Don't let evidence stand in your way!

[agnostic soldier]

Absence of religion in school doesn't equal anti religion, it just means that the school is keeping neutral on the matter rather than promoting certain individual's religious viewpoints. Religion in school is actually harmful rather than beneficial. School is for learning facts, not fiction. The fact that someone believes something to be true doesn't make it true. An example of this being ID/creationism. IDer's fight hard to have ID taught in the scientific curiculum. The fact is though that ID is not science, therefore should not be taught in the classroom. Evolution is science and has actual evidence to support it, therefore should be taught as the only currently scientifically valid theeory(scientific theory). IDers also want to have their unsubstansive claims taught in the classroom, although would they want science taught in their church. Religions also tend to advocate a set of personal moral prescriptions which are often more subjective rather than objective. An example of this being Christianity and homosexuality. Alot of christians view homosexuality as being a wicked abomination. The fact that they believe it to be evil doesn't make it evil. Homosexuality doesn't harm anyone and teaching children that it is wrong because a certain religion says it's wrong is advocating personal biases rather than objective reasoning.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Virote

God Hates Globes

Can anyone explain this to me?

Do you think we should ignore scientific evidence to protect strongly held religious beliefs? Should we respect their rights to keep their children shielded from offensive teachings, or just expect them to home school their children? Should we teach both?

We've had many clashes over this haven't we? Edwards v. Aguillard, for Evolution for example

Those who want to add homosexuality to the curriculum of sex-ed and assure their students there's nothing wrong with their state of mental health, rather than just push them off to the side and ignore them, instructed not to answer such questions.

But then again, what religion would you protect?

The Jewish, the followers of Christ in all their forms, the Wiccans, the Church of Latter Day Summons, the Muslims, the Buddhists, the oh so satirical Satanists, the various cultists, the Church of the Undead Hamster, those without religion, or those who's religion it is to be without religion, etc.?

How do you feel about religion's role in school? Does the absence of it mean the atheists have won the holy war? Do you think the moment of silence for prayer and meditation the United States employs is the religious fighting back?

My, this is turning into a broad topic.

You've got a point--our science textbooks are full of errors being taught as fact.

I agree--we've got people ignoring evidence every day.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

You've got a point--our science textbooks are full of errors being taught as fact.

Let's have a few of them, clearly listed here for our edification, kd. Or is this just what you've been taught to say, blurting it out by rote whenever the subject comes up? (I'm watching you, m'boy. No misleading info shall break from your lips on my watch, which is pretty much always these days!)

I agree--we've got people ignoring evidence every day.

Yep. I agree with you here for once, kd! An example from "our side".. you might well ask?

Most recently, I was advised that all isotopic dating methods in geology and paleontology were fake. Not just a few mistakes here and there, outside of the Confidence Limits that any honest scientist provides for any of his or her results, But instead, as per the Christian apologist websites, they are "all wrong". No matter what the data proves, everything on this Earth is only 6035 years old.

but oh, these methods are suddenly NOT wrong when they support the YEC conspiracy, or the Genesis "Insta-Poof" myth. Then, magically, they work, and reliably!

In any rational educational curriculum, there is absolutely a place for a Comparative Religious Studies & Philosophies course, where the basics of the world's competing religions are openly discussed without bias, and where, perhaps to make the point that there is constant bias, local Church officials (ministers, priests, rabbis, monks, medicine men, Scientologists, etc.) could come in and make their own cases.

(Oh, and the amazed students would be confronted with the vast variability of each of the supposedly inerrant religions.)

But it cannot be incorporated into a science class for the simple reason that it's not science. No more than bringing a rabbit into a course on woodworking would be germaine.

Science deals in the determination of facts, or at least of rational conclusions, by a set of standardized rules that religion cannot, by definition, utilize.

Theists, of course, don't like the consequences of such rational thought when it's applied to so-called biblical facts (Ark stories, instant Genesis, the reproductive genetic consequences of a single Adam and Eve, dino fossils, etc.) but hey; that's life, huh?

Of course, it does explain why they want to insist that religion IS science (via the great hoax of Intelligent Design; milk blowing out of my nose as I think of it...) so they can defend the indefensible.

One of the most enjoyable classes I took in University was The Philosophies of Religion, well taught by a competent theologist who was also an accomplished scientist. His inarguable value: he realized they were separate beasts, forever consigned to their separate homes.

QED.

[AxisMundi]

Originally Posted by Virote

Should protection of religious beliefs play a role in public schools?

Religion has no place in public school cirriculum at the K-12 levels.

Religion belongs at home, Church and other religious institutions supported for and paid for by people of that religion.

After a person has gained the wherewithall to make their own decisions, then I beleive religious centered cirruculim can be admitted on a voluntary basis.

Anything sooner is an attempt at indoctrination, IMHO, and there is no reason possible for the taxes of any and all non-Christians in this country to be used to support Christianity (or any other religion), and to indoctrinate this nation's youth.

[LZKay1]

Originally Posted by Virote

Do you think we should ignore scientific evidence to protect strongly held religious beliefs?

It depends. If you truly think a religious belief is correct, rather by coming by this knowledge without science or just by faith, then you could ignore scientific evidence to the contrary.

Evidence could also be interpreted in different ways. Take, for example, fossils. Some think their similiar structure with living creatures means all creatures are related, while some don't think it's evidence for common descent.

Also, I could look at the wall next to me and say it's my imgination, or a higher beings imagination, and such a claim could never be proved or disproved, despite the wall apparently being there.

What I'm getting at is nothing can truly be proved, even if you think you've seen it enough or tested it enough to predict it's existence. If someone's belief or experience makes them ignore scientific evidence, then that's up to them.

[PanTerra]

I clicked on the link and it is some marketing site.

[Dusty Rhodes]

Originally Posted by JerZ

Watch out, Virote, for it is written, that there shall come many false Monkeys, and they shall cloak themselves as creatures, YEA, even cloak thee them as Undead Hamsters, but Monkeys they are not. Do not be misled!

ah yes, the book of JerZ, chapter 4 verse 13!!!

[effie g-tad]

^
my smilies should all do a headstand. right! now! come on!