based on facts and therefore deserves being taught to our children. What is the value of religious education in schools? Religion - in its conservative and sometimes radical forms - indoctrinates children. Science on the contrary provides them with opportunities and choices they will require in the future. The only motivation for religious parents to oppose science lessons is fear to lose religious authority in the eyes of their kids.

Do schools teach English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages? If so, what purpose does it serve?

The article attached to the OP mentions science as the main opponent of religious education. I believe that teaching religion norms and values is up to the family, not the school. If religious belief is strong with particular kid, he would be able to make a choice by himself, if not, so be it.
English literature, Evolution, and Foreign languages definitely have a point and therefore are included in our education system. These subjects help our kids to broaden their worldview, promote emotional intelligence and understanding of different cultures.

Is not religion and it's variations and values important in the grand scheme of things? Does the majority of the world population not practice some form of religion? Has recorded history included wars based on a religion? Has religion changed boundaries and influenced ruling bodies? Are we not presently engaged in the Middle East, partially due to a religion?

How can one separate religion from any society? Do we expect our children and future generations to be ignorant of religion, and how it's played a major role throughout human history? Was freedom of religion a priority so stated in our own Constitution?

Strawman.The OP hasn't proposed separating religion from society.

What the OP has proposed is teaching science in science classes. Which is completely reasonable. Or at least as reasonable as teaching English grammar in an english class or the Bible in a Bible study class.

 

[blunthead]

How can one separate religion from any society? Do we expect our children and future generations to be ignorant of religion, and how it's played a major role throughout human history? Was freedom of religion a priority so stated in our own Constitution?

Why would we want to avoid such an important subject, and yet teach such subject matter as English literature and evolution? Do we not have religion expressed in music, movies, books, and in international competitions? Why attempt to discount or minimize the importance of religion, yet place inference on such matters as mythology and other subjects in our educational systems?

I think you are on the same side as the original poster. If religion is covered in a history or philosophy or literature course; it is entirely appropriate. But in this setting it is also subject to analysis and criticism. The groups referred to in the OP do not want religion to be subject to any criticism (at least not their religion!.
And they want religion to be inappropriately introduced into scientific discussions in biology and cosmology, with the caveat that it be treated as an equal cognitive framework without being subject to the usual scientific scrutiny.

I note that many of the proponents of religion in the classroom are hostile to any religion being there except their own. Fundamentalist Christians show no curiosity or enthusiasm for a study of Buddhism or Islam, which also have significant historical and literary value. The OP referred to "indoctrination". Indoctrination is not education, and any demand to include religion uncritically in a classroom is a display of bad faith and ignorance of the most reprehensible kind.

I really think your personal bias is blinding you to the actual truth which is just the opposite of your claim. It's not the so-called religious people who are on the offensive but the believers in science who are; it's not the religious people demanding that others believe like they do, it's the science believers who can't tolerate the religious.

Anyway, the popular stance by science believers has been to disagree with religious ideas is being replaced by a consensus of scientists in support of things religious people have always said. Soon anyone's knee-jerk anti-religious (especially anti-Christian) certainties will be old hat. This speaks to my objection to science as "theory". Much of it truly is theory as scientifically defined: theory = truth. But science has historically changed its truths and is bound by its own rules to continue to do so. It is ultimately unreliable.

 

[quorthon]

I really think your personal bias is blinding you to the actual truth which is just the opposite of your claim. It's not the so-called religious people who are on the offensive but the believers in science who are; it's not the religious people demanding that others believe like they do, it's the science believers who can't tolerate the religious.

Hahaaa
Why must science believers believe in some religion? There are scientist who search for the proofs of God but they still found nothing.