• 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!

US states mull laws allowing religion in science class

maquiscat said:
Very good. You are all about the strawman aren't you? Teaching English in a science classroom isn't good practice either, but still doesn't reflect upon the overall teaching ability.
Click to expand...
Ok, I concede the point. She may be an exceptional teacher who merely chooses to teach poorly. This was a useful discussion.

Teachers who choose to teach poorly should be fired.



No not all. I am of the camp that says it is a deity and that He created all of the mechanism that run our universe. Science allows us to discover and comprehend these mechanics. Science, at this point, can neither prove nor disprove anything beyond our universe. Intelligent Design can encompass anything from deity created, to this being a computer simulation (a recent theory). It holds to no one religious bias, or even a religious base at all. A metaphysical one maybe, but not necessarily religious.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, it can be all sorts of things. But in the real, non-hypothetical world, people teaching creationism in a science class in Texas are referring to the Christian biblical "poof" version. When that gets stopped, they rebrand it "Intelligent Design" but are still attempting to teach Chrstianity-specific ideas.

She could have been referring to the Hindu creation story. But she's not.
 
jimbo said:
If she believes in creationism and teaches it as a science teacher in science class, she is not the best science teacher in Texas.

I disagree that religion as a general subject should not be taught in school. Not individual religions, but religion in an objective sense. Much of the world runs on religion. Kids should understand that.

The key is how to teach religion without advocating a specific religion. I don't have an answer for that.
Click to expand...

It's not so difficult. Teachers do it all the time. You just stick to the facts: This is what the Hindus believe, this is what the Muslims believe, here are the differences between Sunni and Shia, etc.

I once asked a group of sixth graders who were being taught comparative religious which religion they were. I knew the answer, as they went to Catechism class every week after school, but they didn't. Clueless.
 
countryboy said:
There's gaping holes in the theory of Darwinian evolution, I know you people like to pretend there's not, but. The true believers are no different than Creationists. A lot of faith required to believe either philosophy.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in a little elaboration on the gaping holes in the evolution theory.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's not so difficult. Teachers do it all the time. You just stick to the facts: This is what the Hindus believe, this is what the Muslims believe, here are the differences between Sunni and Shia, etc.

I once asked a group of sixth graders who were being taught comparative religious which religion they were. I knew the answer, as they went to Catechism class every week after school, but they didn't. Clueless.
Click to expand...

That's what I'd like to see. Objective religion taught by objective teachers. Those teachers may be hard to find.
 
jimbo said:
If she believes in creationism and teaches it as a science teacher in science class, she is not the best science teacher in Texas.

I disagree that religion as a general subject should not be taught in school. Not individual religions, but religion in an objective sense. Much of the world runs on religion. Kids should understand that.

The key is how to teach religion without advocating a specific religion. I don't have an answer for that.
Click to expand...

I'm on the same page as you. Your last sentence hit's the nail on the head. In this day and age, how does a public school teacher present concepts of religion without advocating for one of the other. I don't know, so that is why I say no religious teaching what so ever.

Other than to mention the fact religion exists, nothing more should be said.
 
Somerville said:
Laws of this nature will not help in keeping America as a world leader in the technology and science which is necessary for advancement.
Click to expand...

Texas. smh
 
Deuce said:
Predictable deflection. We're talking about teaching non-science in a science classroom.
Click to expand...

No deflection. Don't be afraid to called out on the problems with your own standards.

I've already stated my position on teaching, or even mentioning, religion in the class room.

I'm just not a big fan of the growing Fascism the left has embraced. The "destroy" response doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the students.

Hate is not something that should be given power, or ability to influence.
 
countryboy said:
There's gaping holes in the theory of Darwinian evolution, I know you people like to pretend there's not, but. The true believers are no different than Creationists. A lot of faith required to believe either philosophy.
Click to expand...

Please provide examples of said "gaping holes."

This should be good.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and no "conservative" ones. They just don't get science.
Click to expand...

:roll:

Perhaps the problem is what liberals have turned science into.

I'm all for science that embraces and encourages the scientific method. Liberals have removed that concept from the discipline.

Science is critical. Perhaps today's science teachers should dust off the lesson plans from a number of generations ago when the principles of science was actually taught.
 
ocean515 said:
:roll:

Perhaps the problem is what liberals have turned science into.

I'm all for science that embraces and encourages the scientific method. Liberals have removed that concept from the discipline.

Science is critical. Perhaps today's science teachers should dust off the lesson plans from a number of generations ago when the principles of science was actually taught.
Click to expand...

"Liberals" are not in control of science. Sheesh.
 
ocean515 said:
Depends on which science is involved. In the classroom, liberals are most certainly in charge. In many areas of science, no question.

Overall? The data suggests liberals are in charge of science.

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll | The Huffington Post

Only six percent of America’s scientists identify themselves as Republicans​

Sheesh, back at you.
Click to expand...

Well, Republicans are stupid. So, it's no surprise that people with high IQ, like scientists, do not identify as one. :roll:
 
ocean515 said:
Yea. That must be it.......:doh
Click to expand...

Well, if all but 6% of people with an education in science reject the Republicans, what the hell else do you think it is? Smart people do not identify as Republican.
 
calamity said:
Well, if all but 6% of people with an education in science reject the Republicans, what the hell else do you think it is? Smart people do not identify as Republican.
Click to expand...

I guess it's because Republicans are too smart to be constrained by the limitations of science, so they create and profit from the companies that hire them. More money in the corner office than in the corner of the lab.

Smart people, Republicans......:cool:
 
ocean515 said:
I guess it's because Republicans are too smart to be constrained by the limitations of science, so they create and profit from the companies that hire them. More money in the corner office than in the corner of the lab.

Smart people, Republicans......:cool:
Click to expand...

lol...proof that Republicans are stupid. They vote for politicians that the guy in the corner office wants to put in charge of the country. Not very bright...that.
 
calamity said:
lol...proof that Republicans are stupid. They vote for politicians that the guy in the corner office wants to put in charge of the country. Not very bright...that.
Click to expand...

That isn't proof. Remember the memes you're supposed to spread. Republicans have all the money.

Unless you're a paid off climate scientist, having all the money is a much better result. Keeps from having to depend on the handouts of others, which liberals are plagued with.

Not very bright, for sure.
 
ocean515 said:
That isn't proof. Remember the memes you're supposed to spread. Republicans have all the money.

Unless you're a paid off climate scientist, having all the money is a much better result. Keeps from having to depend on the handouts of others, which liberals are plagued with.

Not very bright, for sure.
Click to expand...
OK, your posts are coming clearer now.

"Liberal" means Democrat, and "conservative" means Republican. Since most scientists are Democrats, then that must mean that the "liberals" are in charge of science.

And the science you want to reject is climate science, since it is telling you things you don't want to believe.

An interesting thing about science: It really doesn't care what you believe, it just is what it is. If you don't want to accept it, it still works. You can totally reject the physics behind heavier than air flight, but the plane will still deposit you at your destination. It really doesn't care.
 
Somerville said:
Laws of this nature will not help in keeping America as a world leader in the technology and science which is necessary for advancement.
Click to expand...

So you would prefer that an unproven and patently illogical theory be taught exclusively?? I figured out that evolution was full of holes LONG before I became a Christian. Too many changes needed over too little time. A process that clearly demands the ability to project a path, but without any mechanism for projecting that path. NONE of which ever gets taught as part of the theory of evolution. It's a theory with some very substantial questions surrounding it that our children should be taught as well. But people like you want our children kept ignorant of any facts that fly in the face of the narrative you want pushed.
 
faithful_servant said:
So you would prefer that an unproven and patently illogical theory be taught exclusively??
Click to expand...
Is there any other theory that has better explanatory power? I'm not sure what you think is illogical about evolution....I've heard such claims before but they have all proven to be strawmen or misunderstandings of actual theory.

I figured out that evolution was full of holes LONG before I became a Christian. Too many changes needed over too little time.
Click to expand...
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

A process that clearly demands the ability to project a path, but without any mechanism for projecting that path. NONE of which ever gets taught as part of the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...
Because the idea that evolution projects a path or needs to is not part of the theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom