• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Education

It's taught as scientific theory. It is not taught as scientific truth. It is up to churches to teach creationism as long as we have separation of church and state. Which "story" shall we teach? Christian? Judaism? Muslim? Which "story"??

Now. I do happen to believe that every high school should have a class on Comparative Religions, but that's another topic.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory | LiveScience

Better than a guess, and mostly supported.

But, I do agree with the comparative religion class.
 
Yes it is, so sequence it properly and don't move on until mastered. While unAmerican, that is the way to go.

That would be fine, except that the parents would never go for it. Can't have little Freddie in the same class as some kid who's three years older than him because the other kid can't or won't get it.

It's taught as scientific theory. It is not taught as scientific truth. It is up to churches to teach creationism as long as we have separation of church and state. Which "story" shall we teach? Christian? Judaism? Muslim? Which "story"??

Don't teach any of the religious stories in school. Just don't teach the current scientific "Big Bang" Theory as anything more than THEORY. Make it sufficiently clear that we do not and probably never will know exactly how the Universe was created. Maybe even suggest that there are other theories of how the world came into being and leave it at that.

Now. I do happen to believe that every high school should have a class on Comparative Religions, but that's another topic.

On that we will agree. I happened to take a very good one my Junior year in High School.
 
That would be fine, except that the parents would never go for it. Can't have little Freddie in the same class as some kid who's three years older than him because the other kid can't or won't get it.

That's another issue, but one of the few places I agree (as I understand the comment). Age grouping may not be the best way to group students.
 
Just don't teach the current scientific "Big Bang" Theory as anything more than THEORY. Make it sufficiently clear that we do not and probably never will know exactly how the Universe was created. Maybe even suggest that there are other theories of how the world came into being and leave it at that.

That is how it is taught, the standard model has undergone intese scrutiny and remains the most widely accepted theory of the origin of the universe we have. What would you prefer, that we teach the abusud non-sense of biblical creationism? After we teach them "God" did it, is class dismissed? Even if "God" did create it the evidence points to the BBT as the method of creation.
 
Our problem is that we seriously OVER-educate the vast majority of our students here in the United States; both in the type of education they get and in the amount of it they get.

There's no such thing as over-educate. This is a word used by the uneducated.
 
Personally, I think it's the other way around.... the students who are intersted in art and music are generally the ones who have already mastered the basic skills of english, math, etc....



I don't know of any group that disagrees with math. What most of us disagree with in the science curriculums is the teaching of Scientific Theory as if it were Scientific Law. That is the idea that there is no room for any alternative theory on the topic. Basically we don't want you attempting to indoctrinate our children into a belief that cannot be PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT any more than OUR theory can be.

There is a distinct difference between a scientific theory and a religious theory. And yes, a scientific theory is supported by more empirical evidence than a religious text of questionable stories handed down by word-of-mouth, which has been translated into various languages. The problem is that religious idealists believe that their theories are science, which they are not. Theology and science are two distinctly different areas of study. One encourages greater understanding of our surroundings through the challenging of current understanding, whereas the other discourages the questioning of doctrine.
 
Holy Moly. Where did that come from?

the party whose members disproportionally embrace creationism over evolution and who disavow the existence of global warming
 
It's taught as scientific theory. It is not taught as scientific truth. It is up to churches to teach creationism as long as we have separation of church and state. Which "story" shall we teach? Christian? Judaism? Muslim? Which "story"??

Now. I do happen to believe that every high school should have a class on Comparative Religions, but that's another topic.

There are specific requirements within the sciences which differentiate hypothesis, from scientific theories, from scientific laws, correct? Each requiring successively more empirical evidence. That being said, even scientific laws are questioned and are never set in stone. But even with that caveat, I would you ever put the sciences on the same level of religion in terms of the strength of their evidence?
 
How embarrassing for the top 16 countries whose's asses we kick, and can kick in a big way, all the time. So I guess education doesn't buy you everything much to the chagrin of the teachers unions. It must have a lot to do with the Constitution we have, and why conservatives strive to protect it from idiotic liberal manipulation.

ah, the 'y'all might be smarter than us, but we can still kick your ass' proposition
 
the party whose members disproportionally embrace creationism over evolution and who disavow the existence of global warming

Scary part is, some of these anti-science politicians sit on our science and space committees, and control how our education system is run.
 
That is how it is taught, the standard model has undergone intese scrutiny and remains the most widely accepted theory of the origin of the universe we have. What would you prefer, that we teach the abusud non-sense of biblical creationism? After we teach them "God" did it, is class dismissed? Even if "God" did create it the evidence points to the BBT as the method of creation.

I can tell you for certain that is NOT how it was taught where I went to high school, or in many of the other school systems that I am familiar with. It is taught as scientific FACT, irrefutable and undeniable.

I would prefer that we explained what science believes, with the caveat that we are not able to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt and that there are other groups out that who have alternative ideas as to how the universe was created. I'm not asking any school to teach religion. I'm not even suggesting they should do anything more than acknowledge that there are other theories out there.

There's no such thing as over-educate. This is a word used by the uneducated.

Unfortunately, I'm more educated that I'd really like to be, and I'm the LEAST educated person in my immediate family. I have an Associate's Degree. My parents both have/had Master's Degrees (in Education), one brother has a Master's Degree in Psychology and the other has a PhD in Genetic Microbiology.

There is a distinct difference between a scientific theory and a religious theory. And yes, a scientific theory is supported by more empirical evidence than a religious text of questionable stories handed down by word-of-mouth, which has been translated into various languages. The problem is that religious idealists believe that their theories are science, which they are not. Theology and science are two distinctly different areas of study. One encourages greater understanding of our surroundings through the challenging of current understanding, whereas the other discourages the questioning of doctrine.

The problem is that neither side can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how this Universe was created. Personally, I'm neither a scientist, nor a Christian, so I don't have a dog in the fight. My personal views on how the Universe was created don't fall in either camp.
 
It's quite open to having someone wrongly tracked.
wrong? if the student made the selection? i don't think so
if the kid is bright and can succeed in the college prep program but opts to instead pursue the less academically challenging apprenticeship program, or the basic work skills program, then that is the student's choice to make
if the student who is under-prepared and/or without the aptitude to succeed in the college prep program, (s)he should still be able to pursue it and succeed or fail. again, the student's choice
Not to mention as I state above, there isn't really that much difference any more between the tracks. The real difference is one of either having an education or not.
no, there should be significant difference between a college prep track, an apprenticeship track and a basic work skills track
 
Last edited:
The problem is that neither side can say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how this Universe was created. Personally, I'm neither a scientist, nor a Christian, so I don't have a dog in the fight. My personal views on how the Universe was created don't fall in either camp.

No, there is no unified theory of everything in science, but the difference is that science has significantly more proof and practical application than yours or anyone else's religious beliefs. Our scientific "theories" have brought us electricity, computers, satellite communication, antibiotics, automobiles, solar power, etc.

In terms of the creation of the earth and the evolution of the human species, forgive me if I place a greater amount of trust in the body of knowledge that sent robots and people into space, and created the artificial heart. When was the last time the Catholic (or any other) church placed a cross on the moon?
 
Religion is anti-science just look what happened to Adam when he found knowlegde.
 
No, there is no unified theory of everything in science, but the difference is that science has significantly more proof and practical application than yours or anyone else's religious beliefs. Our scientific "theories" have brought us electricity, computers, satellite communication, antibiotics, automobiles, solar power, etc.

In terms of the creation of the earth and the evolution of the human species, forgive me if I place a greater amount of trust in the body of knowledge that sent robots and people into space, and created the artificial heart. When was the last time the Catholic (or any other) church placed a cross on the moon?

Forgive me if I place very little trust in a group of people who, as a whole, seem to be of the belief that they can determine the why's and wherefore's of every single thing in the world, when I know for certain (at least in my own mind) that there are things which science will never be able to explain. When one believes that they have all the answers, I tend to find that they have many fewer of the answers than they think they do. My own personal experiences have shown me there are things which the scientific community cannot explain. Likewise, I find organized religion to be just as much of a farce, for the same reason.
 
Forgive me if I place very little trust in a group of people who, as a whole, seem to be of the belief that they can determine the why's and wherefore's of every single thing in the world, when I know for certain (at least in my own mind) that there are things which science will never be able to explain. When one believes that they have all the answers, I tend to find that they have many fewer of the answers than they think they do. My own personal experiences have shown me there are things which the scientific community cannot explain. Likewise, I find organized religion to be just as much of a farce, for the same reason.

Scientists generally don't believe they have all the answers. Otherwise there'd be no reason for them to work. Also, simply because your personal experiences show something that scientists have yet to explain (or you've yet to learn that science has explained) is not a good reason to discount the entire body of knowledge we've accumulated as human beings.

If you are a religious individual, and you believe a god created us, why would he/she/it create us with a mind capable of scientific thought, and then expect you to not utilize that part of the brain? If there are answers for how thinks work in our universe, and we are capable of learning them, why would a diety expect us to ignore our inquisitive nature, and intellect which begs us to pursue those answers?
 
Forgive me if I place very little trust in a group of people who, as a whole, seem to be of the belief that they can determine the why's and wherefore's of every single thing in the world, when I know for certain (at least in my own mind) that there are things which science will never be able to explain. When one believes that they have all the answers, I tend to find that they have many fewer of the answers than they think they do. My own personal experiences have shown me there are things which the scientific community cannot explain. Likewise, I find organized religion to be just as much of a farce, for the same reason.
please tell us who you are referring to here
 
Scientists generally don't believe they have all the answers. Otherwise there'd be no reason for them to work. Also, simply because your personal experiences show something that scientists have yet to explain (or you've yet to learn that science has explained) is not a good reason to discount the entire body of knowledge we've accumulated as human beings.

Those members of the scientific community that I'm familiar with personally, including a younger brother of mine, do believe that everything CAN (and eventually WILL) be answered through science, if it hasn't already.

If you are a religious individual, and you believe a god created us, why would he/she/it create us with a mind capable of scientific thought, and then expect you to not utilize that part of the brain? If there are answers for how thinks work in our universe, and we are capable of learning them, why would a diety expect us to ignore our inquisitive nature, and intellect which begs us to pursue those answers?

It is my belief that there is a Higher Power out there. I believe that we are here on this world and in this life as a test. A test of the Soul. One which will determine whether or not that Soul is prepared to move on to bigger and better things, be reeducated and try again, or be permanently found defective and tossed away into the scrap heap. Science is simply one of the many red herrings placed in our way to offer us an opportunity to step off the path of Right and trip us up, thus condemning our Soul to at least one more trip through life, or an eternal existance on the scrap heap.

please tell us who you are referring to here

Scientists and most of the organized religious community.
 
Those members of the scientific community that I'm familiar with personally, including a younger brother of mine, do believe that everything CAN (and eventually WILL) be answered through science, if it hasn't already.
Sounds like he doesn't think he knows everything, rather he thinks that science is capable of eventually explaining everything. Personally, I think the human race will die out before we are able to explain everything, but I agree with his sentiments. The human mind is capable of great understanding.

It is my belief that there is a Higher Power out there. I believe that we are here on this world and in this life as a test. A test of the Soul. One which will determine whether or not that Soul is prepared to move on to bigger and better things, be reeducated and try again, or be permanently found defective and tossed away into the scrap heap. Science is simply one of the many red herrings placed in our way to offer us an opportunity to step off the path of Right and trip us up, thus condemning our Soul to at least one more trip through life, or an eternal existance on the scrap heap.

That's amazing considering that you benefit greatly from the science you loathe. In fact, you're making great use of science right now in telling me how false science is.



Scientists and most of the organized religious community.
 
Sounds like he doesn't think he knows everything, rather he thinks that science is capable of eventually explaining everything. Personally, I think the human race will die out before we are able to explain everything, but I agree with his sentiments. The human mind is capable of great understanding.

The human mind is also capable of great mis-understanding as well. That's the problem as I see it. I belive it is almost the height of Hubris to actually believe that one can know everything, whether through science or through religion. I truly believe that is, and should always be, beyond the limits of human comprehension; because if we can and do know everything, then we will think that we have become Gods ourselves and that ultimate state of Hubris will be the undoing of mankind.

That's amazing considering that you benefit greatly from the science you loathe. In fact, you're making great use of science right now in telling me how false science is.

I don't believe I've said science has no use. If I did, then I misspoke. I don't loathe science any more than I loathe organized religion. I just don't believe that either one of them is the means to the answers to the questions of why we're here or how we should go about our lives.
 
Science is simply one of the many red herrings placed in our way to offer us an opportunity to step off the path of Right and trip us up, thus condemning our Soul to at least one more trip through life, or an eternal existance on the scrap heap.

But the courses that you promoted for students to be educated more on this thread that were included in your "CORE" (those non: music, gym, arts, etc., ones) are all based on scientific findings. Why would you like to offer students the opportunity for them to step off the path of right, causing them to trip off with your "CORE" course scientific offerings, thus condemn their soul to at least one more trip through life (among alternative many others I imagine), or on to an eternal existence on the scrap of heap?
 
But the courses that you promoted for students to be educated more on this thread that were included in your "CORE" (those non: music, gym, arts, etc., ones) are all based on scientific findings. Why would you like to offer students the opportunity for them to step off the path of right, causing them to trip off with your "CORE" course scientific offerings, thus condemn their soul to at least one more trip through life (among alternative many others I imagine), or on to an eternal existence on the scrap of heap?

See my comment directly above yours (post 96). It's not that science doesn't have value. It's that science should not be your sole basis for everything in the world around you. I cannot even imagine a life where science has to be at the core of everything you believe. It's almost as dry and worthless an existance as one based solely on organized religion.
 
See my comment directly above yours (post 96). It's not that science doesn't have value. It's that science should not be your sole basis for everything in the world around you. I cannot even imagine a life where science has to be at the core of everything you believe. It's almost as dry and worthless an existance as one based solely on organized religion.

Finding the existential meaning of one's life, though very important, has less to do with this thread. But Existential Psychology emphasizes that that path is undertaken by search towards one's self. Things that are meaningful to themselves without any basis in reason necessarily. And Existential Psychology is of course a scientific foundation.
 
There are specific requirements within the sciences which differentiate hypothesis, from scientific theories, from scientific laws, correct? Each requiring successively more empirical evidence. That being said, even scientific laws are questioned and are never set in stone. But even with that caveat, I would you ever put the sciences on the same level of religion in terms of the strength of their evidence?

I wouldn't.
 
Back
Top Bottom