»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
God in the Classroom
| The Alley |
|
God in the Classroom |
|
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas 
|
Should alternatives, which are basically religious in nature, be allowed in science classes as an alternative theory to Darwin's theory? Far too often, Darwin's theory is taught as Darwin's Fact, and has been for the better part of 80 years. The two main alternates are Biblical Creationism, and a blending of the two, where God created the conditions for evolution to occur. And I'm well aware of seperation of Church and State. One could take the view, however, that Darwinism is a facet of a religion just as Creationism is a facet of a religion. And if this is indeed true, why is that theory not removed as per the Seperation of Church and State statutes? |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Alastair Adamson - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Aenimal Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350the ass-end of space |
Personally, no. Whether scientific theory or scientific fact it's science class. |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
No. Biblical Creationism implies acceptance of a belief in Judeao-Christian fundamentals. Darwinism, is not a religion, even if some may treat it as such. Science is science, not religious theory, and I think we should leave it at that. Now, if you're talking about briefly mentioning/acknowledging that there are other views? maybe, but extended discussions even if they address (equally) ALL of mankind's creation philosphies? Naw, I still think that belongs in a Philosophy 101, not Science class. MHO |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
Alicat, Science as science dealing with observable and verifiable facts should not be thwarted by politics or theology. However, having read of the lives of those like Freud and particularly Jung, I do not include Psychology, (if that is what denotes their field), among the sciences referred to above. John |
||
|
Kaoru
since 2003-06-07
Posts 3892where the wild flowers grow |
The reason why creationism shouldn't be taught as a science is because it isn't science. It cannot be proven nor disproven. Darwins theories can, because they are just that, theories. |
||
|
Susan Member Ascendant
since 2004-03-27
Posts 5104walking the surreal |
Creationism is theology - theology should be taught in a class titled as such. Darwinism, while in my general opinion way off the mark, is theory - as other science is theory - unless it is undoubtably provable by fact - so perhaps it ought to be taught as scientific theory. Problem with Science is many seem to think of it as a fact, and yet it is ever evolving, changing, as new techniques for study and new understandings of previously unknown facts become known. A tree is a tree - one can see, smell, touch and taste it -that is fact, but who knows the truth about the universe until one has seen, experienced, beheld such things- such as a black hole - until then, as is Darwinism, which cannot be proven concretely, it is scientific theory - My humble opinion - Susan Happiness isn't something that happens to you, it's created from within you. Joy is a state of mind. |
||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
Alicat, Absolutely not. Creationism has nothing to do with scientific practice. These are two seperate realms of human endeavor. Science requires observation, hypothesis, testing (of the observable facts) and proof (positive or negative). Religious practice requires only faith. "Theory" as used in a science based conclusion, reminds that by definition, the conclusion (proof) is repeatable and challengeable. It is quite normal for a conclusion to be modified or replaced by this challenge and testing process. That proves the scientific method. That is precisely how science moves along and progresses. There is no faith involved. [Creationists seem to have a fear of science and seek to abrogate it in their children's minds. That is what I think the anti-Darwin movement in schools is all about. It's really about discrediting science, not about Darwin. I find that frightening and dangerous for us all.] e |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Evolution is a fact. It is also a theory. It's a theory that explains what we see remarkably well. With that said, I don't really care if the controversy is taught or not. Teaching evolution only doesn't change anybody's mind anyway. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Evolution is lore. Creationism is lore. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Recent observations by the Hubble Space Telescope have provided strong support for the theory that the Universe began at a fixed point in time. Since all things with beginnings have a cause (another scientific postulate), it is logical that, at the very least, that the first "cause" was initiated from an uncaused being. Further, the many physical properties of the universe, which must remain minutely calibrated in order for life to exist at all, make a theistic origin of the Universe tenable. Biologically, the deceptively complex operation of DNA in ordering themselves in a way that results in complex living creatures certainly is open to more than one interpretation - one being that this complexity is a result of a remarkable coincidence. The other, of course, is that the complex operations at the cellular level are the result of intelligent design. Brad is right in so far that Evolution is both fact and theory. It is fact insofar as we can observe intraspecies evolution. It is theory ... not a scientific theory, but historical theory ... insomuch that it is based on the piecing together of historical data. But Intelligent Design is also fact and theory. The "Big Bang" event could not have occurred without a cause, and the Big Bang, or any other possible preceeding chain of causes, could not have occurred without an Uncaused Cause. It too draws conclusions from events in history. It is theory insomuch as we can observe scientific data which supports the necessity for design as an explanation for the problem of life. It is also worth noting that "theology" and "science" are arbitrary disciplinary constructs that parse knowledge in ways that conveniently catalog them for our use. Because nothing human operates in unrelated parallel lines, it is practical inconstancy to dismiss the importance of the Intelligent Design Theory on the basis that it does not fit neatly into one's contrived idea of disciplinarity. Science is about knowing. Where there is evidence, the evidence ought to be followed - science should not be subject to "conscientious objection." If Intelligent Design theorists want to take the risk of subjecting their theory to scrutiny in the marketplace of ideas, then we ought to let them do so. Any other action on our part is ... well ... closed minded. Jim |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Thanks, Jim. Intelligent Design was the middle ground one I was thinking of, but couldn't quite remember the name. And everyone, thanks for the responses so far as they echo sentiment over much of the US. There are, however, many states mulling over alternatives to Darwin's Theory to be taught in science classes. Ask an atheist how life came to be, and odds are Darwin's Theory will be mentioned. Take into account that atheism is an acknowledged religion and is protected by the Constitution, and Darwinism becomes a facet of that religion. Conversely, ask a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindi, or any other religion with a defined 'God', and odds are some aspect of Creationism will be given. Personally, I wouldn't mind Intelligent Design being discussed in some science classes as a theory in addition to Darwin's Theory. Not as a 'religious perspective', but as a scientific theory. I'm not anti-Darwin, but there's a reason why his Theory is just a theory. Alicat “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, if he or she did mention Darwin, he or she seriously misunderstands Darwin. The beginning of life is called abiogenesis and there's some interesting stuff happening there. Apparently, we've been concentrating on the wrong aspect of life (How the rudimentary nucleotides came together.). There's seems to be some interesting stuff appearing in proteinoid research (not exactly proteins but kind of like them). Also, instead of goo, instead of clay, there's some interesting evidence near volcanic rocks. Now, all of this is speculation (and of course none of this has to do with ultimate first causes) and none of it has anything to do with Darwin. Um, why is atheism a religion? How is religion defined here? |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
I could be wrong, Brad, but I think on military paperwork under religion, one can put atheism, agnosticism, gnosticism, wiccan, or any personally held belief or method of living. That's how they know, hopefully, how to conduct services if a soldier is killed and identified. It's even stamped on the dogtags. In that respect, as well as freedom from religious persecution, those stances are religions. Back to topic though, should states be allowed to mandate alternatives to Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and/or should there be wording that Darwin's Theory is just that: a theory, not a proven fact. When you boil it all down, his theory takes that wicked little critter known as Faith. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Civilization is a dog chasing its tail. I'm half expecting to open the newspaper and see the Scopes trial on the front page... We don't inherit the wind...we just inherit the windbags  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Mike, Good point. The Supreme Court never makes final descision. It's up to us to finally make them. (Anybody want to criticize my split inifinitive?) |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Should the concern really be which theories are right and which are wrong? Maybe the real question is about whom should teach what? Personally, I feel there are some parts of my child's education that are too important to be left to others. I don't want your help. And if I expect you to respect my feelings on this, I know I can't force any help on you, either. Honestly, I don't think it's any more complicated than that. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Yes. Intelligent Design Theory has made some interesting strides and gained some interesting converts (e.g., Antony Flew). I'm fine with IDT as a general theory of physical and biological origins. But I think specific questions regarding the nature and qualities of the Designer are best left to be answered in the home. Jim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
School is where all life's teachings and learnings should "meet" in one corpus. Even though we seperate subjects and courses etc, everything should still be able to gather into a oneness. A corpus of wisdoms all individuals take of and give to, that is Lore. A teacher teaches lore, not all of it, but what seems most important to learning and wisdom. Science and Religion both have things that are very important to learning, and therefore a teacher should be able teach scientific lore and religious lore. |
||
|
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
Since none of these 'theories' can apparently be proven to everyone's mutual satisfaction, perhaps a brief intro to each would be fair to all? Still, I don't think it's a good idea to present the info as if it were science. But science itself is not static, and is forever being challenged. I've personally always had doubts as to Christian biblical stories and any other religious faith's hard line approach to life on earth or in the universe. I've always assumed there must have been a Prima Moblier (Prime Mover, aka God, though can't prove it. Most cultures have something akin to God in their folklore, in their collective history banks. It's nearly impossible for humans to think in terms of no beginning/no end without accounting for some entity to set things in motion. I've never had any trouble reconciling evolution within this greater framework, and have always hoped we'd just leave it up to each individual to decide what (s)he believes to be the source of all we know. |
||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
And we should wonder why there is so much "political" spin. There is plenty of it going on right here. I am about out of time on my break so will add only this: Please, doubt and faith are not synonymous. Scientific method comes down to the known, the unknown and the doubt between them. There is no faith in scientific method and if you think there is then you don't understand the method, which, unfortunately is an all too common misunderstanding and a failure of science teaching. As a flip side question . . . how about teaching scientific method in religion class? And that is not a flippant question because it would mean that the teacher would have to understand (or at least should understand) the method. That might be a great leap forward. e |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Krawdad: I don't see induction as being contrary to faith if that faith is founded on criteria that can be inductively scrutinized. I do it all the time. But even the scientific method doesn't assure us of arriving at one definitive interpretation, especially when we theorize about those things that cannot be observed. Jim |
||
|
ice Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404Pennsylvania |
One thing bothers me in the opening statement of this thread, and that is that it makes Darwin's theory seem the same as modern evolutionary thought... It is true that the concept that Darwin introduced to the world is still at the foundation of the group, but that foundation has been covered with new buildings time and time again... It is obvious, that in every aspect of thought on species origin, that creationists and evolutionist think vastly different. A modern evolutionist can and does change as new information arrives. The creationist cannot do this, they cannot sway from their path or their whole apple cart will turn over..Their theory is closed ended...So it cannot be considered a science and must be considered religious study. Should Darwin's theory be taught in public school science class, as a fair representation of evolutionary thought? My feelings are absolutely not...They should be discussed as historical matter only.... Should the thoughts of Stephen J. Gould be discussed in high schools as such? Most certainly so. My feelings are, that to teach the creationist theory in public schools is a direct infringement on separation of church and state rules... But I do feel that if it were possible for a teacher to speak about both theories without bias, that that should be done..Teach both well, and let the students decide... But I don't think that that is possible. ----------ice ><> |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
