• 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!

Freedom of Religion vs the Mandate to Evolve [W 65]

Which is more crucial

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
Gardener said:
No-- the theories actually backed by science should be taught. Appeals to popularity are fallacious,especially as they only serve the most stupid and superstitious.

Just because absolute morons want to subvert our schools in order that he schools can match their own level of stupidity, that is not a good reason for our schools to follow suit. If they want to teach that in their churches, go right ahead. Nobody is telling them they can't teach superstion. Our schools should be under noobligation to follow suit because fortunately we aren't some inbred knuckle dragging cesspool like Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting any such thing, only that all theories be heard in a neutral manner. The kids can hear everything and make informed decisions.
 
Ikari said:
They can be discussed in their appropriate subjects. Religious subjects don't belong in science class.
Click to expand...

As long as the subject is approached in the right manner, I don't think it would be any different than teaching mythology or other similar subjects.
 
ChrisL said:
As long as the subject is approached in the right manner, I don't think it would be any different than teaching mythology or other similar subjects.
Click to expand...

I don't think that overall there is a problem with teaching comparative religion of the history of religion in an academic study. But in general creationist theories do not belong in science class. You don't teach mythology in math class.
 
MoSurveyor said:
OK, you can cancel the Flat Earth for geography, what about the rest?

The Urban Dictionary is false? That's not even a half-truth, it's very real.

UFOs/ET/Close Encounters have been proven false? That's news to me. Lots of eye witness will tell you different and there are scientists who claim they're real.

As for the moon landings & walks, where's the proof of those being real? Plenty of people believe they were faked, including a few Hollywood types who can even tell you how to fake them.
Click to expand...

It's only common sense that there isn't enough time to teach everything. The things you are talking about are not on any school curriculum that I'm aware of, whereas theories about how we came to be and other types of beliefs are discussed.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I wouldn't know, I'm not "on the left" - and I don't know what you mean by "talking up" even if I were.

If you'd like me to comment on Ernst's rant about MA schools, I have no problem with the schools teaching what the laws are, especially new laws. When I was in school we learned consumer protection laws in Civics because those were relatively new. Today they probably don't bother because everyone's heard the term "false advertisement" and knows what it means.
Click to expand...

Well, give me a chance to reply to one at a time, will you? :lol:

Well, it's true. There are people on the left who would like homosexuality and other social issues discussed in the classroom.
 
ChrisL said:
As long as the subject is approached in the right manner, I don't think it would be any different than teaching mythology or other similar subjects.
Click to expand...

I that's not really what the problem's about. I can name very few leftists who oppose the study of religion as an independent field. But the problem arises when the gap between that field and science is bridged.
 
Ikari said:
I don't think that overall there is a problem with teaching comparative religion of the history of religion in an academic study. But in general creationist theories do not belong in science class. You don't teach mythology in math class.
Click to expand...

Were we specifically talking about science class? I'm just talking school in general. Of course you don't teach mythology in math class.

I learned the theory of evolution in history class in 6th grade.
 
ChrisL said:
I'm not suggesting any such thing, only that all theories be heard in a neutral manner. The kids can hear everything and make informed decisions.
Click to expand...

"All theories" and "neutral".

So, you want schools to teach all creation myths (there are so many, it would take an inordinant amount of time to cover) and do so in a neutral manner -- not favoring one myth over another myth? The kids are then required to make a "decision" about which myth they prefer, none of which are based upon anything remotely close to fact or standing up to even the most rudimentory rigors.

Why would they need to make an informed decision when all are fantasy and why should they learn creation myths when they could be learning something useful like science, instead?
 
Gardener said:
"All theories" and "neutral".

So, you want schools to teach all creation myths (there are so many, it would take an inordinant amount of time to cover) and do so in a neutral manner -- not favoring one myth over another myth? The kids are then required to make a "decision" about which myth they prefer, none of which are based upon anything remotely close to fact or standing up to even the most rudimentory rigors.

Why would they need to make an informed decision when all are fantasy and why should they learn creation myths when they could be learning something useful like science, instead?
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about delving into that deeply, just mentioning all the basic that are the most generally accepted in our country.
 
ChrisL said:
I'm not talking about delving into that deeply, just mentioning all the basic that are the most generally accepted in our country.
Click to expand...

Many myths are accepted. Not sure that means we should teach them.
 
Boo Radley said:
Many myths are accepted. Not sure that means we should teach them.
Click to expand...

I learned about Greek mythology in school. I didn't think it was real though. I don't know what you're so frightened of.
 
Boo Radley said:
Many myths are accepted. Not sure that means we should teach them.
Click to expand...

But if they have (immense) social significance, a basic understanding is critical for an informed worldview.
 
ChrisL said:
I learned about Greek mythology in school. I didn't think it was real though. I don't know what you're so frightened of.
Click to expand...

Sure, nothing wrong with teaching it as myth. But I bet some won't be happy with that.
 
Boo Radley said:
Sure, nothing wrong with teaching it as myth. But I bet some won't be happy with that.
Click to expand...

You don't have to SAY it's a myth :lol: You can see it is a theory without any scientific evidence to support it.
 
Org said:
But if they have (immense) social significance, a basic understanding is critical for an informed worldview.
Click to expand...

Big if. Depending on the myth, it just as likely may be holding society back, causing more harm than good. At then end of the day, do we really distrust the truth that much?
 
ChrisL said:
You don't have to SAY it's a myth :lol: You can see it is a theory without any scientific evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Ok, I smiled. :2bow::2bow:


But, a myth and a theory (scientific theory) are two very different things.


Btw, I thought you'd like this:

At this point questioning global warming is like questioning gravity. It is basic physics, quantum mechanics and the Earth’s energy balance: if CO2 goes up, global warming occurs.

http://www.themortonreport.com/discoveries/conspiracy-theories-a-scientist-on-global-warming/
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Ok, I smiled. :2bow::2bow:


But, a myth and a theory (scientific theory) are two very different things.
Click to expand...

Oops! That depends on the beholder. Some might consider the Bible to be a form of evidence, though not scientific.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
Oops! That depends on the beholder. Some might consider the Bible to be a form of evidence, though not scientific.
Click to expand...

Btw, see what I added to the last post.
 
ChrisL said:
Oops! That depends on the beholder. Some might consider the Bible to be a form of evidence, though not scientific.
Click to expand...

Id love to see the link for that.
 
Boo Radley said:
Big if. Depending on the myth, it just as likely may be holding society back, causing more harm than good. At then end of the day, do we really distrust the truth that much?
Click to expand...

Believe me, I'm no fan of religion. But it is an important aspect of modern and historical public policy. It's, to the chagrin of the humanist left, played a vital cultural role throughout most known history.

So simply discarding it's merits as an academic study is silly, if not outright harmful to young people.
 
Boo Radley said:
Id love to see the link for that.
Click to expand...

Here, and just because the title sounds as if it my be biased, it is not, and here is another excerpt from it.

The creationists and other critics of evolution are absolutely correct when they point out that evolution is “just a theory” and it is not “proven.” What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.
Click to expand...

Common misconceptions about science I:
 
Org said:
Believe me, I'm no fan of religion. But it is an important aspect of modern and historical public policy. It's, to the chagrin of the humanist left, played a vital cultural role throughout most known history.

So simply discarding it's merits as an academic study is silly, if not outright harmful to young people.
Click to expand...

Often, it made up of things we didn't understand. Story is a good way to navigate complicated issues. That said, the wrong story just as easily causes as much harm as good. I still put faith in telling the truth as much as possible.
 
ChrisL said:
Here, and just because the title sounds as if it my be biased, it is not, and here is another excerpt from it.



Common misconceptions about science I:
Click to expand...

What they neglect to mention is that everything in science is just a theory and is never proven. Unlike the Prime Number Theorem, which will absolutely and forever be true, it is still possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection may one day turn out to be false. But then again, it is also possible, albeit very, very, very, very, very unlikely, that monkeys will fly out of my ass tomorrow. In my judgment, both events are about equally likely.




Like gravity. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom