• 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 .
SheWolf said:
American schools don't teach evolution or religion. I think both studies are important to understanding the world, literally understanding the people, attitudes, and cultures all around the world.

That doesn't mean I agree with the other poster that religious beliefs and scientific theory are equal.

The thing is, a lot of religions believe in creation stories. A scientific classroom is not the place to debate Christian creationism from the POV of literalists, versus non literalist, versus new age, versus scientologist, versus buddhist, versus Hindu, native American tradition, etc.

Those discussions and how all those creation stories intertwine and relate is meant for a religious class.

As for science and studying religious texts, you can look at the stories literally or figuratively. You could consider Galileo's perspective, that the Bible isn't meant to teach science. That he didn't feel the Bible said anywhere he was committing sins by trying to understand the universe through science. He never lost his faith, and contended that if science causes your faith to weaken then perhaps the problem is the way you interpret the Bible. Various interpretations is why we have so many churches to begin with, so keep a big picture view of your religious movement.

Learn where you Bible comes from and the history if the cannon. My understanding is that the book of Genesis was written much later than all the other books.



That's all food for thought IMO.
Click to expand...

Um . . . yes they do. :)
 
Boo Radley said:
The part you out in bold says it very well. Gravity is just a theory. We may learn something else one day. But it is unlikely. So when scientist say its a theory, no it's not math, but it's not just a wild guess either. It's pretty damn likely true.
Click to expand...

This post doesn't change anything that I've posted.
 
The theory of evolution is definately not a part of required public school curriculum, perhaps some concepts of evolutionary fact are requried. I only remember teachers trying to dismiss it all as theory, and it was mostly just presented as if all evolution is just the Darwin Theory. When teachers brought it up in that manner (and I recall about only two teachers doing it to me), it was not in a very formal way with handouts or approved learning materials. They usually brought it up themselves as a side topic.

I have little reason to believe the average American student's experience was much different than mine given the way these conversations typically play out.

I don't much else to say. If your experience was different and you learned a lot, then what is your understanding of evolution?


ChrisL said:
Um . . . yes they do. :)
Click to expand...
 
SheWolf said:
The theory of evolution is definately not a part of required public school curriculum, perhaps some concepts of evolutionary fact are requried. I only remember teachers trying to dismiss it all as theory, and it was mostly just presented as if all evolution is just the Darwin Theory. When teachers brought it up in that manner (and I recall about only two teachers doing it to me), it was not in a very formal way with handouts or approved learning materials. They usually brought it up themselves as a side topic.

I have little reason to believe the average American student's experience was much different than mine given the way these conversations typically play out.

I don't much else to say. If your experience was different and you learned a lot, then what is your understanding of evolution?
Click to expand...

It certainly isn't something that you can explain to someone easily on the internet. It's a branching out of species, natural selection, a lot of complicated issues. It took us the whole school year to learn, and the teacher was very thorough with note-taking and covering all the bases. Of course, I don't remember everything, but I remember she was an excellent teacher, and maybe it wasn't college level academics, but I sure learned a lot that year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
 
I also have to say, when teachers do that, and say, well evolution is all just a theory, it's not proven. It's just a theory.

It really undermines the scientific method. As others have said, gravity and plate tectonics are theories.

I don't think its right for an authority figure or instructor to act like that. There are people who study the theory of plate tectonics, understand it, but don't understand that it's a theory.

I think it's better for teachers to say nothing than to obfuscate technical terminology.
 
SheWolf said:
I also have to say, when teachers do that, and say, well evolution is all just a theory, it's not proven. It's just a theory.

It really undermines the scientific method. As others have said, gravity and plate tectonics are theories.

I don't think its right for an authority figure or instructor to act like that. There are people who study the theory of plate tectonics, understand it, but don't understand that it's a theory.

I think it's better for teachers to say nothing than to obfuscate technical terminology.
Click to expand...

Of course they should. They should explain the basic general differences between a scientific theory and a regular old theory first. Why do you think kids are so stupid?
 
We evolve by following religion. Mandate accomplished.
 
Boo Radley said:
That he felt he had to apologize? Bothersome. But I'm not sure what you're thinking here.
Click to expand...

Teaching religion in school and promoting it by having students pray. You can't be that thick can you?

So let me get this straight, you are dead set against mentioning the creationist theory in school as another extremely popular theory, even with the teacher explaining the differences between the two theories, yet you are okay with a teacher taking students to a religious temple of sorts to pray during school hours? :mrgreen: OMG, that tells me everything I need to know about you. You certainly aren't worth the time of arguing with anymore because it's obvious that you hold a kind of bigotry for Christianity.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Teaching religion in school and promoting it by having students pray. You can't be that thick can you?

So let me get this straight, you are dead set against mentioning the creationist theory in school as another extremely popular theory, even with the teacher explaining the differences between the two theories, yet you are okay with a teacher taking students to a religious temple of sorts to pray during school hours? :mrgreen: OMG, that tells me everything I need to know about you. You certainly aren't worth the time of arguing with anymore because it's obvious that you hold a kind of bigotry for Christianity.
Click to expand...

It's fine in the context of religion. A comparative religion class is just fine. Teaching it as science, not so much. Religion isn't science.


Oh, and it's not two scientific theories. It's one theory and one belief. Two different things.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's fine in the context of religion. A comparative religion class is just fine. Teaching it as science, not so much. Religion isn't science.


Oh, and it's not two scientific theories. It's one theory and one belief. Two different things.
Click to expand...

Look, I know you're elderly, but please try to follow along. I never said it should be taught in science class.
 
ChrisL said:
Look, I know you're elderly, but please try to follow along. I never said it should be taught in science class.
Click to expand...

Not senile just yet. But there's no reason to compare the two if you're not entering the science class. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Not senile just yet. But there's no reason to compare the two if you're not entering the science class. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't believe you because I never said that either. I said they should mention other theories in school too. That is all. Going to a mosque and praying actually IS promoting a religion. :confused: I think you must be getting confused if it isn't senility.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't believe you because I never said that either. I said they should mention other theories in school too. That is all. Going to a mosque and praying actually IS promoting a religion. :confused: I think you must be getting confused if it isn't senility.
Click to expand...

That seems to imply to me that it is in conjunction with science. But as I recall, I gave the example of GW. And this is where we got into the theory argument. As GW is about science, that would be the context of the argument, right?
 
Boo Radley said:
That seems to imply to me that it is in conjunction with science. But as I recall, I gave the example of GW. And this is where we got into the theory argument. As GW is about science, that would be the context of the argument, right?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I thought you brought up evolution.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't know. I thought you brought up evolution.
Click to expand...

I spent a while trying to find it:


Originally Posted by ChrisL
But I'm not talking about students expressing their opinions. I'm talking about teachers perhaps teaching according to their own biases and ideals.


I agree with that. Merely argue they can express opinion as long as it is expressed that way, and the teaching is about reason and evidence.

There is also an area that wouldn't be opinion, but some here would call it that. The area of global warming would fall under that category.
 
Boo Radley said:
I spent a while trying to find it:


Originally Posted by ChrisL
But I'm not talking about students expressing their opinions. I'm talking about teachers perhaps teaching according to their own biases and ideals.


I agree with that. Merely argue they can express opinion as long as it is expressed that way, and the teaching is about reason and evidence.

There is also an area that wouldn't be opinion, but some here would call it that. The area of global warming would fall under that category.
Click to expand...

I wasn't arguing about who brought up GW. I was wondering who brought up the theory of evolution?
 
ChrisL said:
Wrong. The above is absolutely correct. A scientific theory is just that a theory, not a fact silly! :lol:
Click to expand...

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena and is based on a careful examination of the facts. Theories are explanations which support facts, and and interpret the facts. Scientific theories are subject to peer review.

creationists pretend that their mumbo jumbo theory, which runs contrary to evidence, is at least an equivalent theory.

some even claim that the devil put dinosaur bones around the place in order to fool us ... or maybe it was God ... to test our faith
 
ChrisL said:
Not at all. Why so cranky?
Click to expand...

well it does make sense. creationism is a myth. anyone who presents it to children as an alternative to a scientific theory should be barred from teaching science.

people who want abrahamic myth represented as "science" need to acknowledge that there are many other creation myths with equal scientific validity.
 
Mandate to evolve ?
Mandate ?
We need both freedom of religion AND freedom FROM religion..
But why...this mandate business ??
I sense "extremism" ...not good.
 
marywollstonecraft said:
so if you claim this, why on earth would you even consider that creationists have the right to teach mythology as an alternative to evolution?
Click to expand...

I'm simply saying that they should cover all the bases. There are apparently a lot of people who believe in the creationist theory. It doesn't hurt anyone to give other theories an honorary mention when they are popular beliefs. Do you suggest we leave Greek mythology out of teaching because it isn't factual? As someone else stated, religion has huge societal implications and certain aspects of certainly worth mentioning and talking about from a strictly neutral and educational standpoint, as I've stated REPEATEDLY throughout this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom