God not allowed in schools?

BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
God not allowed in schools?

Godtube won't allow me to embed, so  here isa video I just watched. In case GodTube doesn't allow my comment to go up, here it is:

There is SO MUCH wrong with this.
1:Prayer is allowed in school, as is bible reading. It just isn't forced. I went to a prayer/bible study group in school, led by teachers, ever year in hgh school (save one, but I could have done it)
2:Child pornography is neither new nor legal.
3: Most students know "right from wrong" and only a tiny minority kill people at all.
4: Taber, Alberta, is much further west than where it was placed, and further north.
5: It's really silly to think that elected officials allowing people to have sex however they wish (as long as it's consentual) leads to school shootings.

 

Now, my question is, why do christians think that prayer is not allowed in schools? Why do they think these things lead to school shootings?  


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Personally I don't believe

Personally I don't believe prayer should be in schools either.  The belief in God is not an educational subject for public schools.  If it were, then I believe it would be an elective course that teaches all religious studies.  Separation of church and state plain and simple.  God needs to be in the hearts of people (and only God reveals himself to those people) not shoved into someone else's face who would only reject it.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Icebergin
Icebergin's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Do you also believe that

Do you also believe that evolution should be taught in school and theism should have no place in the government of the United States? If so, please convert people to this form of Christianity. Then I could live in peace alongside my thesitic counterparts.

YOU shut the fuck up! WE'LL save America!


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Icebergin wrote:

Icebergin wrote:
Do you also believe that evolution should be taught in school and theism should have no place in the government of the United States? If so, please convert people to this form of Christianity. Then I could live in peace alongside my thesitic counterparts.

I believe it would only be fair if you teach theism, teach the other side as well. I believe that the student should have the CHOICE to listen to both sides, not just one or the other. If you are not going to allow one, do not allow either.

As to theism in government itself, its easy to say that religion has had it's influence in how many laws were formed however having religious objects or statements in government does not need to be there.  There is no need to prove your faith in God by saying "Under God" if you truly believe.  Actions more so than words are what a Christian should be remembered by and, as such, what they are judged by on Earth. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
There was a christian club

There was a christian club in my high school called Pete's Place.

They were sort of nice, except that time some girls from it tried to trick my friends into eating free jell-o and only later they realized they were stuck in a portable with a bunch of people trying to convert them. Imagine 2 cute sorta punky 16 year old girls with mouths full of jell-o and a slightly panicked look in their eyes.

Most of them were very non-confrontational, but quietly judgemental. Very sneery. I ended up working my ****ty retail job years later with one of the girls who was in it. She's pretty cool, other than having a mind virus(Yay, I can be judgemental too, LOL).

But to say prayer, god, bibles are not allowed in school is silly. There was a Wiccan club, a Christian club, a Magic the Gathering club, a Salmon Club, a First Nations club. There was pretty much a club for everything. They used to pray around the flagpole before class. Maybe some schools ban any and all clubs, but I doubt that highly.

[MOD EDIT - removed swear word] 


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
Personally I don't believe prayer should be in schools either. The belief in God is not an educational subject for public schools. If it were, then I believe it would be an elective course that teaches all religious studies. Separation of church and state plain and simple. God needs to be in the hearts of people (and only God reveals himself to those people) not shoved into someone else's face who would only reject it.
I completely agree. (not a surprise)

razorphreak wrote:
I believe it would only be fair if you teach theism, teach the other side as well. I believe that the student should have the CHOICE to listen to both sides, not just one or the other. If you are not going to allow one, do not allow either.
First off, evolution and theism don't necessarily contradict each other, regardless of what the Creationists say. Second, they have that choice. With 80% of your country, and some 70% of mine being christian, and most of the rest being some other form of theist, they can easily get that other side at home. If not, they may pursue their interest in the subject at the local religious facility. Religion has no real academic value, except to study the belief itself, which should be, at best, an elective which studies all 22 of the major world beliefs.

razorphreak wrote:
As to theism in government itself, its easy to say that religion has had it's influence in how many laws were formed however having religious objects or statements in government does not need to be there. There is no need to prove your faith in God by saying "Under God" if you truly believe. Actions more so than words are what a Christian should be remembered by and, as such, what they are judged by on Earth.

I wholly believe in all of this (minus the part about religion having its influence in lawmaking, I don't think any western countries had laws about murder and such just because the bible said it.) You're scaring me, phreaky. Do you actually think that prayer was banned from school, period? Did you ever hold this belief?

GlamourKat wrote:

There was a christian club in my high school called Pete's Place.

They were sort of nice, except that time some girls from it tried to trick my friends into eating free jell-o and only later they realized they were stuck in a portable with a bunch of people trying to convert them. Imagine 2 cute sorta punky 16 year old girls with mouths full of jell-o and a slightly panicked look in their eyes.

Most of them were very non-confrontational, but quietly judgemental. Very sneery. I ended up working my ****ty retail job years later with one of the girls who was in it. She's pretty cool, other than having a mind virus(Yay, I can be judgemental too, LOL).

But to say prayer, god, bibles are not allowed in school is silly. There was a Wiccan club, a Christian club, a Magic the Gathering club, a Salmon Club, a First Nations club. There was pretty much a club for everything. They used to pray around the flagpole before class. Maybe some schools ban any and all clubs, but I doubt that highly.

[MOD EDIT - removed swear word] 

I know all about the quiet judgement...As to the "prayer at the flagpole" thing, that was borne out of the belief that prayer WAS banned in schools. In grades Kindergarten to 7, we had no clubs at all save the sports clubs and a chess club, in Grade 8 I was in a christian private school. In grade 9 and 10 I was in another school, and went to a weekly prayer/bible study session in school. In grade 11 I went to another school, where we actually had a prayer/bible study during lunchtime, but it ended quickly because all the christian students were doing the damned "prayer at the flagpole" thing before school and then hanging out with their friends at lunch. I said "guys, you can not get up so early and do the prayer AND a bible study at lunch with us!" They said "No we can't, prayer's not allowed in schools." I said "Dude, it totally is!" They ignored me. Pretty quickly our leader decided to quit due to low numbers. So praying before school because prayer in school "isn't allowed" actually ended prayer in school. Self fulfilling prophecy, eh? The next year I was in another school where we had a similar bible study/prayer group, and thankfully, no "prayer at the flagpole" or whatever.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Glamor that's really sad

Glamor that's really sad that they'd have to use deception to force others into a conversion session.  I've seen this at tons of churches and what nots and I can't stand that brand of Christanity.  No person can EVER reveal God to someone.  God reveals himself to that person and this person will seek God out by going to a church or whatever.  This in your face approach comes off as hostile and anything with the slightest sense of hate will only cause hatred in return.

Yes there are clubs at school but it is not educators teaching it when school is in session.  I personally believe that high school students can and should be taught creationism but at the same time have evolution waiting in the wings as part of the same class.  You want to remove bias it's almost about the only way to do it - teach both or none at all.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
Personally I don't believe prayer should be in schools either.  The belief in God is not an educational subject for public schools.  If it were, then I believe it would be an elective course that teaches all religious studies.  Separation of church and state plain and simple.  God needs to be in the hearts of people (and only God reveals himself to those people) not shoved into someone else's face who would only reject it.

Right on, Razor!  It always amazes me that religious people don't realize that separation of church and state is beneficial to them as well, since all religions are protected by it as well.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Glamor

razorphreak wrote:

Glamor that's really sad that they'd have to use deception to force others into a conversion session. I've seen this at tons of churches and what nots and I can't stand that brand of Christanity. No person can EVER reveal God to someone. God reveals himself to that person and this person will seek God out by going to a church or whatever. This in your face approach comes off as hostile and anything with the slightest sense of hate will only cause hatred in return.

Yes there are clubs at school but it is not educators teaching it when school is in session. I personally believe that high school students can and should be taught creationism but at the same time have evolution waiting in the wings as part of the same class. You want to remove bias it's almost about the only way to do it - teach both or none at all.

But creationism isn't a science. That's the thing. Teachers are required to at least mention that religious people often reject evolution (not like they really need to) and that creationism is an alternative, but the fact is that evolution is a fact. I don't want my kids learning anything but facts in school. Should we have kids learn the Flat Earth Society's point of view as well? What about the alternative religious "origin" stories? One that varies heavily from the Abrahamic story is the Jainist view, which teaches a cyclical universe that destroys itself and is rebuilt with only a few (the Jainists) knowing of it. Should that be taught as well, to eliminate bias?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote: But

BenfromCanada wrote:
But creationism isn't a science. That's the thing. Teachers are required to at least mention that religious people often reject evolution (not like they really need to) and that creationism is an alternative, but the fact is that evolution is a fact. I don't want my kids learning anything but facts in school. Should we have kids learn the Flat Earth Society's point of view as well? What about the alternative religious "origin" stories? One that varies heavily from the Abrahamic story is the Jainist view, which teaches a cyclical universe that destroys itself and is rebuilt with only a few (the Jainists) knowing of it. Should that be taught as well, to eliminate bias?

I don't want to start a creationism vs. evolution debate.  Whichever is right or wrong, BOTH should not be taught as science but as humanities type class since neither are 100% accepted as being 100% fact.  If you want to teach one the other should be taught as it's opposite.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: I don't

razorphreak wrote:

I don't want to start a creationism vs. evolution debate. Whichever is right or wrong, BOTH should not be taught as science but as humanities type class since neither are 100% accepted as being 100% fact. If you want to teach one the other should be taught as it's opposite.

Well, since evolution is based on science, it should be taught as such. Since Creationism is a religion, if it's to be taught (and I don't think it should be) it should be taught in a Humanities type class, as a religious idea, rather than theory or fact. However, I'll pose the question again: Why not teach the Jainist view too? Or perhaps the Taoist view, that everything comes from the Tao, which isn't a sentient being but is all around us, is immortal, and created us some time ago? I'd think that if you wish to teach one religion's creation story for the sake of balance, you should teach all of them. And that just might take too much time, if it were to also be taught next to an extensive and complex theory like evolution.


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

BenfromCanada wrote:
But creationism isn't a science. That's the thing. Teachers are required to at least mention that religious people often reject evolution (not like they really need to) and that creationism is an alternative, but the fact is that evolution is a fact. I don't want my kids learning anything but facts in school. Should we have kids learn the Flat Earth Society's point of view as well? What about the alternative religious "origin" stories? One that varies heavily from the Abrahamic story is the Jainist view, which teaches a cyclical universe that destroys itself and is rebuilt with only a few (the Jainists) knowing of it. Should that be taught as well, to eliminate bias?

I don't want to start a creationism vs. evolution debate. Whichever is right or wrong, BOTH should not be taught as science but as humanities type class since neither are 100% accepted as being 100% fact. If you want to teach one the other should be taught as it's opposite.

 

Unfortunately, evolution and creationism are not equal theories, not even close.  Saying that creationism and evolution should be taught together, is like saying that a flat-Earth model should be taught alongside a round-Earth model.  Creationsim is not science, it is pseudoscience/anti-science, and does not belong in a science classroom (if anything, it belongs in a Religion class).


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote: Well,

BenfromCanada wrote:
Well, since evolution is based on science, it should be taught as such.

Ah yes of course and science is never wrong.  You know I hate to say this but you sound just as bad as other theists who scream "Creation is correct because we said so".  

As to the point you made about other religions, why not?  Thing i, which are the big two completing ideas?  Why wouldn't it be about what the biggest belief is (God) and its opposite (evolution) and present both sides as to our beginnings.  Let the student have available both sides.

My point has been from the beginning, if you do not want to teach both, teach neither. 

Piper2000ca wrote:
Unfortunately, evolution and creationism are not equal theories, not even close. Saying that creationism and evolution should be taught together, is like saying that a flat-Earth model should be taught alongside a round-Earth model. Creationsim is not science, it is pseudoscience/anti-science, and does not belong in a science classroom (if anything, it belongs in a Religion class).

That's what I've been saying however I'm saying the same thing for evolution.  Because people cannot agree if that's even a science (the proof can be disputed but again that is not the purpose of this thread so please don't try going there), this is why they both belong as a humanities class.  If you don't agree then I would not support teaching either in any classroom of public schools.  Leave it for college and allow the education of public schools to be classical in nature.

As to your flat/round Earth analogy, aren't they being taught now?  They are both presented in schools so students can understand both points of view but the round will always win because we've already physically proved it wrong.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:

Piper2000ca wrote:
Unfortunately, evolution and creationism are not equal theories, not even close. Saying that creationism and evolution should be taught together, is like saying that a flat-Earth model should be taught alongside a round-Earth model. Creationsim is not science, it is pseudoscience/anti-science, and does not belong in a science classroom (if anything, it belongs in a Religion class).


That's what I've been saying however I'm saying the same thing for evolution. Because people cannot agree if that's even a science (the proof can be disputed but again that is not the purpose of this thread so please don't try going there), this is why they both belong as a humanities class. If you don't agree then I would not support teaching either in any classroom of public schools. Leave it for college and allow the education of public schools to be classical in nature.


Evolution isn't a science? razorphreak, I think you need to speak to more scientists, and those who have studied Palaeontology and evolution in university (like myself). You might as well say that we shuoldn't teach the theory of relativity. Not only do we have evidence for evolution from multiple points (palaeontology, genetics, etc.), we can see it ourselves in real time. A good example of this is disease resident bacteria, many of which have formed new sub-species over just a few decades. Another example is species we have domesticated, many of which have over time to become completely new species (ie. wolfs into dogs, etc.).

We don't have anything like this for creationism (unless you include bronze-age scriblings).

razorphreak wrote:

As to your flat/round Earth analogy, aren't they being taught now? They are both presented in schools so students can understand both points of view but the round will always win because we've already physically proved it wrong.


They do of course mention that people used to think the Earth was flat, but it isn't presented as a legitimate scientific theory. If you want to say in schools "Before we knew about evolution, people used to think that we were all created in a few days." That's fine, I'm all for that, as long as it isn't presented as legitimate science.


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
See, I'm all for teaching

See, I'm all for teaching religion in schools. But I want Christianity on an even keel with all the other religions. Creationism is not "the opposite" of evolution or big bang theory. It's more like someone waiting in the wings in the theatre made up of every single creation story.

How would most people feel if they taught this story as fact in school? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Pan Gu and Nü Wa

      Long, long ago, when heaven and earth were still one, the entire universe was contained in an egg-shaped cloud. All the matter of the universe swirled chaotically in that egg. Deep within the swirling matter was Pan Gu, a huge giant who grew in the chaos. For 18,000 years he developed and slept in the egg. Finally one day he awoke and stretched, and the egg broke to release the matter of the universe. The lighter purer elements drifted upwards to make the sky and heavens, and the heavier impure elements settled downwards to make the earth.

      In the midst of this new world, Pan Gu worried that heaven and earth might mix again; so he resolved to hold them apart, with the heavens on his head and the earth under his feet. As the two continued to separate, Pan Gu grew to hold them apart. For 18,000 years he continued to grow, until the heavens were 30,000 miles above the earth. For much longer he continued to hold the two apart, fearing the retun of the chaos of his youth. Finally he realized they were stable, and soon after that he died.

      With the immense giant's death, the earth took on new character. His arms and legs became the four directions and the moutains. His blood became the rivers, and his sweat became the rain and dew. His voice became the thunder, and his breath became the winds. His hair became the grass, and his veins became the roads and paths. His teeth and bones became the minerals and rocks, and his flesh became the soil of the fields. Up above, his left eye became the sun, and his right eye became the moon. Thus in death, as in life, Pan Gu made the world as it is today.

      Many centuries later, there was a goddess named Nü Wa who roamed this wild world that Pan Gu had left behind, and she became lonely in her solitude. Stopping by a pond to rest, she saw her reflection and realized that there was nothing like herself in the world. She resolved to make something like herself for company.

      From the edge of the pond she took some mud and shaped it in the form of a human being. At first her creation was lifeless, and she set it down. It took life as soon as it touched the soil, however, and soon the human was dancing and celebrating its new life. Pleased with her creation, Nü Wa made more of them, and soon her loneliness disappeared in the crowd of little humans around her. For two days she made them, and still she wanted to make more. Finaly she pulled down a long vine and dragged it through the mud, and then she swung the vine through the air. Droplets of mud flew everywhere and, when they fell, they became more humans that were nearly as perfect as the ones she had made by hand. Soon she had spread humans over the whole world. The ones she made by hand became the aristocrats, and the ones she made with the vine became the poor common people.

      Even then, Nü Wa realized that her work was incomplete, because as her creations died she would have to make more. She solved this problem by dividing the humans into male and female, so that they could reproduce and save her from having to make new humans to break her solitude.

      Many years later, Pan Gu's greatest fear came true. The heavens collapsed so that there were holes in the sky, and the earth cracked, letting water rush from below to flood the earth. At other places, fire sprang forth from the earth, and everywhere wild beasts emerged from the forests to prey on the people. Nü Wa drove the beasts back and healed the earth. To fix the sky, she took stones of many colors from the river and built a fire in which she melted them. She used the molten rock to patch the holes in the sky, and she used the four legs of a giant turtle to support the sky again. Exhausted by her labors, she soon lay down to die and, like Pan Gu, from her body came many more features to adorn the world that she had restored.

Jan Walls and Yvonne Walls (translators and editors), 1984, Classical Chinese Myths: Hong Kong, Joint Publishing Company, 135 p. (BL1825.C48 1984)  


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Piper2000ca

Piper2000ca wrote:
Evolution isn't a science? razorphreak, I think you need to speak to more scientists, and those who have studied Palaeontology and evolution in university (like myself).

Would I be on this forum if I didn't study both sides? What kind of fool do you take me for. Oh wait you are biased so I know the answer...

Piper2000ca wrote:
You might as well say that we shuoldn't teach the theory of relativity.

I'm not talking about other theories, I'm talking about evolution. Don't change the subject because this is not about the title of "theory" at all.

Piper2000ca wrote:
Not only do we have evidence for evolution from multiple points (palaeontology, genetics, etc.), we can see it ourselves in real time. A good example of this is disease resident bacteria, many of which have formed new sub-species over just a few decades. Another example is species we have domesticated, many of which have over time to become completely new species (ie. wolfs into dogs, etc.).

Science will claim new "subspecies" all day long but in the end they are cross breeds or the same species with different colored eyes (are we different human beings because one has red eyes or another has blue hair?...oh hey GlamorKat!!). Evolution is the title given on the explanation of how life changes. Hell I could use it to describe the product line of cookware at Bed, Bath, and Beyond when comparing last years models to this years. It however is also the title given to how life began, one that can be put into question that has no effective answer than "well this is what we believe happened" or "this is our explanation" and this is the part that is the direct opposite to creation hence creating the humanity portion to which cannot be taught as "science".

Piper2000ca wrote:
We don't have anything like this for creationism (unless you include bronze-age scriblings).

That so? OK guess we can't effectively explain the purpose of genders either since, from the start, things naturally evolved, split apart from each other, right? I'm being generalistic again...don't want you going ape crazy over that statement (haha ape, get it?).

Piper2000ca wrote:
If you want to say in schools "Before we knew about evolution, people used to think that we were all created in a few days." That's fine, I'm all for that, as long as it isn't presented as legitimate science.

Then you wouldn't mind the other stating "As you've heard the so called experts tell you how you started as a fish, let me tell you how you came to be from the creator".

And we can go all day long debating the legitimacy of the evidence, of the processes in which the evidence was found, what it represents, and get into who wrote the bible, the legitimacy of who the witnesses were, and so on. My point here is both sides have equal state in the "where did we come from?" question and whether you want to call one science or not, your bias cannot deny that both sides would require equal time in the classroom for support of their ideas.

Which brings me right back to what I keep saying...you want to teach the bible? OK teach evolution. You want evolution? OK teach the bible. But simply put because both can be considered "pseudoscience" depending on who you talk to, have them both on level playing fields.

GlamourKat wrote:
See, I'm all for teaching religion in schools. But I want Christianity on an even keel with all the other religions. Creationism is not "the opposite" of evolution or big bang theory. It's more like someone waiting in the wings in the theatre made up of every single creation story.

Glamor, I'd be all for it. Creation vs. evolution are direct opposites however in the origin of the species. While I don't have a problem if you wanted to make a full religious studies course, I think perhaps if evolution were to be taught as science, it would have to be taught from recorded history onward, not before, and that parts before would be taught as creation is taught - theory in humanities.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Glamor,

razorphreak wrote:

Glamor, I'd be all for it. Creation vs. evolution are direct opposites however in the origin of the species. While I don't have a problem if you wanted to make a full religious studies course, I think perhaps if evolution were to be taught as science, it would have to be taught from recorded history onward, not before, and that parts before would be taught as creation is taught - theory in humanities.

Well, Origin of Species is like 200 years old, and I'm pretty sure we've come a ways from that. Wink And plus, science is really the class they should be addressing evolution as it's SO ingrained in scientific techniques. It wouldn't make sense to teach evolution in a  humanities or history class. Most of the basic ideas require at least a basic science education. MAYBE if you taught a full semester of Science, and THEN the evolution unit in Humanities or whatever. It just makes more SENSE the way we have it now. It would be like teaching algebra in english class because there are letters in it.

At any rate, I wish he'd had a Comparative Religions course at my high school, though, I would DEFINATELY have taken it. 

P.S. It's spelled Glamour(I'm Canadian), or just Kat if you prefer, as Kat's my actual name. Thanks. Laughing


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
GlamourKat wrote: MAYBE if

GlamourKat wrote:
MAYBE if you taught a full semester of Science, and THEN the evolution unit in Humanities or whatever. It just makes more SENSE the way we have it now.

Perhaps.  I might go with that idea.

GlamourKat wrote:
P.S. It's spelled Glamour(I'm Canadian), or just Kat if you prefer, as Kat's my actual name. Thanks. Laughing

Sorry luv.  Never won any spelling bee's in school...I depend way too much on spell checkers. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Ah yes

razorphreak wrote:

Ah yes of course and science is never wrong. You know I hate to say this but you sound just as bad as other theists who scream "Creation is correct because we said so".

Well, the main difference is, evolution has a lot more evidence one can point to other than "because we said so."

As for science never being wrong, nobody claims it is, and if science finds something wrong with the theory of evolution, then the theory will change. While science cannot yet prove definitively that the creation story is wrong, many parts of the creation account HAVE been proven to be unequivocally false, yet creationists never alter their story.

Quote:
As to the point you made about other religions, why not? Thing i, which are the big two completing ideas? Why wouldn't it be about what the biggest belief is (God) and its opposite (evolution) and present both sides as to our beginnings. Let the student have available both sides.

Because, 1) they are not two "sides" to a story. Evolution offers no argument as to the origins of life. 2) By definition, there is nothing scientific about god or religion, and your belief that evolution belongs in a humanities class is the definition of asinine.

Quote:
My point has been from the beginning, if you do not want to teach both, teach neither.

Complete nonsense, especially in light of the fact that apparently you dont even know what the theory of evolution says.

Piper2000ca wrote:
Unfortunately, evolution and creationism are not equal theories, not even close. Saying that creationism and evolution should be taught together, is like saying that a flat-Earth model should be taught alongside a round-Earth model. Creationsim is not science, it is pseudoscience/anti-science, and does not belong in a science classroom (if anything, it belongs in a Religion class).

Quote:
That's what I've been saying however I'm saying the same thing for evolution. Because people cannot agree if that's even a science (the proof can be disputed but again that is not the purpose of this thread so please don't try going there),

This is absolutely false. The only people that dont agree are theists that are ignorant, stubborn or scared. Period. That evolution is scientific is not even a DEBATE amongst any other types of people in the world.

Quote:
this is why they both belong as a humanities class. If you don't agree then I would not support teaching either in any classroom of public schools. Leave it for college and allow the education of public schools to be classical in nature.

This is nonsense, and this attitude is part of the reason why american kids continue to get dumber as products of our educational system. Over a hundred years of testing and re-testing. Countless pieces of evidence unearthed to back it up. Held up to scrutiny challenge after challenge. This(meaning the theory of evolution), razorphreak, is the very DEFINITION of science, and for you not to acknowledge that speaks volumes.

Quote:
As to your flat/round Earth analogy, aren't they being taught now? They are both presented in schools so students can understand both points of view but the round will always win because we've already physically proved it wrong.

No, one is being taught(round), whereas the other(flat) is referenced as an example of how science continues to test theories and alters them as more facts become evident. It is also used as an example of what happens when theocratic leaders put adherence to dogma ahead of the pursuit of truth, and that's exactly what you're doing by discounting the firm foundation on which evolutionary theory stands.

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
~ ~ ~ REMINDER for those

~ ~ ~ REMINDER for those that are entering for the first time ~ ~ ~

This is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum.

No swearing.  No insults.  No name-calling. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak

razorphreak wrote:
GlamourKat wrote:
MAYBE if you taught a full semester of Science, and THEN the evolution unit in Humanities or whatever. It just makes more SENSE the way we have it now.

Perhaps. I might go with that idea.

 

razorphreak - I love you!  Really - I may not always agree with you but I love you.  This would be a great way to teach both concepts, except.....

(Warning:  I am not a science-type person)  The only problem I see is that evolution does not answer the question of the start of life.  Therefore, I do not think both theories can be taught side-by-side.  There are scientific hypotheses that address this and could be taught alongside creationism, but evolution isn't one of them.  As far as I know.  And I know very little about science.

 My point is that all viewpoints should be taught, my concern is that they be taught from an unbiased source.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 When I was in Highschool,

 When I was in Highschool, I was taught the specific cases. I think the education system should move to a broader scale of HOW to think. How to analyize evolution and other scienctific problems. And realize that because they're gaps in evolution doesn't mean that it's wrong.

 Ex. When I took first year physics, they had a section on kinematics (rotation, momentum, Kinetic energy etc..), but they were for very specific problems.

Then the year after, when I took analytical mechanics, I learned the way it was actually done, I had trouble since I wasn't taught HOW to apporach kinematic problems on the general scale. They just said: "In this situation use this formula" but in analytical mechanics I had to derieve my own damn formulas! The prof said "I will write down the only formula you have to know F=ma"

I think it should be taught where these theories come from so they can have a better understanding of what it means and why it is more than a mere 'theory'

 

Just my two cents.

 


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

Ah yes of course and science is never wrong. You know I hate to say this but you sound just as bad as other theists who scream "Creation is correct because we said so".

I never said either of these, only that evolution IS a science, and that Creationism is not. As a science, evolution is taught as a theory (that is, hypothesis which fits all the facts and has been tested and retested enough to be to be considered true, given what we know) because it is one. Creationism in school would have to be taught as the religion it is, because it cannot, and has not, been tested as a science.

razorphreak wrote:
As to the point you made about other religions, why not? Thing i, which are the big two completing ideas? Why wouldn't it be about what the biggest belief is (God) and its opposite (evolution) and present both sides as to our beginnings. Let the student have available both sides.

My point has been from the beginning, if you do not want to teach both, teach neither.

Ignoring the spelling errors, you have a few problems here. First off, most who adhere to religion have abandoned the idea of "Creationism being taught in schools" opting for either Intelligent Design (which is a more science-y pseudoscience than Creationism, though not by a whole lot) or just evolution. Next, Creationism is the opposite of evolution, truly, but it doesn't matter. Why is this? because, if we were to teach opposing views that have been proven wrong, we'd teach a lot more nonsense in our schools. We'd teach Holocaust Denial next to mainline World War 2 history, Armenian Genocide denial next to mainline World War 1 history, and Flat Earthism next to Round Earth theory. We'd teach that the Sun revolves around the Earth as well as the Earth revolving around the Sun, and next to our theory that viruses and bacteria cause disease, we'd teach that sin causes disease. We'd also teach alchemy next to chemistry. Just because the worldviews are opposite does not mean they are equal. Just because these are the 2 biggest beliefs does not mean that both, or either, are valid opinions.

razorphreak wrote:
That's what I've been saying however I'm saying the same thing for evolution. Because people cannot agree if that's even a science (the proof can be disputed but again that is not the purpose of this thread so please don't try going there), this is why they both belong as a humanities class. If you don't agree then I would not support teaching either in any classroom of public schools. Leave it for college and allow the education of public schools to be classical in nature.
Now, because people don't agree, does that make it true? Have you ever told a truth and had people believe it was a lie? Does having people not believe it make it a lie? Have you ever told a lie and had people believe it? Does their belief make your lie a truth? In other words, people not agreeing that evolution is fact does not make it not so. The fact that it has been tested (we see newer strains of bacteria and virus evolving very regularly, thus proving that it happens in nature, and we have fossil records to confirm that it has happened in larger things, thus it works in larger things as well. We've never had any legitimate disproof of evolution that can be tested or verified. When/if that happens, it must be tested AND verified before we can abandon evolution, and until we abandon evolution, there's no reason to teach anything else as equal to evolution. You guys already have the best you can hope for in a non-theocratic state, that is, biology teachers admitting that some people don't believe in evolution.

As for all religions being taught, fine. However, in high school, this is hardly feasible. One would have to create not one, but two very intense elective courses. One would be "religions we currently believe in" which would presumably cover the 22 major world beliefs that have other half a million adherents, including religious beliefs that aren't actually religions (like atheism, Juche and Unitarianism) but probably discounting Scientology since there's proof they are less than 500,000 in number despite their stated numbers. (Opponents of Scientology have shown that they are using dead Scientologists and ex-Scientologists to inflate their numbers). The other course would be "religions we don't believe in anymore" which would include some religions that people actually DO believe in, like Greek polytheism and Norse polytheism, as well as Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and various others. It would simply take far too much time to be fair to all of them.

razorphreak wrote:
As to your flat/round Earth analogy, aren't they being taught now? They are both presented in schools so students can understand both points of view but the round will always win because we've already physically proved it wrong.

Why would round win because it was proved wrong? Oh, wait, I see your point. However, the fact is that religious people would (and, in fact, are) angered when creationism is debunked in high school classes by evolutionists. If you are asking for them to both be taught, and realizing that the stronger view always wins, you're asking for exactly this. Now, of course, in the hands of a theistic teacher, evolution will lose due to a poor treatment. Likewise, atheists will not take creationism seriously, and it will often show. When taught equally by someone who understands both theories and is willing to give the one they disagree with a fair chance (and these people do exist), evolution would win. And the schools would be sued by enraged christian parents. This is a problem. Thus, as much as we'd both like Creationism to be taught next to evolution (you to attack evolution, me to destroy Creationism's fanbase) this would not end well, especially in the Bible Belt.

EDIT: You still haven't answered whether or not you believe God is not legally allowed in schools, or whether or not you ever believed this. 


FreeThoughtMake...
Superfan
FreeThoughtMakesMeTingle's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-14
User is offlineOffline
First of all *spits out

First of all *spits out sode on my poor keyboard* ...... there is a Godtube?! Seriously?! O_O Second ahahahahahaha there's a Godtube.

 

This video is sooooooo whack lol. And wth@  let's let our daughters get abortions if they want and they don't have to tell their parents and I think it's a grand idea.

 

The person who put that video together blew too much out of proportion... what a crock o' caca. -_- 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Religion at BEST - is like a lift in your shoe. If you need it for a while, and it makes you walk straight and feel better - fine. But you don't need it forever, or you can become permanently disabled.

---George Carlin---


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
You know Ben after reading

You know Ben after reading your very lengthy post, I began to wonder if you've read this thread in it's entirety.

After thinking about this post some, and JCE's really surprising post, I've got a question for you and all; would you support teaching evolution as a science only in what we can accurately document from recorded history and leave the origins of species, the answer to creationism if you will, to humanities to be taught along side creationism, in a "both sides of the coin" type class (Kat's idea)?

BenfromCanada wrote:
You still haven't answered whether or not you believe God is not legally allowed in schools, or whether or not you ever believed this.

Umm perhaps you missed my very FIRST post where I directly stated my position.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote:

razorphreak wrote:

You know Ben after reading your very lengthy post, I began to wonder if you've read this thread in it's entirety.

I only skimmed the parts that weren't directly involving me by directly responding to something I said.

razorphreak wrote:
After thinking about this post some, and JCE's really surprising post, I've got a question for you and all; would you support teaching evolution as a science only in what we can accurately document from recorded history and leave the origins of species, the answer to creationism if you will, to humanities to be taught along side creationism, in a "both sides of the coin" type class (Kat's idea)?
I don't see why not, except that we know this would also cause some controversy, as evolution would still be taught.
razorphreak wrote:

Umm perhaps you missed my very FIRST post where I directly stated my position.

You stated that mandatory prayer should NOT be in schools, I asked if you thought it was ILLEGAL to pray in schools, at all, and if you ever thought that. Because that is what a lot of christians claim, and that is what is implied by the video I posted. I'm more interested in the "did you ever think that" part, because it's evident you're too smart to believe that now, if you ever did.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote: I

BenfromCanada wrote:
I don't see why not, except that we know this would also cause some controversy, as evolution would still be taught.

Of course.  You have to be able to change attitudes and the majority unfortunately are not easy to correct, from any vantage point.

BenfromCanada wrote:
You stated that mandatory prayer should NOT be in schools, I asked if you thought it was ILLEGAL to pray in schools, at all, and if you ever thought that. Because that is what a lot of christians claim, and that is what is implied by the video I posted. I'm more interested in the "did you ever think that" part, because it's evident you're too smart to believe that now, if you ever did.

Honestly I've never thought the way that video showed "Christians".  That thing is far too radical for me, like the Westboro Baptists.

In my opinion, I don't believe it should be illegal as in against the law.  I don't think it belongs in public school because that's not the place of worship.  Thing is however if a person feels the need to pray before his or her meal, to pray with someone who asked, or to offer prayer outside the classroom, I don't see anything wrong with that so long as it's not like that scenario that Kat talked about where a group offered free jello or whatever and began trying to convert someone who didn't want to be there. 

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Of

razorphreak wrote:

Of course. You have to be able to change attitudes and the majority unfortunately are not easy to correct, from any vantage point.

That is changing, though. I'm for the status quo, which will eventually change the minds of the majority, I hope. Isn't it true that a majority of U.S.A. citizens don't believe in evolution? That's absolutely nuts, and it has to change.

razorphreak wrote:

Honestly I've never thought the way that video showed "Christians". That thing is far too radical for me, like the Westboro Baptists.

I used to believe that. I'm quite ashamed of it.

razorphreak wrote:

In my opinion, I don't believe it should be illegal as in against the law. I don't think it belongs in public school because that's not the place of worship. Thing is however if a person feels the need to pray before his or her meal, to pray with someone who asked, or to offer prayer outside the classroom, I don't see anything wrong with that so long as it's not like that scenario that Kat talked about where a group offered free jello or whatever and began trying to convert someone who didn't want to be there.

You and I are in complete agreement here.


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote: That

BenfromCanada wrote:
That is changing, though. I'm for the status quo, which will eventually change the minds of the majority, I hope. Isn't it true that a majority of U.S.A. citizens don't believe in evolution? That's absolutely nuts, and it has to change.

I think it's a matter of presentation.  I do not believe in the origins belief as I do believe in God and creation.  As to using science to explain how the flu strain changes over the years, that evolution I study and accept (though I never called it "evolution" per say but rather simply mutation since it is in the nature of a virus to do so thanks to man aiding in the DNA make up of the virus with antibiotics).

As I was saying before, calling evolution the study of how life works can be accepted as science without bias and with full support of a Christian outside the whole origins debate.  

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Piper2000ca
Piper2000ca's picture
Posts: 138
Joined: 2006-12-27
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: Would I

razorphreak wrote:

Would I be on this forum if I didn't study both sides?


You wouldn't be the first person.

razorphreak wrote:

What kind of fool do you take me for. Oh wait you are biased so I know the answer...


What kind of fool do I take you for? Well, this is the "kill 'em with kindness" forum, so I will bite my tongue for that answer. As for being biased, I don't think so, but I'm not going to bother with that, because I want to get back to this debate.

razorphreak wrote:

I'm not talking about other theories, I'm talking about evolution. Don't change the subject because this is not about the title of "theory" at all.


I'm not changing the subject, I'm providing an example. As for what this is about, it is about what belongs in a science class, and what belongs in a religion class. "Theories" belong in a science class, and that's where evolution (like relativity) belongs.

razorphreak wrote:

Science will claim new "subspecies" all day long but in the end they are cross breeds or the same species with different colored eyes (are we different human beings because one has red eyes or another has blue hair?...oh hey GlamorKat!!).


No, sub-species are more greatly separated then simple breeds (and tons more then colored eyes). Different sub-species of animals are genetically different enough to group together into separate "pools" of animals, but still close enough to breed offspring that can breed themselves. When these pools of animals are different enough that they can't produce fertile offspring between them (like a dog and wolf, they can have puppies together, but those puppies will grow up to be infertile, and unable to breed), or simply unable to breed at all, they become different species.

razorphreak wrote:

Evolution is the title given on the explanation of how life changes. Hell I could use it to describe the product line of cookware at Bed, Bath, and Beyond when comparing last years models to this years.


Yes you could, but nobody is arguing that.

razorphreak wrote:

It however is also the title given to how life began, one that can be put into question that has no effective answer than "well this is what we believe happened" or "this is our explanation" and this is the part that is the direct opposite to creation hence creating the humanity portion to which cannot be taught as "science".


Evolution is not about how life began. It is about how we started from simple origins, to more complex ones. It does not address the origin of life (That's covered by abiogenesis).

The problem with simply saying "well this is what we believe happened", is that evolution (or abiogenesis for that matter) is not some simple belief. It is much more correct to say "This is what the evidence led us to conclude."

razorphreak wrote:

That so? OK guess we can't effectively explain the purpose of genders either since, from the start, things naturally evolved, split apart from each other, right? I'm being generalistic again...don't want you going ape crazy over that statement (haha ape, get it?).


Actually we do have theories on the formation of genders. Many species of bacteria (singular and multi-cellular) will share genetic material between each other before splitting (which allows for greatly genetic variation, and quicker evolution, giving them a genetic advantage over bacteria that can't). This is actually a very simple process, as bacteria already have the ability to pass material in and out of their cellular walls (this is for consuming nutrients and expelling waste), the ability to transmit DNA/RNA between them is a simple variation of this.

From what we can tell, sexual reproduction started out like this, and then as evolution sped up because of this and more complex species began to evolve, many species began having distinct genders form which allowed for an even greater amount of genetic exchange, and even quicker evolution (resulting in the "Cambrian explosion" as it is often referred to). This idea is supported by the fact that during the time of the Cambrian explosion and afterwards we see tons of species with sexual-dimorphism (physical differences between males and females), but before it we don't. Needless to say, there is still much we don't know or understand yet, but jumping to a "creator" to explain this is just going to lead you to a "God of the Gaps."

razorphreak wrote:

Then you wouldn't mind the other stating "As you've heard the so called experts tell you how you started as a fish, let me tell you how you came to be from the creator".


Yes, I would mind, because you are suggesting that creationism is equal to evolution as a legitimate theory, and by degrading scientists be calling them "so-called experts" and glorifying your idea, you are only appealing to peoples emotions.

razorphreak wrote:

And we can go all day long debating the legitimacy of the evidence, of the processes in which the evidence was found, what it represents, and get into who wrote the bible, the legitimacy of who the witnesses were, and so on.


I'm game.

razorphreak wrote:

My point here is both sides have equal state in the "where did we come from?" question and whether you want to call one science or not, your bias cannot deny that both sides would require equal time in the classroom for support of their ideas.


All right, let's compare evolution and creationism:

Evolution Christian-Creationism
Based on observations that we can see around us Based on a bronze-age text filled with errors and scientific impossibilities
Science Pseudoscience/Anti-science
Supported by evidence Contradicted by evidence
Looks for mistakes in itself Thinks its perfect, and looks for mistakes in other theories
When faced with problems, it looks back to nature to find the correct answers When faced with problems, ignores them and says its right anyways
Researched by experts who delight in finding the truth, even if it proves them completely wrong Researched by those who delight only in the same bronze-age text that makes the initial claim
Research is peer-reviewed, and deeply scrutinized No peer-reviewed process, and lack of scrutiny
Advances itself by encouraging other to embrace truth and knowledge Advances itself by political maneuvering, and encouraging others to shut out the truth with faith

 

And what about other forms of creationism? You conveniently say (or at least have implied) that Christian Creationism is equal to evolution, but what about other creation stories? Should we tell people that we may have come out of a clam opened by a mischievous raven like the Haida say? Should we tell people that Allah created us? What about all those Greek stories? How about the Raëlians, they believe in the exact same creation story that's in the bible. Of course there is one small difference, they think it was aliens instead of a god. Chances are, you are cringing at the idea of children being taught that they were created by aliens (I don't blame you, it's an idea that I would cringe at too).

The reason that none of this stories belong in a science class, is that they all lack evidence. Just like Christian-Creationism. All of these ideas are merely the result of people not understanding how they got there, trying to explain that, and it being passed down as tradition (Just like the Christian creation story). These stories are wonderful topics to discuss in something like Anthropology, Religion, or world-studies, but they are not science. Evolution, like relativity or gravity, is science, and that is why it belongs in a science classroom.

razorphreak wrote:
Which brings me right back to what I keep saying...you want to teach the bible? OK teach evolution. You want evolution? OK teach the bible. But simply put because both can be considered "pseudoscience" depending on who you talk to, have them both on level playing fields.


I'm all for teaching both the bible and evolution, they just don't belong in the same classroom. Evolution belongs in a science classroom, and the bible (like any other religious text) belongs in a religion class.

As for evolution being a pseudoscience, see the above table.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote: That

BenfromCanada wrote:
That is changing, though. I'm for the status quo, which will eventually change the minds of the majority, I hope. Isn't it true that a majority of U.S.A. citizens don't believe in evolution? That's absolutely nuts, and it has to change.

I am not sure, but I do not think this is true. I grew up in middle America and was taught evolution...'course that was some time ago but from what my children tell me it is still being taught. I will re-read this thread...I think I may have missed something.

razorphreak wrote:
I think it's a matter of presentation. I do not believe in the origins belief as I do believe in God and creation. As to using science to explain how the flu strain changes over the years, that evolution I study and accept (though I never called it "evolution" per say but rather simply mutation since it is in the nature of a virus to do so thanks to man aiding in the DNA make up of the virus with antibiotics).

As I was saying before, calling evolution the study of how life works can be accepted as science without bias and with full support of a Christian outside the whole origins debate.

Yes, I would agree with this. I do not think evolution adequately answers the question of origin of life, but it should be taught as science because of the technology used and the evidence available to support the theory. There are scientific theories that address origin of life but to date they have not found supporting evidence. These should be taught alongside creationism in a humanities class.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: I am not sure,

jce wrote:

I am not sure, but I do not think this is true. I grew up in middle America and was taught evolution...'course that was some time ago but from what my children tell me it is still being taught. I will re-read this thread...I think I may have missed something.

48%. That's sad.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/31/newsweek-poll-48-of-americans-dont-believe-in-evolution/

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh wrote: jce

Roisin Dubh wrote:
jce wrote:

I am not sure, but I do not think this is true. I grew up in middle America and was taught evolution...'course that was some time ago but from what my children tell me it is still being taught. I will re-read this thread...I think I may have missed something.

48%. That's sad.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/31/newsweek-poll-48-of-americans-dont-believe-in-evolution/

Sad indeed!  America does a remarkably poor job educating children...in everything.  Just because I am nosy I looked for comparison stats to other countries.  The results were even more disheartening...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
I think that video is

I think that video is wonderful. It just needs to be paired with a set of statistics that is actually relevant. The question at the start shouldn't be "why did freaks decide to act in bizarre ways and kill people." It should be "why are incidences of crime and violence among young people lower today than at any time since we started measuring?"

"We reap what we sow" indeed. Since WWII we have sown, mostly, a culture based on rationalism, secularism, civil rights and science. Today we are reaping a peaceful, prosperous society. Too bad some people are bent on hijacking that culture and taking it back to the bad old days.  

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote: Sad indeed!

jce wrote:
Sad indeed! America does a remarkably poor job educating children...in everything. Just because I am nosy I looked for comparison stats to other countries. The results were even more disheartening...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html

I think this actually starting getting into the subject of the education of Americans before college.  No matter how we may all feel about evolution or religion in high schools I think we all agree that there are serious issues with the educational system and how it litterly "de-evoloved" before our eyes.  My humble opinion, the first step to fixing this, stop teaching the test (standarized testing)!

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
razorphreak wrote: I think

razorphreak wrote:
I think this actually starting getting into the subject of the education of Americans before college. No matter how we may all feel about evolution or religion in high schools I think we all agree that there are serious issues with the educational system and how it litterly "de-evoloved" before our eyes. My humble opinion, the first step to fixing this, stop teaching the test (standarized testing)!

Well, now I love you even more!  Ugh, this issues drives me as crazy as it does the teachers.  It has effectively destroyed a teachers ability to teach a class.  Lesson plans and the curriculum are now dictated by these test, which do nothing but provide numbers to politicians for funding.  This is the best we can do?  What happened to providing funding based on enrollment?  Am I being naive?  Sorry...I don't want to drive this thread off course.  Perhaps we should start another?


razorphreak
Theist
razorphreak's picture
Posts: 901
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
jce wrote:

jce wrote:
Well, now I love you even more!

Watch out now...Cool haha..

jce wrote:
Ugh, this issues drives me as crazy as it does the teachers. It has effectively destroyed a teachers ability to teach a class. Lesson plans and the curriculum are now dictated by these test, which do nothing but provide numbers to politicians for funding. This is the best we can do? What happened to providing funding based on enrollment? Am I being naive? Sorry...I don't want to drive this thread off course. Perhaps we should start another?

I saw recently that Houston is striving to change Texas' standardized testing issues and go back to the old way of "end of semester" exams. I know funding issues are never ending but if the educational system itself would actually teach the subjects at and, stop with this "no child left behind" (so it teaches the child failure can happen and when it does you must learn how to work so you don't fail again...none of this "almost right" crap, if the student is wrong say "wrong&quotEye-wink and force students to rise up to new levels. Colleges wouldn't have to worry about doing this if it began when it should have.

Perhaps it is a different thread because I can really get going on this issue.

What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason. - Voltaire


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10368
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Hmph. My response to this

Hmph. My response to this video can be summarized very briefly:

What about the children who died from the plague hundreds of years ago in their schools packed full of god?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.