Church and State?

[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?  

[Azure Kite Virus]

No, it is not right for a teacher to by biased when discussing Evolution and Creationism. Teachers should be more open minded and accept the fact that maybe their view is not right and that the person who is discussing Evolutionism may be at least a little bit right. I had a friend who got in trouble because she disagreed with a teacher on one thing about Creationism and it bothers me greatly.  

[zeropheonix]

Well if you went to a catholic school, I would assume it to be biased. But if it's a public school, they shouldn't bring religion into things at all.
Although, that doesn't do anything anywhere, Church and State are suposed to be seperated, yet I beleive on american Currency (forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm only canadian, but I know it says it somewhere) it says "In God we trust". So you can see it there too.
But getting back to the point, if you're in a public school, and not taking a world religions class, you shouldn't be having religious debates, they can offend a lot of people.  

[The Stupidest Angel]

Well, concerning what to teach in schools really is one of those that you just can't answer. People will be offended no matter what and people will argue no matter what.  

[Shtona]

zeropheonix

Well if you went to a catholic school, I would assume it to be biased. But if it's a public school, they shouldn't bring religion into things at all.
Although, that doesn't do anything anywhere, Church and State are suposed to be seperated, yet I beleive on american Currency (forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm only canadian, but I know it says it somewhere) it says "In God we trust". So you can see it there too.
But getting back to the point, if you're in a public school, and not taking a world religions class, you shouldn't be having religious debates, they can offend a lot of people.

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

[Dornyth]

shtona

zeropheonix

Well if you went to a catholic school, I would assume it to be biased. But if it's a public school, they shouldn't bring religion into things at all.
Although, that doesn't do anything anywhere, Church and State are suposed to be seperated, yet I beleive on american Currency (forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm only canadian, but I know it says it somewhere) it says "In God we trust". So you can see it there too.
But getting back to the point, if you're in a public school, and not taking a world religions class, you shouldn't be having religious debates, they can offend a lot of people.

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

THERE'S A LAW?? O.O aw s**t...-_- yeah, there's a teacher at our school who's as right-winged christian as you can get, and she teaches BIOLOGY!! O.O my bro has her next semester. twisted he's gonna sneak pentagrams on her chalkboard ALL the time, can't wait... >:3  

[Vanimiel]

The following is sarcasm:
If evolution can be taught in schools, it's only fair to teach intelligent design. After all they're both just theory...
And if those two theories are going to be taught, it only makes since to teach an alternate theory of intelligent design.
(read about said theory here: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ )
Sarcasm ended.
I actually find it ridiculous to teach students alternatives to sound science.  

[Tiigrex]

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.  

[has_been_deleted]

Vanimiel

I actually find it ridiculous to teach students alternatives to sound science.

personally i wouldnt call either one "science"

neither creationism or evolution follow the scientific method, neither can be tested, both are simply beliefs.  

[Kenutsu Yasashiku]

Smiley_Flarinet

Vanimiel

I actually find it ridiculous to teach students alternatives to sound science.

personally i wouldnt call either one "science"

neither creationism or evolution follow the scientific method, neither can be tested, both are simply beliefs.

Evolition can... organisms such as bacteria that repoduce quickly can be evolved by slowly changing its enviroment. More complicated creatures such as humans are more difficult because the change has to be over hundreds of years instead of just months or years.

Evolution realy is no more than selective mating.

(At least as I understand it)

But what is to say that both are not true? Evolution and Creation that is?  

[has_been_deleted]

let me clarify. micro-evolution, or change within a species, has been "proven" and is considered perfectly reasonable. we know for a fact that bacteria mutate.
what i meant was Macro-evolution... change between species. Dinos to birds or monkeys to man. we know that organisms can change in their species, but have we ever seen any animal change to another one?

darwins finches... those wonderful birds used to show speciation... are still all birds. nothing more.  

[Grypesagon]

Smiley_Flarinet

let me clarify. micro-evolution, or change within a species, has been "proven" and is considered perfectly reasonable. we know for a fact that bacteria mutate.
what i meant was Macro-evolution... change between species. Dinos to birds or monkeys to man. we know that organisms can change in their species, but have we ever seen any animal change to another one?

darwins finches... those wonderful birds used to show speciation... are still all birds. nothing more.

There has been no successfully recorded case of interspecies evolution. They were able to use certain combinations of stimuli (genetic and radiation) to evolve effects from fruitflies within their own species but at a certain point they would always hit a barrier where they would stop evolving and simply mutate into cancerous substances.

It actually stemmed a theory that the cancer increase in humanity is due to us having already evolved to our maximum potential within our species. I dunno if I buy that... I think that it just proves that sciences interferance with living tissue often knocks DNS chains loose. smile

... oh... i think I went off topic.  

[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.  

[Kenutsu Yasashiku]

I see... now I wish I were awake so I could think better. However, I do agree that the college thing was a little sad.  

[zenyk]

Grypesagon

Smiley_Flarinet

let me clarify. micro-evolution, or change within a species, has been "proven" and is considered perfectly reasonable. we know for a fact that bacteria mutate.
what i meant was Macro-evolution... change between species. Dinos to birds or monkeys to man. we know that organisms can change in their species, but have we ever seen any animal change to another one?

darwins finches... those wonderful birds used to show speciation... are still all birds. nothing more.

There has been no successfully recorded case of interspecies evolution. They were able to use certain combinations of stimuli (genetic and radiation) to evolve effects from fruitflies within their own species but at a certain point they would always hit a barrier where they would stop evolving and simply mutate into cancerous substances.

It actually stemmed a theory that the cancer increase in humanity is due to us having already evolved to our maximum potential within our species. I dunno if I buy that... I think that it just proves that sciences interferance with living tissue often knocks DNS chains loose. smile

... oh... i think I went off topic.

I know this is kinda off topic, but I'm just gonna say it...
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. This goes for the famous evolution: monkeys to humans. Even though humans and monkeys have their similarities, there are a lot more differences.(i know this kinda sounds a little wierd)

As for the question, is it ok for teachers biased when discussing Evolution and Creation? No, it isn't right. Teachers should know, when discussing these kinds of stuff, Evolution and Creation are still being debated and not yet proven.