• 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 .
Dooble said:
Thank God. I was beginning to think liberals were certifiably insane! Turns out they were just being deceptive *** *****. ;)
Click to expand...

Both left and right seem to have their lunatic fringes...
I am thinking that a moderate leftist ( close to what I am ) does NOT know what a mandate to evolve even means...
Extremism is the problem...should not, be, as I think its a 1% thingie..
 
marywollstonecraft said:
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
Click to expand...

Yet some don't have a problem with actually bringing students on a field trip to a mosque? Weird.
 
Dooble said:
Don't you worry, rathi, I'll keep you out of the dark. It's about keeping the light on the gay agenda. ;)
Click to expand...

The "light" MUST BE on the truth; NOT any so-called "gay" agenda.
Or, lets not treat a mole-hill as a mountain.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

What you have done repeatedly is muddle the issue through your inability to understand context. Evolution is taught in a SCIENCE class. When you indicate your support for superstition to be taught to "cover all the bases" and to be performed in a "neutral" fashion, you are most certainly supporting classroom conversations that segue into the realm of voodoo when it is scence being taught. Your insistance that this needs to be done in a "neutral" fashion indicates that such voodoo should be placed on equal footing with the actual science.

I realize you have a sixth grade understanding of evolution as indicated, but some of us who do have scientific backgrounds that extend well beyond the sixth grade level realise the importance of context and do not wish to have real science compromised by mumbo jumbo.
 
ChrisL said:
I wasn't arguing about who brought up GW. I was wondering who brought up the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...

I wasn't involved in that. I was speaking to our conversation.
 
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...

Hmmmm, seems to me my recollection of the Creation account in Genesis written 1440 BCE is quite similar to that of Darwin. Quite amazing actually it agrees more with it than not. So if one is a myth then wouldn't that make the other also? Let's cut through the crap. The true difference in the two is one claims a Supreme being as the architect of all life and others think everything happened by chance.
 
Gardener said:
What you have done repeatedly is muddle the issue through your inability to understand context. Evolution is taught in a SCIENCE class. When you indicate your support for superstition to be taught to "cover all the bases" and to be performed in a "neutral" fashion, you are most certainly supporting classroom conversations that segue into the realm of voodoo when it is scence being taught. Your insistance that this needs to be done in a "neutral" fashion indicates that such voodoo should be placed on equal footing with the actual science.

I realize you have a sixth grade understanding of evolution as indicated, but some of us who do have scientific backgrounds that extend well beyond the sixth grade level realise the importance of context and do not wish to have real science compromised by mumbo jumbo.
Click to expand...

Again, I never said it should be taught in science class.
 
Boo Radley said:
I wasn't involved in that. I was speaking to our conversation.
Click to expand...

Okay, then answer my question as to why you don't have a problem with actually taking children to a mosque and praying to Allah, but you DO have a problem with even mentioning the creationist theory. Sounds like bigotry against the Christian religion to me.
 
earthworm said:
The "light" MUST BE on the truth;
Click to expand...
And from the darkness comes your revelation, unwitting as it is. Thank you for your honesty, earthworm.
 
ChrisL said:
Okay, then answer my question as to why you don't have a problem with actually taking children to a mosque and praying to Allah, but you DO have a problem with even mentioning the creationist theory. Sounds like bigotry against the Christian religion to me.
Click to expand...

In religion class I have no problem with either. I science class I would.
 
Boo Radley said:
In religion class I have no problem with either. I science class I would.
Click to expand...

I learned in history class. That's where I learned Greek mythology too. And I believe you did state earlier in the thread that you didn't have a problem with the kids being taken to a mosque for a "school" field trip. And another thing to remember is that scientific theories based upon known evidence are subject to change whenever new evidence surfaces, just like any other theories.
 
Boo Radley said:
In religion class I have no problem with either. I science class I would.
Click to expand...

Do you compartmentalize your knowledge by subject? There is no difference in teaching something in one class or the other. It is taught and learned or not learned just the same.
 
ChrisL said:
I learned in history class. That's where I learned Greek mythology too. And I believe you did state earlier in the thread that you didn't have a problem with the kids being taken to a mosque for a "school" field trip. And another thing to remember is that scientific theories based upon known evidence are subject to change whenever new evidence surfaces, just like any other theories.
Click to expand...

Only because it happen during a time in history. However, GW is a scientific theory, as is evolution. Creationism isn't. It's faith based. In context is how things should be taught. Going to a Mosque is a fine field trip, but in the context of exploring other cultures or religions. This is fine with Christianity as well, though as most are Christians, it'd hardly be educational to take them to their own church.
 
Fisher said:
Do you compartmentalize your knowledge by subject? There is no difference in teaching something in one class or the other. It is taught and learned or not learned just the same.
Click to expand...

Sure their is. I don't pretend that reading War of the Worlds is history. There has to be a context.
 
Boo Radley said:
Only because it happen during a time in history. However, GW is a scientific theory, as is evolution. Creationism isn't. It's faith based. In context is how things should be taught. Going to a Mosque is a fine field trip, but in the context of exploring other cultures or religions. This is fine with Christianity as well, though as most are Christians, it'd hardly be educational to take them to their own church.
Click to expand...

See, these things can be explained to the kids. You people behave as if they so much as hear anything about other theories that they are too stupid to comprehend the difference between supported by evidence scientific type of theory versus other theories based on other things. All theories are subject to change.
 
Boo Radley said:
Sure their is. I don't pretend that reading War of the Worlds is history. There has to be a context.
Click to expand...

Don't you think the children are taught about the definition of scientific theory before they start learning about actual scientific theories?
 
ChrisL said:
See, these things can be explained to the kids. You people behave as if they so much as hear anything about other theories that they are too stupid to comprehend the difference between supported by evidence scientific type of theory versus other theories based on other things. All theories are subject to change.
Click to expand...

No one said they can't hear it. I have said the science teacher shouldn't treat it like it's a scientific theory. It isn't. In religion class, it's fine.

And frankly, religious theories don't change much as they are seldom questioned by the faithful. They don't adhere to the same rules as scientific theory.
 
ChrisL said:
Don't you think the children are taught about the definition of scientific theory before they start learning about actual scientific theories?
Click to expand...

Sure they are. But if you throw in a no scientific belief as if it were a scientific theory, that would be confusing and largely inappropriate.
 
Boo Radley said:
Sure their is. I don't pretend that reading War of the Worlds is history. There has to be a context.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I disagree. If something is taught in one class it carries the exact same weight if it is taught in another class. the math in science is the same as the math in math.
 
ChrisL said:
See, these things can be explained to the kids. You people behave as if they so much as hear anything about other theories that they are too stupid to comprehend the difference between supported by evidence scientific type of theory versus other theories based on other things. All theories are subject to change.
Click to expand...

But teaching creationism in a science class is a waste of time, since it isn't science. Presumably kids are in science class to learn about science.
 
Fisher said:
Sorry. I disagree. If something is taught in one class it carries the exact same weight if it is taught in another class. the math in science is the same as the math in math.
Click to expand...

That's because math is always math. Faith is not science, ever. The rules are different. They shouldn't be treated as if they are the same. You may weigh one different than the other, but the point is, one isn't the other.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's because math is always math. Faith is not science, ever. The rules are different. They shouldn't be treated as if they are the same. You may weigh one different than the other, but the point is, one isn't the other.
Click to expand...

Everything in science class that begins with "Theory of..." is about faith :doh
 
Yeah, it doesn't make sense. And I don't think that evolution proves there is no God or tell us which religious group has everything right. To me, it just seems like they want an opportunity to teach children their religious beliefs.

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...
 
Last edited:
Well, idk what she is really saying or trying to say, but I can't see how the average person could study evolution and then act like they can choose or its acceptable for others to choose to believe in global warming or not.

Climate change, ice ages, periods of prolonged rising temperatures, evaporating water, and levels of oxygen in the environment all play a role in shaping evolution, survival of the fittest, adaptability, extinction, etc.




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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom