We studied the bible as a requirement in my classes in high school as well as in college. But then again we were very smart kids.

-Rudey

It was taught in my classes; just like everything else, it was taught as theory. I'm probably one of the few non-Hare Krishnas who can recite their little chant.

Other courses were the Bible as Mythology, Contrasting & Comparing Religious Theories, Reincarnation (I forget the whole title), etc.

I'm not saying that I didn't flirt with a lot of the different theories in my life. I just found the One which made the most sense to me. I was also blessed with parents who encouraged me to explore different forms of worship, so by the time I was 16, I had attended 23 different types of services. I can't imagine that a more informed opinion can be formed than by research and actually visiting.

BTW, I just couldn't get into Toaster Worship... ;)

Wow, that's interesting -- I don't remember learning anything related to religion when I was in school. But then, I guess I don't remember much from school anyway. ;)

As a side note, though, I don't know anything about Hare Krishnas, but there are non-Hare Krishnas who believe in the concepts of karma and rebirth, Buddhists being among them (not that I typically worry about what people think, but I don't want anyone thinking I'm a Hare Krishna).

I would normally endorse this, but for the same reason I gave a couple pages ago. So much of different religions & mythologies are part of our culture that, by ignoring them, a schoolkid will be missing out on a lot of fairly necessary idiom.

I think this is important for people to understand, you think "god" is a crazy theory, just as I think the theory of evolution and big bang is crazy. So why should we teach either one as fact? I don't have a problem teaching the basics as teory, because that's what they are. I dont' know, this is part of the reason why I as a teacher am getting out of the public school system. I can not in good conscience speak of such things that I think are ludicrous, yet I know I can not teach what I believe to be true either.
ps. karma, although called something else, is a biblical principle, and therefore, "technically" I believe in it. :D

ETA: I understand that evolution, as in survival of the fittest, makes perfect sense. I don't however believe the world is millions of years old and that my ancestors are monkeys.

I agree with what you're saying in theory, but I can't imagine how difficult it would be in practice. Maybe an elective class on religious/spiritual based theories would be a good idea, but I'd be concerned about it in a regular, required class. Which religions are included? Who is left out, or what parents are going to object to what is included? How many teachers can really be objective about it?

So did we - in literature classes and humanities classes, not biology class. MysticCat has done a great job of summing up the reasons - they're simply not answering the same questions.

Evolution has a scientifc basis. I'm not saying that it should be taught as fact, but it's science. Creationism is not science.

The question was if the bible/religion had a place in schools and not science classes.

There is a select group of very "special" people out there who think any book having to do with religion needs to be burned if it's in a school.

-Rudey

If they could be objective, I think that would be fascinating. My senior year, our religion class was all about world issues. We learned the different world religions, and of course all issues were taken from a Catholic standpoint (which I didn't agree with, but I WAS in a Catholic school so not much I could do). It also helps, for some people, to stregthen their own faith, by knowing what others believe. I don't think they should be ignorant of what is going on in the world. Politics in many parts of the world is very closely tied with relgion. How do you possibly begin to teach about the middle east and avoid the subject of Islam? Next to impossible.

Nah, I'm answering the questions raised by the OP ("Should evolution's role in science education be reduced and counterbalanced by alternative theories of 'intelligent design'?") and by the discussion raised from ConnieBama ("Is it right to teach evolution 'theory' in science classes, and not creationist theory?").

There's no doubt in my mind that religious documents belong in education - I also disagree with how some would implement these documents (ie 'not in science, and not from only one perspective'), but I'm an idiot.

well put, my euphemistic compadre

I see your point although I don't agree.

Okay I'm just at a loss here then... are you saying that Creationism is a science? or are you saying Evolutionary Theory isn't science? Did you read KSig RC's or MysticCat's explaination of what a Theory is as opposed to theory?

Finally you mentioned that you attended a Catholic school - what was taught in Religion and what was taught in Biology/Phyisics/Chemistry/Geography? Do you understand the difference between a theological theory and a scientific Theory?

When I went to school (Catholic) it was a required class - World Religions... lets see we covered Protestantism, Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Sikhism and a number of days on Cults and Sects - in each case someone (except for the Cults/Sects) was invited in to speak with us about their faith. Further if students asked about a particular faith, Father Ron was more than happy to deal with the subject - that's the reason we learned about Zoroastrianism. I guess I was lucky to come from a system where the Brothers and Priests believed that "knowledge was the best defense against the Devil".

That is really, really awesome.

I do not agree that creationsism is not a science.

Honestly, I don't remember what they taught, biology was taught freshman year and I started school there when I was a sophomore. I don't remember them talking about that in physics, chemistry, geography, etc.

Right so if Creationism is a science (which it was consider until the 19th Century) it should then be subject to the same rules that other scientific Theories are subject to... which then by defualt invalidates Creationism as a scientific theory. I don't understand how this crap keeps coming up - wasn't this dealt with well over a 100 years ago - after a 100 years of scientific and theological debate? Seriously why the hell does this keep popping up in the US (well as persistantly or vocally), but not in other Western Nations?

Right grabbed this from the web - I think it somes up a lot nicely:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...9_2002.asp#can
For people further interested in the this "debate" the following link should prove invaluable:
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~dmjacobs/pro...eationism.html
An academic who is interested in the debate.

I will let you do a SEARCH on GC to determine my credentials as a Molecular Geneticist that keeps a close eye on the far reaching effects dating human evolution through haplotype genetic mapping, mitochondrial DNA rearrangement and single nucleotide polymorphisms--an active evolutionary process that is readily measured with real time polymerase chain reaction protocols...

Till then, you would NOT want to be arguing with me about what is and what is not science unless you have double doctorates in Mathematics and Physics...

This is very mean of me...
 

To whom the gods wish to destroy, they must first make them angry...

So why is it that the folks that are making sense about this argument either are science geeks, like myself and got good grades in math and all the science courses...

And the folks that are bigoted probably got failed basic bonehead biology that just looked at things at a pond or draw a picture of an extinct bird at a museum...

I mean, dayum some folks are just plain stupid about math and science, in general--no wonder Bill Gates wants to outsource more jobs overseas--those folks don't have these kinds of arguments...

I am not asking you to re-caluculate Kepler's concentric paths of the planets and verify them with the Theory of Relativity, but you should at least know that there are 5 Kingdoms of Life in Biology and the Earth revolves around the Sun for 365 days...

How hard is that???

Epistemology is the argument here... Why do we think what we think and did a political force make sure that future generations would think that way...

For example--what is Greenwich Mean Time and why was the international date line set? Who decided that this would be the way it is???

There is a reason why we have some folks on here not getting the idea of what a scientific theory from a testable hypothesis...

As Socrates said, long ago, "What is Truth"?

Then Jesus said, "I am the Truth, the Way and the Light"...

I wish it was just as simple as evolution is crap and creationism is awesome...

That was about the funniest thing I've read all day... :)

You had me on ROTFLOL...


There should not be any kind of "spirituality" in a science class... If it cannot be demonstrably measured, then we cannot use it in science class...

I can tell kids to compare DNA sequences from 10,000 years ago from one group of humans to humans are living to day and see if there are differences and ask why are they there...

I cannot tell if someone is on a spiritual high or not, unless they tell me...

Re: This is very mean of me...
 

Seriously... it would have made some classes a hell of a lot easier to just answer "Because God made it so"... or only have one source to cite - ie. Origin of Human Species see Genisis :rolleyes:

Imagine this: Brownie troop goes to Chicago for a weekend trip with their moms. We are at the Field Museum, looking at Sue (actual T-Rex bones.. said to be the most complete T-Rex skeleton) and one of the moms tells her daughter "Don't look, we don't believe that".

There are just some people whose minds you can't change, so these types of arguments end up fruitless.

Dee

thanks man!

I'm sorry I disappeared for so long - I don't want to look as if I'm running from the discussion, but this was one of the top two worst days I've ever had at work. *sigh* I absolutely hate racism!!!

This is how my school worked, only it was a public school. Put all the theories etc out there, and "explore all options". (Must have been a former hippie who designed our curriculum!)

Just wanted to answer one question a couple pages back, I think from valkyrie: I think we can all agree that using different religions in literature/philosophy type classes is only beneficial to students - and I'm aiming this at the middle/high school level. Kids need to know the different idioms, analogies, etc.

So, why not in other forms of classes? What if the only theory of mankind was based on the Big Bang theory, and suddenly, upon entry to college, the student hears about evolution for the first time? Granted, I doubt that it would happen, but wouldn't you rather have teachers have controlled discussion (or assigned reading) on each theory, rather than students picking it up on the streets? We don't allow - or shouldn't allow Sex Ed to be picked up from the streets, why not allow the theories to be at least considered?

When presented with several options, if the student is somewhat intelligent, he or she is going to make an informed decision, rather than simply spout the theory of their childhood, their best friends, or some blog that seemed to make sense. YES, this is more work for the teachers, but I really think that any subject that has more than one theory needs to explore as many as possible. Back to the sex analogy: prior to Margaret Sanger etal, the vast majority of women used rhythm or primitive sheep skins, if any birth control. Then came the diaphragm, then the pill - when there was only ONE pill - then the sponge, etc. Now, there's a plethora of options that a woman can use, and by exploring and comparing all the options, she can select the method(s) right for her.

This may sound simplistic to some, but again, I'm going back to my own school district. I think there was a rate of 89% of graduating students who went to college, and a lot more statistics that I can't remember right now (Letterman just had two aardvarks go at it on his desk, and I can't get the image out of my mind!). I honestly feel that children should be taught all options, that they feel secure in thinking outside the box, and teaching only one theory is just too limiting, IMHO. I'd rather see them laugh themselves silly over one theory or another than not have any comparisons.

Re: This is very mean of me...
 

Hey, that's not fair, not all of us that suck at math and science are ignorant and bigoted.

Re: Re: This is very mean of me...
 

Seriously!!

Re: This is very mean of me...
 

I may be risking a little too much presumption -- I'd like to think I'm one of the people making sense in this argument -- but I'm hardly a science geek. I pretty much endured science in school and, while I did make decent grades, any one could have told you that science and math just weren't my things. I took what was required and avoided the rest. History, English, Foreign Languages, Social Studies, Arts -- those were my strong suits. But I do think it is of prime value to be well-rounded in one's education.

I'm a musician and a lawyer. And perhaps it's my training as the latter that forms my approach here. We don't live in Wonderland, where a Mad Hatter can say "Words mean what I say they mean." Words in specific disciplines have meanings specific to those disciplines.

Much of the problem in the ID/creationism/evolution, as I hear the discussion drag on, is that too many people either do not know or refuse to recognize that "theory" has a specific meaning in science. Because in everyday discourse, "theory" can mean "conjecture" or "opinion," too many people try to make the "theory of evolution" mean the "opinion of evolution."

So it is quite possible for many of us non-scientist types to "get it."

[HIJACK]


or someone who practices the same religion as me, unitarian universalism. in junior high our entire sunday school curriculum was "church across the street" that taught us of various religions from across the world, and we would have "field trips" of sorts and attend the services of the religions we learned about. kind of a "explore all options" feel as well as showing kids some ideas to work off of, since a large tenet of our religion is to develop your own theology and ideals...

i think that's entirely awesome that you had a class like that in a public school.

[/HIJACK]

[hijack, part 2]
Yeah, I wish that was still that way. We got to try out SOOO many methods of different subjects. I honestly feel that knowledge is power, and rational decisions can only be made when there's a comparison available.

When I taught Sunday School, I always took my kids to a Temple. Too many people fear that which they don't know about.

[/hijack]

Re: Re: This is very mean of me...
 

Yes!

I'd also like to qualify my earlier comment with, "I am one of those non-science geeks who gets it".

My only hope is that these "Intelligent Design" advocates don't try and peddle off their laughable book: Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins as an altenative "science" textbook... I shudder to think of the damage that that load of propaganda could do to any poor kid hoping to have a future in science (well outside of Bob Jones Uni).

I had the dubious pleasure of reading it in my Prehistoric Anthropology class - the lectures where we covered the "crack-pot" theories of history and evolution (aliens, Atlantis, time travel, etc. )... At first I was offended by the oversights and/or poor research that the authors where guilty of... then I realized that they purposefully misrepresented or ommitted information in order to "prove" their point. AKA_Monet if you ever want to see the cutting edge of Intelligent Design "material" check this book out... but have more than a few stiff drinks before hand...

Have you all actually checked out all the articles about this case? They aren't even talking about evolution and creation being taught together. That was already decided in the 80s. Evolution and creation cannot be taught together in public schools.

The people in this trial are talking about teaching evolution, but leaving room for students, if they so choose, to find other theories for themselves. Specifically, not teaching evolution as fact.

My notes to those who care to respond:

1) The Intelligent Design camp has non-Christian scientists claiming that something started the universe. So, while they are not Christians, they are not atheists.

2) What exactly is it about creation that is less scientific than evolution? Neither can be proven, while both can be studied starting with a hypothesis.

3) Not all conservative Christians are of the Young Earth Creation belief. Some believe in Old Earth and stages of creation, with God creating the various parts instantly - but with each stage taking thousands, millions or billions of years.

*Personally, as a conservative Christian and minister, the method of creation doesn't change my theology. For me, the only piece that matters is that God spoke and things came forth. If he did it over 7 days, 7 years, 7,000 years, 7,000,000 years...I don't care. Genesis is in mythic history and therefore cannot be understood fully - if it could, we wouldn't be in this debate in the first place.

It's simply not worth the fight.

By the way, when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, he assumed (and remarked on) Intelligent Design. He wasn't a Christian, however.


Edited for a spelling error...

Sorry you have had a tough couple of days due to ignorance... At least you can come on here and I will listen to your argument and we will discuss it peacefully... ;)


Okey, the way I understand it, Evolution falls under the Big Bang Theory or vice versa (I forget the order sometimes)...

The point is all these things can be readily MEASURED, CALCULATED AND TESTED, THEN RE-TESTED A BIGILLION TIMES--either way we get the same exact result... That is the scientific process...

Now, I call myself a Christian and I do not have an internal conflict with doing my job, science and practicing my religious beliefs...

In fact, I pursued science even more--specifically pharmacogenetics because of what I read in the Bible... Now if you want to DEAL with some facts about some things in the Bible, best be prepared to understand that have the pharmacology used in the Bible are like serious hallucinogenic and psychodelic drugs... And many of those figures in the Bible were probably "high" when they saw things... I mean if I saw a burning bush, I'd probably toke up too after that...

If you read "Serpent in the Rainbow" you start to get a "picture" of old world pharmacology...

The biggest civilizations that were involved were the Egyptians that mostly found newer and newer poisons to kill folks quicker...

Like find out where the "Balm in Gilead" came from, then you begin to understand the gravity of what we are dealing with in medicine...

The only part that intrigues many scientists, including myself, is the pool at Bethesda... But even Jesus Christ told the man "do you WANT to be healed" before he healed him...

And Luke who wrote his Gospel was called a physician--as well as Joseph of Arimethia [sp?]...

Long time ago, High Priests and Priestesses were mostly the scientists at the time... The Egyptians, The Aztecs, The Chinese--maybe the Greeks and the Romans... But somehow it all got segregated with the "snake oil" mentality showed up...

So it ain't about do you have a belief in a measurement system versus a spiritual system... It's more about how come the two cannot peacefully co-exist?

Re: Re: This is very mean of me...
 

I sucked at music theory... It made NO SENSE to me... That stuff was hard...

How could you NOT leave room? Anything you do allows students to find things. Even if you teach evolution as fact, people can think it's wrong. People taught the earth was flat and there were those who thought that was wrong.

Maybe some people just aren't raised to question? :confused:

I'll contest this point. Evolution cannot be observed or reduplicated. What we study today is the effect of a process that has already and long ago occurred.

But, I fully agree with you that science and Christianity are compatible.

GP, I couldn't agree more BUT consider the quality of students that we, as a country, are putting out. I can see one serious benefit to allowing other theories of origin to be taught: students and teachers will have to stop and think.

Regardless of my position on all this (as you know, I'm a creationist), I am not sure I completely understand why origin theories are taught at all to any significant degree. If we could put together textbooks that have a single chapter outlining some of the more accepted origin theories, that would be very interesting and informative.

It doesn't seem to matter one way or the other what origin theory scientists believe. Do they not work together already? Do they not make progress despite their differences?

I went to a Christian school where I didn't learn about evolution - to my disadvantage. When I got to college, I struggled through the first part of Biology 101 because I had NO foundation.

I would much rather have learned of various origin theories because 1) it would have helped explain a lot of things I learned later in life, 2) it would expose me to different cultures' worldviews and 3) it would have really made me think!!

Thank you! It's amazing what will come out of the mouth of a supposedly enlightened person, when prefaced by the phrase, "Now, it doesn't bother me, but my mother...." Idiots.

Quote:

If you read "Serpent in the Rainbow" you start to get a "picture" of old world pharmacology...

I've never read that book, but I would LOVE to do so. Thank you for the recommendation. I've often said that the class that has done me the most good in real life was Pharmacology. :)

Quote:

The only part that intrigues many scientists, including myself, is the pool at Bethesda... But even Jesus Christ told the man "do you WANT to be healed" before he healed him... And Luke who wrote his Gospel was called a physician--as well as Joseph of Arimethia [sp?]... Long time ago, High Priests and Priestesses were mostly the scientists at the time... The Egyptians, The Aztecs, The Chinese--maybe the Greeks and the Romans... But somehow it all got segregated with the "snake oil" mentality showed up... So it ain't about do you have a belief in a measurement system versus a spiritual system... It's more about how come the two cannot peacefully co-exist?

I think we can agree that the most radical of scientists realize that the desire to be healed plays a large part in the healing arts. I see it every day with terminal patients - those who have a very strong desire to live, even if it's goal-oriented ("until my son gets married", "until my grandbaby is born").

I also agree - there CAN be peaceful co-existence between a measurement and spiritual systems. That's why I find it so important to put all the infomation on the table.

And one of these days, I may be picking your brain about genetics & DNA. I'm reading a book about "genetealogy" - how DNA substanciates genealogy, and that most (if not all) Americans come from one of seven different women. I'm not going to pretend that I understand 90% of it, but it's fascinating stuff! :)

Bingo!

Too many schools are teaching kids to regurgitate information, and not think it out. Maybe my school went overboard with the whole "Make It Your Own" concept, but we were encouraged to question, and to think for ourselves.

I have having problems with the "evolutionary theory as fact" question... What is a "fact"? What you see is what you get? It is not "truth"--because "truth" as defined denotatively is "fact in accordance with reality..."

Here are the "facts" about evolutionary theory:

1) It uses science to measure and test it

2) There are 5 parts to it:

Evolution

3) And hypotheses can be developed and re-tested...

That is what the ID community wants to publically admit, but given where they started and how they started, I seriously doubt they would accept those with a different religious belief from puritanical evangelical Christianity...

Even if it has been 100% shown that all "modern human being life" started in Africa, they would MOVE that fact to the middle east in the middle of Iraq because that is the archeological location of what has been shown to thought of as the "Garden of Eden"...

Like I said before, can God be measured? Does He even want to be? You read what He did at the Tower of Babel... I know I am not trying to measure God with a certain degree of "error"--because "there is no error in God"... Y'all can do it if you want, but I am not...

I dunno? Some folks here are taking Genesis literally and that there is NO myth to it or myticism to it... I am still stuck on the "We cannot allow them to do that..." part in Genesis after when man built the Tower of Babel...

But that is why you actually have serious religious studies classes in seminary for advance degrees. Yes, you can apply the scientific process, i.e. hypothesis, experimental design, results, discussion and conclusions for studies from the Bible--in seminary for sure...

My problem is don't kids have a hard enough time for discernment these days without us adults bickering about what's being taught to them?

Hey, we need "TRAINED" theologians with us medical scientific researchers and physicians when a patient has lost all hope and is going down hill, but should we as scientists and doctors stop treating patient with different approved drugs upon review of their chart to enable miracles to happen for the betterment of humankind?

We cannot do that when our minds are asked to be tied down to ONLY what ONE religion says what is right, accurate and correct--that's tying our hands behind our backs...

That I find is very, very wrong...