A Christian republic (POLL)

[Moiraine]

Teaching creationism (defined as "stuff in the Bible") is okay with me as long as other religions and mythologies are taught in equal amounts. This is school. Not church.

 

Teaching creationism (defined as the fake "science" garbage and man walking with dinosaurs 6,000 years ago) is not okay. Usually when people talk about teaching Creationism next to Evolution, this is the crap they are talking about.

[funhusker]

Which then begs the question:

 

Which version of Creationism should be taught in schools?

Neither in Science class.

 

Teach the "observable" evidence of evolution. Teach the "observable" evidence of meteorology. Teach the "observable" evidence of astronomy. Teach the observable and nothing else.

 

Since were sharing definitions:

 

sci·ence

ˈsīəns/

noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Not saying a school can't or shouldn't have a "Religions" class where they can think and discuss about God's (or the Spaghetti Monster's) role in the process.

[Moiraine]

 

 

Which then begs the question:

 

Which version of Creationism should be taught in schools?

Neither in Science class.

 

Teach the "observable" evidence of evolution. Teach the "observable" evidence of meteorology. Teach the "observable" evidence of astronomy. Teach the observable and nothing else.

 

Not saying a school can't or shouldn't have a "Religions" class where they can think and discuss about God's (or the Spaghetti Monster's) role in the process.

Exactly. Creationism should NEVER be taught as a science class.

 

IMO, as a Christian, the Bible can't be proven right or wrong via science.

 

Also, evolution doesn't prove it wrong, so the made up BS about the 6,000 year earth is silly.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Which then begs the question:

 

Which version of Creationism should be taught in schools?

Neither in Science class.

 

Teach the "observable" evidence of evolution. Teach the "observable" evidence of meteorology. Teach the "observable" evidence of astronomy. Teach the observable and nothing else.

 

Since were sharing definitions:

 

sci·ence

ˈsīəns/

noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Not saying a school can't or shouldn't have a "Religions" class where they can think and discuss about God's (or the Spaghetti Monster's) role in the process.

 

Should a science class mention theories that scientists have that haven't been proven yet or "observed"?

 

PS....and to be clear, I don't really have an issue with what you wrote as far as teaching Evolution in science and creationism if the school decides to have a religion class.

[VectorVictor]

The opinion piece you linked indicated that there was going to now be this huge movement within the federal educational system to radicalize public schools into indoctrination centers for the evil religion known as Christianity.

 

Considering how many so-called "Christians" have represented the religion on these boards, someone suggesting that it is an evil religion isn't exactly a stretch, to say the least.

 

As for what the OP posted, they're already doing this in Texass, and it has had a very negative impact on public schools:

 

• Public school funding is siphoned off by religious charter schools (who, for the most part, provide a sub-standard education in the K-6 schools and aren't beholden to the same standards as Public Schools).
• This cuts funding for public schools and impacts what they can provide children--currently in non-core programs (e.g. Art, Physical Education, Music), but it's impact has crept into core programs (e.g. new text/materials for Math, Science, Reading).
• Core instruction is impacted
• GOP party members then say public education isn't doing its job and want metrics (because like the idiots they are, they think a school can be run like a business).
• Metrics come in and they're not up to snuff (multiple reasons, including s****y standardized testing materials, lack of up-to-date teaching materials, student apathy)
• Admin then starts having teachers teach the test to kids as young as Kindergarten (see student apathy above) which kills any of the electives or 'fun' exploration pieces of education
• GOP party members then tout Christian Charter schools and Private schools as an answer and tries to siphon off funds and children to go to them (note: Private schools are exempt from standardized testing, and the State of Texass is rather lenient on charter schools when it comes to testing scores compared to Public schools for obvious political reasons)
• Rinse and repeat.

Thanks to the efforts of Jerry Falwell Sr., a bunch of myopic GOP members are ruining one of the core backbones of this country. Standardized testing is ruining kids' ability to think critically (which is showing up in the workplace), and has the ultimate goal of mixing religion (which has no business in public education (except as a function of historical/cultural reference, or rhetorical criticism/critique/examination) with education and undermining what makes public education so vital and beneficial to our society--an educated populous.

[knapplc]

C'mon, VV. That's an unnecessarily harsh tone. We all feel strongly about these subjects, but I know you can convey your thoughts without coming across as so accusatory.

 

I know others do that here, and seem to get away with it. That doesn't make it right.

[funhusker]

 

Should a science class mention theories that scientists have that haven't been proven yet or "observed"?

 

PS....and to be clear, I don't really have an issue with what you wrote as far as teaching Evolution in science and creationism if the school decides to have a religion class.

 

I guess I'll need an example of a scientific theory that is based solely on a "gut feeling" and nothing observed before I can say one way or the other.

[Landlord]

^ Most fields/hypotheses involving particle physics, quantum mechanics, dimensions, etc. are based primarily in lowercase-t theory.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I know most charter/private schools are religious, but is there anything preventing a nonreligious charter schools from popping up?

 

I'm curious--I don't have any kids (don't plan to for a little bit give or take 8 years), so I'm probably not going to be directly impacted by a radical change to the public school system.

[knapplc]

^ Most fields/hypotheses involving particle physics, quantum mechanics, dimensions, etc. are based primarily in lowercase-t theory.

No, they're based on observations, and they are working hypotheses that explain what we currently observe. Unlike religion, which purports to provide the answer before the question is asked, science asks the question and tests the possibilities to arrive at the answer.

 

Religion:

The answer is God. What's the question?

 

Science:

I have a question. What's the answer?

[knapplc]

I know most charter/private schools are religious, but is there anything preventing a nonreligious charter schools from popping up?

 

I'm curious--I don't have any kids (don't plan to for a little bit give or take 8 years), so I'm probably not going to be directly impacted by a radical change to the public school system.

There are many, many charter schools, and some private schools, that are non-religious.

 

LINK

[VectorVictor]

C'mon, VV. That's an unnecessarily harsh tone. We all feel strongly about these subjects, but I know you can convey your thoughts without coming across as so accusatory.

 

I know others do that here, and seem to get away with it. That doesn't make it right.

 

Yeah, you're right, I'll fix it.

 

But I'm still spelling Texass with two 'S's.

 

There. Done.

[knapplc]

You're a good man, McGee.

[VectorVictor]

I know most charter/private schools are religious, but is there anything preventing a nonreligious charter schools from popping up?

 

I'm curious--I don't have any kids (don't plan to for a little bit give or take 8 years), so I'm probably not going to be directly impacted by a radical change to the public school system.

 

Yeah, there are a lot of sports-oriented charter schools in the DFW area (pretty much you pick your child's opiate when you sign up for a charter school in DFW--sports or religion). Deion Sanders even had one running for a while (Prime Prep Academy) before it went belly up and caused a lot of controversy for how it handled its closure.

 

And from the sound of things, it was a sports-first, education-second type of charter school.

 

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2016/02/02/the-spectacular-collapse-of-prime-prep-academy

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Should a science class mention theories that scientists have that haven't been proven yet or "observed"?

 

PS....and to be clear, I don't really have an issue with what you wrote as far as teaching Evolution in science and creationism if the school decides to have a religion class.

 

I guess I'll need an example of a scientific theory that is based solely on a "gut feeling" and nothing observed before I can say one way or the other.

 

Well, the most obvious to me is the theory that all of a sudden out of nothing, matter came together to explode to create the entire universe and everything in it. This is a phenomena that can not be replicated because no matter what you do, you start with something to create something.

 

Sure, we can observe evolution..etc. But, the theory of what was present the nano second before during and after the big bang is pure "theory". This is because the human brain can not comprehend what existed before anything existed.

 

Another one is where does space end? I was always told in science class that it never ends and goes on forever. Well.....we really don't have any proof of that. We can see through telescopes as far as we can see, but, beyond that, is pure theory. Again, the human brain can not comprehend eternity and we have no observable proof that it goes on forever.