Teaching science in schools

[NUinID]

Nice thought Conga you get a smiley.

[Junior]

If anyone can successfully embed the player (if that's the right term) I'd appreciate the assist. Apparently I've now gone full old man.

 

 

[knapplc]

We can't teach any religion in schools because we can't teach all religion in schools. There is zero evidence that Christianity has more basis in truth than Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Norse mythology, the Greek gods, etc. It is not acceptable to choose one or two of these religions and teach their tenets and ignore others. It would be entirely too cumbersome to explain Genesis, the Norse creation story, the stories of Zoroaster, etc. You'd need the child's entire schoolyear time to explain in sufficient detail to allow them to grasp the concepts of all the creation stories alone.

 

Religious beliefs belong in places of worship. They have no place in schools (unless it's a religious school).

[BigRedBuster]

Well said Conga. Not much to add except a +1.

[carlfense]

We can't teach any religion in schools because we can't teach all religion in schools. There is zero evidence that Christianity has more basis in truth than Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Norse mythology, the Greek gods, etc. It is not acceptable to choose one or two of these religions and teach their tenets and ignore others. It would be entirely too cumbersome to explain Genesis, the Norse creation story, the stories of Zoroaster, etc. You'd need the child's entire schoolyear time to explain in sufficient detail to allow them to grasp the concepts of all the creation stories alone.

 

Religious beliefs belong in places of worship. They have no place in schools (unless it's a religious school).

+1.

[NUinID]

We can't teach any religion in schools because we can't teach all religion in schools. There is zero evidence that Christianity has more basis in truth than Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Norse mythology, the Greek gods, etc. It is not acceptable to choose one or two of these religions and teach their tenets and ignore others. It would be entirely too cumbersome to explain Genesis, the Norse creation story, the stories of Zoroaster, etc. You'd need the child's entire schoolyear time to explain in sufficient detail to allow them to grasp the concepts of all the creation stories alone.

 

Religious beliefs belong in places of worship. They have no place in schools (unless it's a religious school).

 

I agree!

[BigRedBuster]

We can't teach any religion in schools because we can't teach all religion in schools. There is zero evidence that Christianity has more basis in truth than Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Norse mythology, the Greek gods, etc. It is not acceptable to choose one or two of these religions and teach their tenets and ignore others. It would be entirely too cumbersome to explain Genesis, the Norse creation story, the stories of Zoroaster, etc. You'd need the child's entire schoolyear time to explain in sufficient detail to allow them to grasp the concepts of all the creation stories alone.

 

Religious beliefs belong in places of worship. They have no place in schools (unless it's a religious school).

 

I agree with that and I don't think Conga's post disagrees with that either.

[Conga3]

We can't teach any religion in schools because we can't teach all religion in schools. There is zero evidence that Christianity has more basis in truth than Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Norse mythology, the Greek gods, etc. It is not acceptable to choose one or two of these religions and teach their tenets and ignore others. It would be entirely too cumbersome to explain Genesis, the Norse creation story, the stories of Zoroaster, etc. You'd need the child's entire schoolyear time to explain in sufficient detail to allow them to grasp the concepts of all the creation stories alone.

 

Religious beliefs belong in places of worship. They have no place in schools (unless it's a religious school).

I love this argument. It makes my head spin because I find myself arguing both sides, and then I walk away spun after completely confusing myself.

 

---

 

On one side, I'm not sure I agree with the premise that teaching one or a few religions requires we teach all religions.

 

In English class, we don't feel compelled to teach kids about ALL "great" novels, we pick and choose a curriculum based on some sort of "consensus" between decision makers - and this is often a contentious issue.

In Math class, we don't feel compelled to teach kids about base-2 (important for computer science) or base-12 math (arguably a more superior system), but strictly base-10 math.

In Algebra we don't teach Phi along with Pi when teaching the math of circles.

 

...and there are probably many other examples where we discriminate against arguably "equally important" knowledge in favor of a "more useful yet limited" curriculum that we've agreed to through a "majority opinion/consensus".

 

In strictly educational terms, teaching Christianity and NOT teaching dozens of other religions would simply fall in line with how we treat many other areas of education where we settle on a limited/useful/majority curriculum.

 

---

 

Then I see the other side as based on the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

Does that apply to States? Probably?!?!?

Does that apply to local education systems? Possibly!?!?

Does including ANY reference to a specific religion in a publicly funded educational curriculum without equal reference/funding to all other religions constitute an tacit endorsement of a "state" religion? I DUNNO!??!?!

 

I generally fall on the side of YES, that clause in our Constitution should prevent a specific religion being taught in public schools where we mandate participation and limit choice... but it depends on how the day is going.

 

---

 

But then...are charter schools considered "public" schools since the parent is choosing a school - not being told what school they're allowed to send their children!??! - OMG! My brain is about to explode!

[Husker_x]

On one side, I'm not sure I agree with the premise that teaching one or a few religions requires we teach all religions.

 

In English class, we don't feel compelled to teach kids about ALL "great" novels, we pick and choose a curriculum based on some sort of "consensus" between decision makers - and this is often a contentious issue.

In Math class, we don't feel compelled to teach kids about base-2 (important for computer science) or base-12 math (arguably a more superior system), but strictly base-10 math.

In Algebra we don't teach Phi along with Pi when teaching the math of circles.

 

...and there are probably many other examples where we discriminate against arguably "equally important" knowledge in favor of a "more useful yet limited" curriculum that we've agreed to through a "majority opinion/consensus".

 

In strictly educational terms, teaching Christianity and NOT teaching dozens of other religions would simply fall in line with how we treat many other areas of education where we settle on a limited/useful/majority curriculum.

 

---

 

Then I see the other side as based on the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

 

Does that apply to States? Probably?!?!?

Does that apply to local education systems? Possibly!?!?

Does including ANY reference to a specific religion in a publicly funded educational curriculum without equal reference/funding to all other religions constitute an tacit endorsement of a "state" religion? I DUNNO!??!?!

 

I generally fall on the side of YES, that clause in our Constitution should prevent a specific religion being taught in public schools where we mandate participation and limit choice... but it depends on how the day is going.

 

You could easily design a curriculum based on an impartial, fact-based study of major world religions and philosophies. I would be thrilled--thrilled--to find that a historical approach to the Bible and Christianity was being taught in public schools, particularly in the south and midwest. I would love to have students show up to class every day to learn about how the Old Testament was probably composed by four sets of scribes + a redactor. Or how it ripped off the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Or how its creation myth is par for the course ancient Near-Eastern mythology. I would love to see students examining the claims of "historical evidence" for Jesus of Nazareth, or the process which led to the production of what we now know as the Bible (including figures like Marcion of Sinope). You get to teach history and speed the decline of religion at the same time. That's what I call a bargain.

[zoogs]

Evolution is neither random nor chance. Natural selection is the mechanism which directly refutes claims like this, which are always made by creationists who misunderstand or refuse to understand evolution. Also, there is no such thing as an evolutionist. I believe in the law of gravity; that doesn't make me a gravitationalist. Evolution is both observable and testable and can be proven, beyond doubt, up, down, and sideways. It is not beyond scientific description or understanding.

 

Quoted for emphasis...this isn't a political issue; it's nonsensical to appeal to your sense of 'balance' or impartiality. But whenever knowledge is settled in a way people don't like, making it a matter of beliefs and opinions and extremism is their only recourse.

 

And there is a big, big difference between teaching about religions - which I'm sure many of you have seen covered in your high school world history classes - and teaching the religion itself.

[tschu]

 

 

Evolution defined is the change in genetic material over time due to mutations within that genetic material. That is a fact that can not be debated. No scientist Christian or otherwise would ever debate this.

 

 

 

Hardcore evolutionist: adds due to random chance

 

Rational Christian: adds due to God's will

 

Myself: science concerns only what is observable and testable - neither of the above fits the testable category, so it is beyond the realm of science.

 

Whacko creationist: denies any change and claims it to be a government plot - Seriously. The hardcore believe that fossils were planted by the US government. Really

 

Evolution is neither random nor chance. Natural selection is the mechanism which directly refutes claims like this, which are always made by creationists who misunderstand or refuse to understand evolution. Also, there is no such thing as an evolutionist. I believe in the law of gravity; that doesn't make me a gravitationalist. Evolution is both observable and testable and can be proven, beyond doubt, up, down, and sideways. It is not beyond scientific description or understanding.

tschu the geneticist is going to nitpick and say that "random chance" is a very large component of evolution. Genetic drift (random - as in, the mutations that arise are random, many mating interactions are random, deaths are often random, environmental catastrophies are random, etc etc) is a big component in how genetically populations change over time. Natural selection is the non-random component. They both come together in the evolution equation to produce the end result.

[knapplc]

Neither of you (tschu and Husker_x) are wrong. You're just citing different parts of the same story.

 

Evolution is a reaction to situation. That reaction isn't random in that it's based on environment - but the environment is fluid, therefore evolutionary changes are predicated on necessities of the environment dictated by a particular time & place.

 

Examples: Tibetans evolving to adapt to high altitude and Inuit people adapting to the cold - both in less than 10,000 years.

 

That's an eyeblink compared to the 2.5 million years "humans" have existed on this planet, yet they both serve as examples of adaptation - the most obvious form of evolution.

[ZRod]

We can't teach any religion in schools because we can't teach all religion in schools. There is zero evidence that Christianity has more basis in truth than Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Norse mythology, the Greek gods, etc. It is not acceptable to choose one or two of these religions and teach their tenets and ignore others. It would be entirely too cumbersome to explain Genesis, the Norse creation story, the stories of Zoroaster, etc. You'd need the child's entire schoolyear time to explain in sufficient detail to allow them to grasp the concepts of all the creation stories alone.

 

Religious beliefs belong in places of worship. They have no place in schools (unless it's a religious school).

Actually I was taught about Greek Mythology in the 4th grade at a public school so...

[knapplc]

I gave you a +1, but what I meant was "OK smartybutt"

[Husker_x]

 

 

Evolution defined is the change in genetic material over time due to mutations within that genetic material. That is a fact that can not be debated. No scientist Christian or otherwise would ever debate this.

 

 

 

Hardcore evolutionist: adds due to random chance

 

Rational Christian: adds due to God's will

 

Myself: science concerns only what is observable and testable - neither of the above fits the testable category, so it is beyond the realm of science.

 

Whacko creationist: denies any change and claims it to be a government plot - Seriously. The hardcore believe that fossils were planted by the US government. Really

 

Evolution is neither random nor chance. Natural selection is the mechanism which directly refutes claims like this, which are always made by creationists who misunderstand or refuse to understand evolution. Also, there is no such thing as an evolutionist. I believe in the law of gravity; that doesn't make me a gravitationalist. Evolution is both observable and testable and can be proven, beyond doubt, up, down, and sideways. It is not beyond scientific description or understanding.

tschu the geneticist is going to nitpick and say that "random chance" is a very large component of evolution. Genetic drift (random - as in, the mutations that arise are random, many mating interactions are random, deaths are often random, environmental catastrophies are random, etc etc) is a big component in how genetically populations change over time. Natural selection is the non-random component. They both come together in the evolution equation to produce the end result.

 

I'm aware of that.

 

Most of the time when you hear the words "random chance" in association with evolution + religion, what you are talking about is not what you described. Yeah, even the whitest of white polar bears with the biggest gonads can get taken out by a landslide. But what you're describing is much more nuanced than what your typical creationist means when he says, "Evolution is random chance," kind of like when they say the universe is made from "nothing," it's not what Lawrence Krauss is talking about.