board77

I always wondered why it was such an issue that some people do not "believe in things greater than themselves." Is there a reason why a person should believe in something greater? What purpose does it serve? What does it prove?

I, too, like Norse mythology.

I digress much from the initial topic. Tosh, a story like this is tough to get serious national outrage because of the lines drawn in the sand over ID/creationism, and evolution. Sides have been picked, weapons drawn and possessions have been divvied. Mom's got the dog, dad's got the bunsen burner. It's not pretty. In a country as large and as diverse in beliefs and creeds, and political affiliations, controversial stories where one side is unfairly treated sometimes either take a while to gather steam, or have already been argued ad nauseam (without resolve usually).

The Watcher wrote:

halplm wrote:

yes sarcasm is great. I particularly like it when it's aimed at people who are actually capable of believing in things greater than themselves.

People can believe in science AND still have room within themselves to look for more esoteric "truths." The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and never have been. Fear is what I see raising its ugly head here, nothing else.

Put it this way, if there is indeed a divine presence out there, why would he/she/it want to deny the search for knowledge and "truth" as we humans can define it? There is no reason that I can come up with. Why would the divine give us curiosity and free will and then seek to restrict it? I challenge someone to answer THOSE questions, instead of debating why we should revert to the Dark Age mentality of what we teach in our public school classrooms.

Who wants to go back to the dark ages?

It seems, on the other hand, that people want us to ignore all philosophical and religeous ideas. As much as the limited minds of those that don't want to acknowledge science as a realistic view of the universe want to silence others... there is an equal number of people that want to silens those that want to teach people that science might not explain EVERYTHING we want to know.

It might be wise to acknowledge that even if we want to discover everything we can by science... we might not be able to. And well, there might be more to the universe than we can measure and record.

Maybe Science isn't the ultimate answer to life the universe and everything... But that's not what people say in schools.

What sorts of public schools did you attend that force fed you evolution? I know you have no kids, I happen to have three, two are out of the US public schools, one still attends.

What he is taught in science classes is appropriate and deals with science.

What IS your huge gripe with evolution? Is it that because it cannot be disproved that it gets your goat so badly? If it can be disproved, where are the champions that are waiting there to do so? Don't you think they would have already DONE this? I am not knocking your sense or your intellect, but really, halplm, you are saying you do not subscribe to it, so because you do not, it is flawed. sorry, but when you take that position, you need to be able to back it up somehow, not by saying that that people who do subscribe to validity in science themselves are flawed for their very position. I have TOLD you why I subscribe to science, I have entertained your arguments, I have given you reasons why I cannot profess what you do.

If evolutionary theory is so suspect, why do you accept other science? Wouldn't the whole study be suspect, as it were? What is it about evolution that simply binds you up and renders you unable to offer a productive argument? You keep throwing out "it is not a fact!!" and nothing much else.

Fine, prove that you yourself exist and are not a product of "The Matrix." Have a go. For all you know, I may not even exist, I am just a screenname on a MB where you post, Prove that I am real.

I wonder how many cells are in eggs and sperm.

halplm wrote:

It seems, on the other hand, that people want us to ignore all philosophical and religeous ideas. As much as the limited minds of those that don't want to acknowledge science as a realistic view of the universe want to silence others... there is an equal number of people that want to silens those that want to teach people that science might not explain EVERYTHING we want to know.

You speak of very noisy minorities in both camps.

The ideal solution is to teach science in science class and religion and philosophy in religion and philosophy classes. If you want to present students with the idea that God created the universe, fine, but that doesn't belong in a science classroom.

Quote:

Maybe Science isn't the ultimate answer to life the universe and everything... But that's not what people say in schools.

???

Where are you getting that from?

Anyway, if you feel that strongly about it, start pushing schools to fire up some philosophy classes. Although, if you take a close look, you will find that many schools already incorporate some form of philosophy into their curricula. It is hard to teach Ancient Greece and Rome without covering topics such as humanism. It is hard to talk about the Dark and Middle Ages, the Renaissance and Reformation, and the Enlightenment without covering the basic history of Christianity. It is hard to cover 19th century literature without a discussion of Transcendentalism. It is hard to cover 20th century literature without touching on Existentialism. You can't talk about anything post WWII without touching on Marxism. And so on and so forth. Just as scientific theories such as evolution and quantum physics color a science curriculum, so do the philosophical movements of the past color a humanities curriculum.

I realize that some schools do a better job at this than others though. I'd be surprised though, if schools are really pushing this false dichotomy. It sounds like hyperbole to me, to be honest. The noisy fanatics on both sides set up strawmen and loudly knock them down and everyone else gets utterly confused. I find it frustrating, but also frightening because as the politicians get involved in science hate-fests, funding sources start drying up. That's food out of my mouth and my career stalled out or, if it gets bad enough, gone before its even started. Also, as the climate in this country trends more and more anti-intellectual and anti-science, I just get nervous about being who I am. I'm already nervous telling people what I do just because of the assumptions they will make (I have had someone say to me once "Oh I don't like science. I want to have faith," like the two are mutually exclusive :bawl:) . So my interest in getting this disaster reconciled is not purely academic - there's an element of self-preservation in it too.

LalaithUrwen wrote:

Jewelsong, did I already tell you how much I appreciated your post? If not, I did. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Thanks, Lali. It's sometimes difficult to write about things that are close to my heart and that others believe differently about.

I liked what River said about the Philosophy classes being the place for a discussion about the purpose of life and existence of a higher being. I do not believe that kind of discussion belongs in a science class, either...or that God should be part of scientific inquiry at all.

Science and religion are not about the same thing. As Pearl (I think) said a few pages back, Science is about HOW. Religion (and philosophy) are about WHY.

If I was teaching biology/evolution in a classroom and a student asked me "Where is God in all this?" my answer would have to be something along the lines of "That is something for people to decide personally and something we are not discussing in this class."

It is unrealistic and inappropriate to think that a teacher is going to discuss God in a Science class. And if a student persisted in trying, he/she would likely be called to task about it. This might be seen by the student as persecution/ridicule, but in reality, it would be me, as the teacher, keeping the class on topic.

One other thing - I have plenty of friends/acquaintances who are atheists, some whom I greatly respect. None of them think I am "stupid" for believing in God. Their atheism does not in any way threaten my faith. Neither can be "proved" and both are highly personal beliefs. I fully understand how someone can be an atheist, just as most of my atheist friends fully understand how I can be a believer. We just connect to it differently.

It seems people on this board don't understand how US public schools work.

religion is not only frowned upon, it is AGAINST THE RULES.

you can't talk about God or religion, or you GET FIRED.

should someone question what is stated as fact in a scinece course, they are politely told that if they mention it again they will FAIL the course.

Is this true of all schools in the US? perhaps not, but it is true in California... granted California is second only to Mississippi as the worst school system in the country... but it's got one of the largest populations in the country.

Of course, I'm sure I'm wrong about all of this... I'm sure all High school science teachers are at the top of their fields and know everything we could all ever want to know about science.

Public schools = government funding ---> 1st amendment and stringent interpretations thereof. Factor in the fact that, believe it or not, not everyone in the US subscribes to one of the Abrahamic religions, that even within those big three the conceptions of God are different (hell, even within Christianity the conceptions of God are different), and the way people get their knickers tied up into nasty hard knots over religion and you might begin to understand why religion is kept out of public school classrooms. The tactics are heavy-handed in some cases, but not without justification. And, of course, refusing to study and learn course material is a sure path to a failing grade in any subject. That's the way education works.

Of course, this whole government funding thing did not prevent my public high school from playing host to no less than three Christian youth groups in the after hours. But WA has different laws from CA and, also, what you can get away with varies from district to district.

If you want to both live in the US and get religious training in school, go to a religious school or get home-schooled.

once again, I've never said there should be religious training in schools... only that there should not be anti-religious teaching in schools...

halplm wrote:

It seems people on this board don't understand how US public schools work.

I have taught in US public schools for 30 years...so let me try to address some of this.

Quote:

religion is not only frowned upon, it is AGAINST THE RULES.

The promotion of any specific religion is against the law, yes.

Quote:

you can't talk about God or religion, or you GET FIRED.

Completely false. Of course, if you talk about religion in a proselytizing fashion, that is a different matter. But I have had many discussions about religion and religious beliefs in my music and drama classes. Again, the discussion has been related to the topic at hand, and not a discussion of any one religion's merits.

Quote:

should someone question what is stated as fact in a scinece course, they are politely told that if they mention it again they will FAIL the course.

I guess I'd have to know how the question was stated and in what context to speak to this.

Quote:

Is this true of all schools in the US? perhaps not, but it is true in California... granted California is second only to Mississippi as the worst school system in the country... but it's got one of the largest populations in the country.

I don't know about all the schools in the US. But I have been involved in public education for a long time. What rating system are you using to determine that California is the second worst system in the US? I tried to find some statistics and was unable to find anything like that. Do you have a source?

Quote:

once again, I've never said there should be religious training in schools... only that there should not be anti-religious teaching in schools...

This is also against the law and a teacher can get fired for deliberately ridiculing a student's beliefs or faith practices. As I said before, most teachers (especially in urban areas) go through diversity training and are made aware of the variety of beliefs and customs of students in their classes. This includes holy days, dietary restrictions, daily prayers, religious garments (such as head scarves or yarmulkes) and so on.

It does not include exempting a student from learning about a subject because his/her religion says something else. It does not include allowing a student to introduce religious beliefs into a science class. It does not include treating religious beliefs as scientifically valid or accepting them as merely "another point of view." There are hundreds of opposing religious viewpoints - to accept them all as possibly valid in a science class would virtually bring the entire class and curriculum to a standstill.

And if a student continually brought it up and refused to learn the SCIENCE curriculum, then yes - he or she would fail the course, because not only would he/she not be learning the requirements, but he/she would be disrupting the class.

Quote:

Of course, I'm sure I'm wrong about all of this... I'm sure all High school science teachers are at the top of their fields and know everything we could all ever want to know about science.

??? You know, the rest of your post was fine, but this kind of sarcastic comment is what causes folks to simply dismiss what you are saying.

You are basing your assumptions/conclusions on the public school system on anecdotal and personal evidence. Besides yourself and your brother's experience, what other research have you done in the field of public education?

halplm wrote:

It seems people on this board don't understand how US public schools work.

religion is not only frowned upon, it is AGAINST THE RULES.

you can't talk about God or religion, or you GET FIRED.

Don't be ridiculous. This whole thread started with a story about an administrator being pressured into resignation for daring to contradict fundamentalist thugs. Groups like the Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition actively and publicly plan how to "take schoolboards for Christ". Christians had the run of things for so long that some of them can no longer distinguish between a level playing field and persecution, and the playing field ain't even all that level.

[ranger mode]

Warning #1

less sarcasm, less personal comments, more constructive debate


Two more warnings to go - if I have to say anything a third time, the people who are not being constructive will be confined to the bikeracks for a few days

[/end ranger mode]



Estel mode ---> that wasn't a pointed warning at any one person in particular, just a general comment on the way the thread seems to being going. Just to make that, very very very very very clear.

Hal, I teach of course in a different school system where this is not an issue, but if you define teaching evolution as teaching against religion, then yes, a lot of teachers will teach that "those religious persons are wrong." But th'at's your definition of teaching evolution and frankly as the article linked in the first post prooves it is rather the contrary: nowadays if you teach evolution, you get in trouble. So, please don't turn around the facts.

I also see no post in which vison called you stupid.

I just don't understand the whole hick hack about evolution.

In the Bible is written that God stopped the sun from turning (story of the Good Samatarian). This verse has been used to condemn Galilei when he claimed that the earth was turning around the sun. If the sun was not turning how could God stop it. As the Bible was the word of God, the sun was turning. We now know that the Earth is round and turning around the sun. We have physical evidence for it and it does not make the Bible any righter or wronger that we can now proove that the sun is not turning and that we do not burn anybody for claiming it any more. There are many prooves for evolution and for BigBang - So do we have to believe that the Bible is true in every word? We already know, it is not, the earth is turning around the sun. Should we start believing again that the sun is turning around the Earth because the Bible said so? Where is the limit of scientific evidence? A photo of the earth is okay to proove it is not flat? But a geological analysis telling the earth is billions of years old is not?

I am someone who believes in humanity much like vison.

Quote:

There is nothing "greater" than what we have and what we are. We are what there is.

And this does include that I do not fully understand things. I don't understand humanity. I don't understand death. I don't want to and don't claim to. I accept it.

Why does evolution make so much debate? Why not quatum physics, which tries to proove the Big Bang? I think it is a psychological point of view: People want to believe that they were wanted, created like a child who wants to believe that his parents wanted him.

Teachers don't get fired for mentioning religious topics in class. My daughter, in fact, had to raise quite a fuss in one of her high school classes to keep a teacher from including some religious stuff on an assignment. If I remember right (this was several years ago) her English teacher had assigned them to write a paper about something concerning Christianity which was not covered in the textbooks that the kids had. My daughter protested that this was not fair, as she knew nothing of the topic and it wasn't covered in class. The teacher was assuming a basic knowledge of Christianity that my daughter did not have. The teacher eventually capitulated and changed the assignment- but my daughter was more in danger of getting a bad grade than the teacher was in danger getting in trouble- much less fired.


You know what? This just occurred to me: we can't practice evolution, can't test it, and the thought really has no practical purpose. What's the point of even mentioning it in classes?

Because we're curious about where we come from.

Sometimes knowledge is worthwhile or at least interesting for its own sake, regardless of how it affects us.

Interest Maria. Children are curious about it. Mine are. Once you have a kid talking about dinosaurs, he will ask where they came from and where they have gone and why and why there were no human beings at this time...

School is not always useful, it's also about feeding the natural curiosity and search of knowledge of children. (IMHO) Remmember, I am someone who likes the idea of Latin and Ancient Greek and all sorts of languages at school and poetry and art and all those things which have no practical purpose.

MariaHobbit wrote:

You know what? This just occurred to me: we can't practice evolution, can't test it, and the thought really has no practical purpose. What's the point of even mentioning it in classes?

Because you can't understand biology without evolution. It would degenerate into an arbitrary list of disconnected facts. You might as well reduce chemistry to memorizing the products that are produced from a given set of reagents with no understanding of how or why reactions take place.

Evolution is the Periodic table of Biology.
It doesn't really bother me much what people believe. The world is a large place and we are a pretty varied lot in our beliefs and all the better for that variety. In every society some beliefs are conformist, some are adventurous and some are plain odd.
I am far more concerned about a political movement that seeks to denigrate, dispute and ultimately silence scientific thought and education for non scientific reasons through the powers of the press, State and courts.
Does anyone draw connections to the attempts to deny global warming?

I find that the same groups who promote creation science also usually deny global warming.

However, I do know non-creation science people who don't buy the whole global warming thing either.




Lali

Are you talking about denying global warming at all, or denying that people cause it? Because those are two very different things... kind of the same way saying evolution doesn't happen, and evolution didn't lead to all diversity by itself are two very different things...