HokeyReligions Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/2991836 [color=indigo] "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered"[/color] Link to post Share on other sites
Mustard Bomb Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 O, that was fascinating - and the judges ruling was interesting, too: The judge disagreed: "While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community." Thanks for the link, HokeyReligions! Link to post Share on other sites
Moose Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 I don't know why people get so uptight about the teaching of evolution. It's up to the parents of the children to instill religous and moral values......not the Schools. If the parents do their job correctly, it doesn't matter what they're taught. Link to post Share on other sites
Matilda Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by Moose I don't know why people get so uptight about the teaching of evolution. It's up to the parents of the children to instill religous and moral values......not the Schools. If the parents do their job correctly, it doesn't matter what they're taught. My thoughts exactly. Link to post Share on other sites
Pocky Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered" I'm against having religion in school except for it being taught as an elective course that students have the right to take or not take. And while I say that, I think that multiple religions should be included in these courses (not just Christianity). I don't know why people get so uptight about the teaching of evolution. It's up to the parents of the children to instill religous and moral values......not the Schools. If the parents do their job correctly, it doesn't matter what they're taught. I agree with Moose (although I'm so surprised that Moosey isn't fighting to bring religion back into schools). Link to post Share on other sites
Mustard Bomb Posted January 14, 2005 Share Posted January 14, 2005 Originally posted by Moose I don't know why people get so uptight about the teaching of evolution. It's up to the parents of the children to instill religous and moral values......not the Schools. If the parents do their job correctly, it doesn't matter what they're taught. I agree as well. But I do think it matters what children are taught in school, when it comes to facts and scholarly values. Link to post Share on other sites
Author HokeyReligions Posted January 14, 2005 Author Share Posted January 14, 2005 My personal opinion, I think Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Evolution and the Big Bang theory, and other theories about the beginnings of life and the planet. Individual religious practices should also be taught - not part of science but of perhaps sociology. I think that its good for kids to learn that there are many theories about the beginning of life and mankind, and also that kids have a basic overall understanding of different religious practices/faiths. Their parents, as Moose said, have the responsibility for instructing them in their parents religion-of-choice. I had a "religious studies" course in high-school but back then it dealt mainly with Christianity and very little with other faiths. LS members -- mainly Quank and then Moimeme -- have taught me more about Catholicism than I ever knew before. Quankanne's way of explaining away the myths are easy to follow and understand. This made me think waaaay back to when I joined the Campus Life Youth Christian Club. I was brought up to be a Christian but am now an agnostic. Anyway, the club met after school in the Library. The club was more like a Bible study than anything and it was kicked out shortly after it began - like on the 3rd meeting at my school (this made the national news at the time) because the clubs began with a Q&A session. The leaders brought a carpet-covered orange crate to sit on and the person on the crate would be asked questions from the Bible. If they got all their questions right, they got some kind of little award or recognition or something (I don't remember because no one ever got them right). There were three chances (3 outs) and on the 3rd wrong answer you move and someone else takes the seat. The wrong answers are what was studied that week. The reason they were kicked out is because under the carpet was a small buzzer and you got a small electric shock when you answered wrong! Talk about "fear of God" ! I think the club is still in operation -- but much MUCH different than way back then! Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The idea that microbes get us sick is a theory--'Germ Theory' to be specific. Long before Pasteur, the common belief was that the reason you got sick was because you (or your family/ancestors) had upsetted God. I would be appalled if medical textbooks noted that germs were "just a theory", and we had to give equal time in Medical School to Judaic cleansing rites. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory in the same way that Evolution is, because it does not have a large body of evidence behind it, nor does it have any practical application in a field of science--as evolution does. My freshman biology teacher explained the difference best--Evolution is an explanation about the course of the origin and change of species. Intelligent design is a lack of an explanation--since it doesn't offer anything in the realm of explaining the proccess of the force that drove it. Since the scientific revolution, a cornerstone of scientific applications has been the ability to reproduce an experiment--and while natural selection can be easily observed (example : antibiotics--take the whole damn bottle!), we lack the ability to reliably create species at will, as God did according to literal interpretations of Genesis. In short, Creationism is scientifically worthless and deserves to be taught for what it is--literature. Link to post Share on other sites
Zoot Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Ofcourse the Bible is incorrect and your freshman Biology teacher is the master. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted January 27, 2005 Share Posted January 27, 2005 Ofcourse the Bible is incorrect You've read the Bible and chosen which parts you want to take literally, and which you want to ignore/take figuratively. That's when it becomes a matter of your discretion, and not the discretion of Biblical authors. A given person can read the Bible and still draw an incorrect conclusion. That doesn't mean the Bible is incorrect, it means the person is. If you think the Earth was formed thousands of years ago instead of billions--you're incorrect. your freshman Biology teacher is the master. He does have a Master's degree-but it's nothing special. Anyone who got a D or better in his class has exponentially more knowledge about the origins of the earth and the natural selection of species than a person who transcribed the oral tradition thousands of years ago. They didn't even have a foundation of the knowledge we have now--not even close. So they wrote a story about it. Nowadays, the story can either serve as a powerful metaphor about the power of God--or it can serve as an excuse to be totally ignorant to modern science. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts