Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's what I thought. Actually, I do firmly believe in creationism but am opposed to it being taught in public schools, other than saying that some religions ascribe to it and explaining very briefly what it is. The reason is this: just as soon as creationism is taught, then one religious group will say, "But that's not how our religion views it..." and then before we know it, creationism will have to be taught from dozens and dozens of religious angles. And that isn't the job of schools.
I do think that science teachers should not say what is right or wrong but should say, "Here is the scientific explanation for evolution. Not everyone agrees, but we are here to learn what evolution is. You may or may not agree. For further discussion, I strongly advise you to discuss this matter with your parents or within your own religious enclaves."
I'm trying to think back to high school when I can remember the topic of evolution coming up... It's been a little while but I seem to remember often reading in our science books "Many scientists believe..." and then they would continue on with whatever topic. I don't remember reading that it was particularly right or wrong, but I seem to remember it saying that some things have been more widely accepted in the scientific community than others. Again, I'm trying to go back quite a way so it's hard for me to remember the details but that was always my impression of the textbook.
However, I remember one of the students asking the teacher what he believed. And, that kind of put the teacher in an uncomfortable situation because, looking back on it, I know he was an atheist, or at the very least, an agnostic. Of course, I am sitting here thinking about how I would have answered the question and it would have been very tough.
On one hand, you are sculpting the minds of young teenagers and you know that you risk a hefty penalty if you try and explain what you believe is true.
On the other hand, you cannot, as an intellectual person, just openly deny everything you have been teaching as well. I mean it's kind of a sticky situation to try and teach people one thing but then negate what you just taught. So, what is a teacher to say? I remember him actually saying he believed in evolution and I thought the entire class was going to mob him. They seemed livid. I was still trying to "find my place" but I was definitely leaning away from religion. It made sense what I had learned but he did a good job of presenting it objectively, he just got caught up in a bind.
I don't think any parents complained... but I always wondered what the right answer would have been? Would it have just been best to say that he chose not to talk about it? I guess so, but when confronted with a question such as that sometimes it's hard not to blurt it out. I realize that there are a certain amount of ethics people have to abide by when teaching, and maybe he crossed the line a little bit. It's hard for me to say.
Anyway, he was a very bright man, and although he never knew it, he certainly helped me "see the light" although my grades surely never reflected it! So, as a teacher, I would imagine this would be what they work for. Not to convert people, but to know that they made a difference in someone's life in a positive way.
GCSTroop, you've introduced some excellent points. Too often in society (we're all guilty of this), we learn a piece of information from one source and assume it to be the truth. However, that obviously isn't the case much of the time, especially when the subjects are history and science. I've personally read many allegedly factual statements in history books that I know are not true. (Quite often, textbooks are not well edited or proofread.) I think the wise teacher says exactly what you stated: "Many scientists believe...." or "So far, the evidence points to..."
As for asking a teacher his personal opinion, that is oh-so-tricky. I think that as long as the teacher makes it very clear that his opinion is his own (especially with regard to a topic such as evolution vs creationism) and he realizes that not everyone will agree with him. He could also go on to encourage the students to do as much reading as possible from a wide variety of sources to develop their own opinions.
Creation is most certainly not being taught in the public schools.
That's because people in Kansas decided that simply being "even-keeled" wasn't enough and families stood up in Dover, PA and in court exposed ID as veiled creationism, which is already banned, thanks to earlier efforts by other proactive people.
There's 2 very clear reasons why you can't have creationism or ID taught in Science class:
1) It does not live up to the definition of a scientific theory (ie- it cannot be tested).
2) If you waive the definition of a scientific theory and allow an untestable hypothesis to be taught, then that opens the floodgates for ALL untestable hypotheses (as Ilovejazz mentioned earlier), which could be religious, aliens, leprechans, you name it.
It's very simple and embarrassing that the idea existed for more than a minute as an argument let alone how far it went. Thankfully, reason won out.
I feel science teachers should spend some time explaining the definition of "theory" as used by science and how Evolution is deemed worthy of acceptance due to it's ability to withstand efforts to disprove it. As far as how to answer questions about their personal beliefs, I think they should simply say, "they're personal" and that's that, end of discussion.
That's nice, but being pleasant doesn't stop creationism being taught in schools, federal money spent on religious organizations, "chaplain" positions from being created and funded with state government money, doesn't prevent shows like "A Brief History of Disbelief" from not being shown by PBS or Discovery, sure didn't stop the Pledge of Allegiance from being tampered with or our currency from being marred, doesn't stop religious icons like the 10 commandments from being displayed on government property, doesn't stop your tax dollars being wasted in abstinence programs which are repeatedly shown to be ineffective, and of course didn't prevent anyone from dying in NYC on 9/11.
I'm not sure if you're either naive´ or apathetic but there are people out there hard at work to impose their beliefs on you, on all of us, and being "even-keeled" isn't going to cut it. How's that saying go? All that's required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing.
I mentioned nothing about being pleasant or apathetic. I stated that I remain level headed in my life. There is nothing naive about keeping a clear head. I can oppose those who wish "to impose their beliefs" on me without becoming angry. Furthermore, unless I have obtained a measure of inner peace with myself, I can be of no help to anyone or any cause. Finally, what matters to me is myself and my loved ones, not what some extremist thinks I should believe. I am no more concerned with the US becoming a theocracy at this moment than I am worried about my house being bombed. I don't live in fear nor anger.
There is nothing naive about keeping a clear head. I can oppose those who wish "to impose their beliefs" on me without becoming angry.
Yeah, that's fine, but "I've learned through the years that grief is easily avoided by maintaining an even-keeled lifestyle and mindset" isn't enough. The two are quite different. You can be calm in your opposition, but being calm alone doesn't secure peace nor prevent grief from falling upon you by the machinations of others.
Yeah, that's fine, but "I've learned through the years that grief is easily avoided by maintaining an even-keeled lifestyle and mindset" isn't enough. The two are quite different. You can be calm in your opposition, but being calm alone doesn't secure peace nor prevent grief from falling upon you by the machinations of others.
You misunderstand.
First of all, I can assure you that being levelheaded is what works for me. Your results may be different.
Secondly, I never said I would be calm in my opposition. One can vigourously oppose something while maintaining a clear head. I am describing my composure, not any (possible) activity.
Power is given, not taken. One cannot push my buttons because they are concealed. I, rather than others, control my beliefs and emotions. I attempt to use reasoning in my reactions. The moment I allow someone to affect my emotions, which then affect my actions, is the moment I become exactly like those I oppose.
This has been one of the best threads I've ever read, humorous, insightful, logical, usually tactful and much more, but a question remains.
We heard leaders of the UK and US preface statements with " I believe" this that or the other and when later it turned out to be wrong they gave not so much as an apology.
Did they think they would be believed? They have buttressed their belief citing 'god' as being on their side.
Should people who claim to have a strong belief in god be allowed into positions of power.
This has been one of the best threads I've ever read, humorous, insightful, logical, usually tactful and much more, but a question remains.
We heard leaders of the UK and US preface statements with " I believe" this that or the other and when later it turned out to be wrong they gave not so much as an apology.
Did they think they would be believed? They have buttressed their belief citing 'god' as being on their side.
Should people who claim to have a strong belief in god be allowed into positions of power.
I think that's a very strong question, but there really is no answer to it. It's no different than asking "Should people who claim to have no belief in god be allowed into positions of power?"
Either way, you are going from one extreme to the other, and either politician will lose votes because of it. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, there has got to be at least ONE senator, governor, or President in the U.S. that has been or currently is an atheist. But, I seriously doubt he would have gotten elected if that became known. So, he probably had to lie about it. Which doesn't really bother me, because if I were to run for office, I would understand that I'd have to claim a denomination as well, regardless of how little I believe. Which brings us to the part that answers your question. They're just going to lie about it until it suits their needs for election, so why even worry about it.
That's because people in Kansas decided that simply being "even-keeled" wasn't enough and families stood up in Dover, PA and in court exposed ID as veiled creationism, which is already banned, thanks to earlier efforts by other proactive people.
There's 2 very clear reasons why you can't have creationism or ID taught in Science class:
1) It does not live up to the definition of a scientific theory (ie- it cannot be tested).
2) If you waive the definition of a scientific theory and allow an untestable hypothesis to be taught, then that opens the floodgates for ALL untestable hypotheses (as Ilovejazz mentioned earlier), which could be religious, aliens, leprechans, you name it.
It's very simple and embarrassing that the idea existed for more than a minute as an argument let alone how far it went. Thankfully, reason won out.
I feel science teachers should spend some time explaining the definition of "theory" as used by science and how Evolution is deemed worthy of acceptance due to it's ability to withstand efforts to disprove it. As far as how to answer questions about their personal beliefs, I think they should simply say, "they're personal" and that's that, end of discussion.
Philly,
Evolution cannot be tested either! It has never been reproduced in the lab. Nor has anyone ever seen life created from non-living materials. Evolution is a theory. IMO it should be taught as such. If they want to throw in aliens and leprechans so be it. Intelligent Design is a theory as well. NO ONE CAN PROVE HOW THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. Therefore, I think we should explore ALL options.
I think that's a very strong question, but there really is no answer to it. It's no different than asking "Should people who claim to have no belief in god be allowed into positions of power?"
Either way, you are going from one extreme to the other, and either politician will lose votes because of it. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, there has got to be at least ONE senator, governor, or President in the U.S. that has been or currently is an atheist. But, I seriously doubt he would have gotten elected if that became known. So, he probably had to lie about it. Which doesn't really bother me, because if I were to run for office, I would understand that I'd have to claim a denomination as well, regardless of how little I believe. Which brings us to the part that answers your question. They're just going to lie about it until it suits their needs for election, so why even worry about it.
I'm not so sure GCSTroop about your first assertion, lets examine the case I made for not allowing believers in god into positions of power. If all they have is belief then that is not enough to commit men to war, there really has to be more than that.
An atheist senator would not have got elected, I hope for the sake of America this is not true.
The American people would knowingly rather elect a potential liar than a straight man, let us hope you are not speaking for the majority.
Politics is discredited today, what hope for our children if extremist electors exist in sufficient numbers, any can be bent to any use, totalitarianism cannot be far away.
American people might prove the ultimate power of Christianity and expose it's greatest weakness, extremism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
