Church and State?

[IKurando]

well, it's hard not to be biased and say biased remarks even if it isn't ok. I think it's generally overlooked. for example, j-walking is technically illegal, but you can do it right in front of a cop and they won't say anythin. either way, a good teacher can present facts without bias. you just gotta deal with the ones that don't.  

[Dewdew]

The whole evolution thing is not really logical in my head.

I mean I agree with most of what Darwim says, but the whole thing of one species becoming another species, basic biology says it can not happen.

Anyway going back to teachers, in New Zealand it is really the other way around. Teachers have to be very careful about what they say about christianity. I mean I have had teachers explain Hindism, Islam, Roman religion, Greek religion, wiccan.

But they are not really allowed to eaplain their own religion if they are christian. The only time we have really studied religion was in English history, when we were studying the formation of the Church of England, and the different monarchs policy on religion.

I remember studying evolution. I think teachers should have to teach, at least briefly, all the different theories on something.
I mean when we studied astronomy we did not just look at the big bang theory, we also looked at some other theories, some of which are backed by the same evidence people use to try and prove the big bang thing.  

[MonkofMajere]

My personal opinion on religoun in school is that every major religion should be taught, only becuase without the proper education on such subjects, it is impossible to truely form a correct opinion. While I agree religion should have no part in the government, it doesn't seem logical to teach evolution and not the other beliefs. While some parts of evolution can be proven scientificly, others can not. But that is simply my thinking.  

[Dewdew]

Kovik

My personal opinion on religoun in school is that every major religion should be taught, only becuase without the proper education on such subjects, it is impossible to truely form a correct opinion. While I agree religion should have no part in the government, it doesn't seem logical to teach evolution and not the other beliefs. While some parts of evolution can be proven scientificly, others can not. But that is simply my thinking.

Totally agree.
Except that part about evolution being able to be proven scientificaly.
It is actually only a theory, and what experiment can a scientist do to prove evolution?
So lets put it in the basket with the big bang. No reason not to teach it, just teach it as a theory not fact.  

[King Robert Silvermyst]

My outlook on this is thus: instead of just allowing religion in school, they should also teach tolerance of other religions and expose children to other faiths to better understand them. Christianity, Jewish, Christian Orthodox, Kemetic Orthodox, Wicca, Paganism, etc. Then, ot only children being allowed to learn about faith in school, but they are being raised not to hate or 'cast out' others who do not have similar beliefs.  

[hyperkagura]

shtona

Is it right for a teacher to be biased when discussing evolution and creationism? I live in North Carolina where the majority of the population is Christian, so of course, they are going to lean towards creationism. Today my History teacher was discussing Religion in the 1920's during the Harlem Renaissance and she made some very biased statements, as did the rest of the class. I'm an Atheist, so it really annoyed me, but either way, the question to talk about is simple. Is it ok for teachers to do that?

Inherit the wind
see it
if you can
exactlly what your talking about  

[Shedowolf]

I also think they should teach all of the world religions in school so that kids can have a wider basis of knowledge about the world, but that is also a little impractical, because there are so many world religions.

What I think about what they teach in school in relation to evolutionism and creationism, is that micro-evolution is something that has been observed and proven, so macro-evolution would only make sense. There are things like, similarity of embryos and fossils that can support macro-evolution. One could also argue that they could also support Intelligent Design, but Intelligent Design is not something that was thought of through scientific observations and reasons, it came from a very old religious text, so evolution is taught in science classes. I am not saying either one is right or wrong, I am just giving a possible reason why evolution is taught in science classes and not Intelligent Design.

And to answer the original question, I think it is wrong for teachers to be biased when teaching anything.  

[beaulolais]

pardon me, but what does the Harlem Renaissance have to do with evolution?

i thought it was like a cultural renewal, jazz and so on...?  

[Jamais Vu Experience]

shtona

Is it right for a teacher to be biased when discussing evolution and creationism? I live in North Carolina where the majority of the population is Christian, so of course, they are going to lean towards creationism. Today my History teacher was discussing Religion in the 1920's during the Harlem Renaissance and she made some very biased statements, as did the rest of the class. I'm an Atheist, so it really annoyed me, but either way, the question to talk about is simple. Is it ok for teachers to do that?

The teacher has the right to say it, but not at school! She's just really there to say the facts and the opinions of people in that era, but not hers!
Yet my class, in Language Arts, ((I'm in TX)) debate over those things everyday!!!
Like at before Christmas break our "Super-Smart" (( stare

[Dirzdra]

I apologize now for my long post. sweatdrop

Getsmartyouass

Actually my friend has this theory about evolution that goes with the whole 7 Days. The first day consisted of billions of years, and that is when the earth was created. The next few billion years the water, fish, birds, and animals were created. They just shortened the timeline to days instead of billions and billions of years. I find this theory quiet agreeable.

Idea is the property of my friend, not myself.

Actually, that idea is nothing new. It was actually brought into a trial a few decades ago. The thing is, we measure time by the Sun. The Sun, however, wasn't made in the first couple of days. Meaning, yes, it is very possible that the those "days" were indeed thousands of years old. That only goes up to the 3rd day, I think. No, I don't memorize the Bible word for word, but I do believe in it.

Daffodil the Destroyer

My (university!) archaeology teacher felt the need to preface his class this semester with an announcement that evolution was going to come up once in a while, and that he was not tryingto push that belief on anyone. I thought that was incredibly sad. In a SCIENCE class, in a UNIVERSITY, scientific facts should not have to be disclaimered in case someone's religion does not agree with these facts.

Actually, that's perfectly understandable. Afterall, it's only a theory that is going to be studied. If it doesn't have to be accepted as fact, why should it be taught as fact. Remember, it's not something we can prove. Actually, nothing can be proven, only disproven or accepted as fact.

Smiley_Flarinet

From what I learned, macro evolution is false. Macro evolution is when one species changes to another, ie:birds to alligators. The proof? Each species has a different sperm, and each species eggs can identify which sperm is their species. When a species egg identifys a foriegn sperm, they don't allow that sperm.

Actually, that's why I doubt evolution, as well. I mean, I can kind of see an animal having a genetic mutation in order to help many generations of offspring gain an advantage. I was never explained how it changes into a different species. However, it may simply have not been discovered. There isn't, as far as I know, a theory explaining how the reproductive organs and what-not may change. So, just because there isn't any supporting evidence as far as that goes does not mean it is not completely impossible. There isn't any supporting evidence to say that it can't change, too.

Kovik

No reason not to teach it, just teach it as a theory not fact.

Actually, plently of things that are simply theories are taught as fact. The only reason they are taught as fact is because they have not been disproven once in accurate testing. All of the laws of physics are only theories.

shtona

Like at before Christmas break our "Super-Smart" (( stare

I'm just going to say this for the sake of doing so, but that tradition is originally pagan. Many Christian traditions are originally pagan, including Easter and Halloween.

I agree, though, if one religion is going to be supported in any way, so should the other. Actually, during last this last Winter, a Rabbi sued a mall (or was it an airport?) for putting up Christmas decorations. He said he'd drop it if a single Menorah was put up. Instead, all the decorations were taken down. Sad, isn't it?

Now, for the actual subject. I do think both ideas of Evolution and Intelligent Design should be introduced in science, and that neither have to be accepted as fact. Any sort of bias in anything is wrong, don't you think? There's not really much that can be done in the U.S. because the teachers aren't ripped of their freedom of speech at school. I just tolerate it. This year I had gone through two science teachers that are both Christian and believe in evolution, and they are able to support it using the Bible.

What I've come to understand from them is that the Bible doesn't really refer to all the specific animals and plants that are made, besides the humans. What if there were different animals that did go through evolution at that time, but we just imagine things were the same. Sure, it never said anything was different, but it never said anything was the same, either.  

[Arius Geiza]

Kitsune-Yokai

Actually, that's perfectly understandable. Afterall, it's only a theory that is going to be studied. If it doesn't have to be accepted as fact, why should it be taught as fact. Remember, it's not something we can prove. Actually, nothing can be proven, only disproven or accepted as fact.

*ahem* Actually, it is very sad. Evolution is a scientific theory. It doesn't matter how anyone tries to spin it off, evolution is a scientific theory, and that is a fact. You can't say it's not testable, because as a matter of fact it is. The problem is, we just can only test the micro-evolution part, and quite frankly, we've found some substantial evidence to support it. Macro-evolution just takes longer. There's no way to tell until hundreds, of thousands, of millions of years have passed and we either have the technology, or simply can measure the changes IF indeed macro-evolution exists. I don't believe this professor should be dancing around a scientific theory just because it might hurt someone else's beliefs. If they can't handle it, take a religion class, not science, because there is no room for faith in science if you are interested in proving or disproving what is fact and what is fiction.

Kitsune-Yokai

Actually, plenty of things that are simply theories are taught as fact. The only reason they are taught as fact is because they have not been disproven once in accurate testing. All of the laws of physics are only theories.

Heh. There's a threshold I think that is crossed once one finds substantial evidence to support his or her hypothesis and pass something into the realm of fact as we know it. Yes, this does mean we could find out that it's different elsewhere in the universe, but given the nature of things and what we've studied, it is highly unlikely. The laws of physics are fact. Don't mistake that. Just as it is fact that there are laws that govern our universe as we know it, because that's what we are capable of observing. Just because we may define certain things as fact a certain way, doesn't mean the concept behind them doesn't actually exist. For example, we have two apples. Suddenly, we decide to change "two" to "nahu." Would that change the inherent value of the apples that are present? Of course not, the only thing we've changed is a man-made fact of what that value is described as from "two" to "nahu."

Kitsune-Yokai

Now, for the actual subject. I do think both ideas of Evolution and Intelligent Design should be introduced in science, and that neither have to be accepted as fact. Any sort of bias in anything is wrong, don't you think? There's not really much that can be done in the U.S. because the teachers aren't ripped of their freedom of speech at school. I just tolerate it. This year I had gone through two science teachers that are both Christian and believe in evolution, and they are able to support it using the Bible.

That, however, is where you're wrong. Intelligent design has no place in a science class. Why? Because it isn't science. It's a pseudo-science. It's religion. There is no way you can change this fact unless you change the foundation of either theory. As I understand it, evolution is not taught as fact. I'm sorry that some people get confused but I figure that most teachers would probably overlook that because they state it clearly as "The Theory of Evolution," neh?

Intelligent design, on the other hand, in religion I believe is taught as one fact, the fact, of the creation of the universe and everything else. Sure, maybe there are multiple theories of it out there...just as there are multiple sects of the christian religion...all claiming to be fact and the one true right way...(well, maybe save a few). And being the fact that it is based solely on the concept of a god and the foundation of religion itself, it does not, will not, and never belongs in a science class. Period. Intelligent design is just further proof of the majority religion in the world trying to rear it's ugly head into the very foundation of people's education in order to push more of their beliefs on others. This is how I see it, because this is the majority of what I have witnessed and experience with this religion. I'm sure the extremists out there are few and scattered, but they shed a loud voice, and a harsh perspective on their religions.  

[Dirzdra]

Kabol Schezar

*ahem* Actually, it is very sad. Evolution is a scientific theory. It doesn't matter how anyone tries to spin it off, evolution is a scientific theory, and that is a fact. You can't say it's not testable, because as a matter of fact it is.

Who, exactly, said it wasn't testable, might I ask???

Kabol Schezar

I don't believe this professor should be dancing around a scientific theory just because it might hurt someone else's beliefs. If they can't handle it, take a religion class, not science, because there is no room for faith in science if you are interested in proving or disproving what is fact and what is fiction.

You can put it that way if you want. However, I still believe that, at least as far as high school and middle school is concerned, that Intelligient Design be introduced as a second opinion, not taught. Evolution can, by all means, be taught with full detail. What I had said is that niether have to be accepted as fact by the individual.

Kabol Schezar

The laws of physics are fact. Don't mistake that. Just as it is fact that there are laws that govern our universe as we know it, because that's what we are capable of observing. Just because we may define certain things as fact a certain way, doesn't mean the concept behind them doesn't actually exist.

Now, wouldn't you cosider, along with so many others, that Albert Einstein is quite an intelligient man??? Well, this is his theory you are doubting. Not to mention this is basic Physics, even a part of it I had passed when I took the class. Truly, though, none of it is fact. It is accepted as fact when it is not disproven. What if we still believed the sun revolved around us??? Or even that the sun is the center of the universe??? These were once "fact," and now they're disproven. Are they not? It is also commonly believed that we are far off to the edge of the universe from the supporting evidence we do know, but there is so much more we don't know. If we found new evidence against the idea, it is no longer fact. So, please, do not act like I am playing around with labels. I already know there is far too much of what we don't even have an idea about, meaning we can't really say what a "fact" is.

Kabol Schezar

That, however, is where you're wrong. Intelligent design has no place in a science class. Why? Because it isn't science. It's a pseudo-science. It's religion. There is no way you can change this fact unless you change the foundation of either theory. As I understand it, evolution is not taught as fact. I'm sorry that some people get confused but I figure that most teachers would probably overlook that because they state it clearly as "The Theory of Evolution," neh?

No kidding it's a pseudoscience. That I agree with. However, notice how I never said it should be taught, but simply appropriate to introduce different ideas. After all, old scientific theories, which have now been disproven, are still in textbooks. I know this because some are in my little brother's science textbook. It's more of a compare and contrast thing. All I was trying to say was introduce the idea and say how neither idea have to be accepted as fact, but evolution does have to be studied regardless of personal belief.

That, however, I do not see this as "pushing...their beliefs on others." This is simply being open to other opinions and ideas. Pushing beliefs on someone is more of saying that they have to do this and accept this as fact no matter what. People can believe what they want, it's our nature to differ in opinion. I think it's nice to hear other opinions, though, whether we agree with them or not. If a person decides to hop on the bandwagon, let that be their own personal choice.  

[squarecircle]

Shtona

Very true, it's a law actually that "In God We Trust" has to be on all paper currency...

Concerning that-- originally our currency did NOT have that slogan on it. It was only in the 50s (and the 20s for certain coins), during the Cold War, that Congress broke the law and went against the Constitution of the United States in order to place that on our currency.

They did the same thing with the pledge, by adding "Under God," which was NOT in the pledge originally. It was added in the 50s.

Why was this done? America was scared of Communist Russia. Yeah, the Red Scare. We wanted to show those "godless commies" that America was a nation united by GOD!!!

But it isn't. Our founders weren't fundamentalist Christians. All the big-name founders were deists and atheists.  

[Angels Requim]

Wow that was alot to read...
anywho...
i believe that evolution, creationism, intelligent design are all great, and o.k. to be taught...as long as they are taught as theorys not as hard fact.
biblical text goes against evolution
basic anatomy goes against intelligent design (i.e. the placement of our optic nerve is in the back of our eye where it causes us to have a blind spot)
darwin goes against creationism

the main problem with this in schools, however, is that schools are too afraid of hurting peoples feelings. it's gotten to the point where (atleast in my school) our teachers can't voice thier honest opinion. i think a teacher should be able to say "I believe in Evolution because of...but that's just my belief, im not forcing it upon you"  

[squarecircle]

Angels Requim

Wow that was alot to read...
anywho...
i believe that evolution, creationism, intelligent design are all great, and o.k. to be taught...as long as they are taught as theorys not as hard fact.
biblical text goes against evolution
basic anatomy goes against intelligent design (i.e. the placement of our optic nerve is in the back of our eye where it causes us to have a blind spot)
darwin goes against creationism

the main problem with this in schools, however, is that schools are too afraid of hurting peoples feelings. it's gotten to the point where (atleast in my school) our teachers can't voice thier honest opinion. i think a teacher should be able to say "I believe in Evolution because of...but that's just my belief, im not forcing it upon you"

Intelligent Design is not a theory. At best it's a superfluous hypothesis. Really it's creationism (and religion) parading around as pretend-science.

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity. Teachers don't teach stories about pretend invisible elves that keep us from floating to the sky and treat it as equal as the theory of gravity-- no, they teach GRAVITY.

In that same line of thought, they should teach evolution. NOT RELIGION.

School is for EDUCATION. If you want to learn about creationism, go to church.