Science Teachers Afraid To Teach Science

[Spike-X]

Teachers at an unnamed (for fear of persecution) science education institution that serves several Arkansas public school districts are forbidden to use the “e-word” (evolution) with the kids, nor are they permitted to say that some rocks housed in the facility are thought to be about 300 million years old, for fear that some fundamentalist nutbag parent will kick up a stink and get their funding revoked.

Story here (http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=e7a0f0e1-ecfd-4fc8-bca4-b9997c912a91)

Yeah, tell me again how Christians are a persecuted minority in the US.

[StoneGold]

Well, you're persecuting them...

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

Well, you're persecuting them...

Pointing out hypocrisy is persecution?

[Weetomuncher]

This kind of idea would never be tolerated over here in Britain.

Religion has been taken out of most schools except for non denominational RE classes which teach about several religions including Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. Only Catholic schools seem to bother with using religion as a major issue and they are very much in the minority.

Science classes here totally acknowledge the evolutionary theories and modern scientific principles.

I'm a Christian myself (Salvation Army) and I believe the world developed in eras, not days. Much of the bible is not literal and shouldn't be taken as such.

[Harlock]

Pointing out hypocrisy is persecution?
Well, calling them fundamentalist nutbags just might be persecution...

[Samurai]

This kind of idea would never be tolerated over here in Britain.

Religion has been taken out of most schools except for non denominational RE classes which teach about several religions including Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. Only Catholic schools seem to bother with using religion as a major issue and they are very much in the minority.

Science classes here totally acknowledge the evolutionary theories and modern scientific principles.

I'm a Christian myself (Salvation Army) and I believe the world developed in eras, not days. Much of the bible is not literal and shouldn't be taken as such.
Don't make the mistake of thinking this is at all common or usual here either... it isn't. Most public schools are rigidly atheist or agnostic and left-wing here. Teachers are FAR more likely to rant about politics than religion. In fact, while I sat through hundreds of political rants (often in inappropriate classes, like Computer Science), I've never personally had any teacher bring up their religion in class, or even heard about such a thing in my schools.

[Michael P]

Well, calling them fundamentalist nutbags just might be persecution...
No, it mightn't. It's rude, but it's not persecution.

Persecution is meeting in secret to worship, because if the government catches you at it, they'll kill you.

Persecution is having to wear an emblem on your clothing pointing out your religious affiliation, and being barred from holding certain jobs, shopping at certain stores, and living in certain neighborhoods because of it.

Persecution is being fed to lions for the entertainment of the ruling class.

Christians, atheists, Jews, Scientologists, Bhuddists, Muslims, Wiccans, Muppets, *nobody* is persecuted in this country because of their religion. To suggest otherwise because someone said something mean about you on the Internet is crybaby bullshit, and a slap in the face to anyone suffering under real persecution.

[west3man]

No, it mightn't. It's rude, but it's not persecution.

Persecution is meeting in secret to worship, because if the government catches you at it, they'll kill you.

Persecution is having to wear an emblem on your clothing pointing out your religious affiliation, and being barred from holding certain jobs, shopping at certain stores, and living in certain neighborhoods because of it.

Persecution is being fed to lions for the entertainment of the ruling class.

Christians, atheists, Jews, Scientologists, Bhuddists, Muslims, Wiccans, Muppets, *nobody* is persecuted in this country because of their religion. To suggest otherwise because someone said something mean about you on the Internet is crybaby bullshit, and a slap in the face to anyone suffering under real persecution.
Those things are some of the worst examples of persecution, but they are, by no means, the only examples.

Persecution is...
"1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother"

So, no, it's not crybaby bullshit. It's just not limiting a word's definition to it's most extreme examples.

[Mike Pothier]

I remember in my high school, my science teacher prefaced the entire early history of the world section (which barely even mentioned evolution), with a little preface stating not everybody believed what we were about to hear.

Later, another student tried to ask questions about the teacher's personal feelings on the subject, but the teacher just kept saying "drop it" over and over (he was a stubborn student).

[Gilda Dent]

I've been part of the textbook selection comittee for the elementary school I used to work for. Textbook publishers are generally afraid of the word evolution, but the concept is there pretty firmly in most of the books, still being taught if the teacher follows the program. It's just called something else, usually "adaptation", ie, animals and plants are adapted to their environment, and develop adaptations over time to better enable them to survive in their environments.

American public schools aren't atheistic in nature, they're not teaching that God doesn't exist, which would be as much a violation of the first amentment as teaching religious beliefs directly. Schools are secular, or ideally are secular, in that, if they are not religious schools, they take no position on religion. It's appropriate to teach about religion, but not to teach religious beliefs directly.

In other words:

Jesus was the son of God--not acceptable.
Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God--acceptable.

Gilda

[Kid Omega]

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is at all common or usual here either... it isn't. Most public schools are rigidly atheist or agnostic and left-wing here.

"here" as in the town where you live?

I hope that's what you mean...

[Kid Omega]

Those things are some of the worst examples of persecution, but they are, by no means, the only examples.

Persecution is...
"1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs.
2. To annoy persistently; bother"

So, no, it's not crybaby bullshit. It's just not limiting a word's definition to it's most extreme examples.

here's the thing west.... sometimes extreme examples define a word in the vernacular, and the power of those examples give more weight to the connotation as opposed the strict definition.

I could say that my cat persecuted all morning until I fed him, and be correct by the standards of the definition you've provided, but it would be an unclear way to communicate because of he accepted connotations.

language is an evolving animal, and a word like "persecute" conveys far more than "to bother", despite what may have been printed in a dictionary.

Know what I mean?

[Harlock]

here's the thing west.... sometimes extreme examples define a word in the vernacular, and the power of those examples give more weight to the connotation as opposed the strict definition.

I could say that my cat persecuted all morning until I fed him, and be correct by the standards of the definition you've provided, but it would be an unclear way to communicate because of he accepted connotations.

language is an evolving animal, and a word like "persecute" conveys far more than "to bother", despite what may have been printed in a dictionary.

Know what I mean?
Not to sidetrack the discussion too much; bothering someone is a bit different than name-calling because of their beliefs, ethnicity etc. The OP was complaining about a close-minded policy and then went on to label a hypothetical proponent of such a policy as a "fundamentalist nutbag". Lastly, to Spike-X, one doesn't have to be a minority to be persecuted.

Anyway, as to the actual discussion at hand, I rather liked how it was presented in my High School Biology class. Our teacher prefaced the whole discussion of evolution with a speech about how this is scientific theory and may or may not conflict with one's personal beliefs. She went on to add that she was not at liberty to discuss her own personal beliefs and that people were free to choose for themselves what they wished to believe.

Our science book included a little tidbit about creationism and then several pages about evolutionary theory. No big deal, in my opinion.

[DonC]

Much of the bible is not literal and shouldn't be taken as such.


Please, please move to the US and start teaching this to our Christians.

[Charles RB]

Teachers at an unnamed (for fear of persecution) science education institution that serves several Arkansas public school districts are forbidden to use the “e-word” (evolution) with the kids, nor are they permitted to say that some rocks housed in the facility are thought to be about 300 million years old, for fear that some fundamentalist nutbag parent will kick up a stink and get their funding revoked.

That's very worrying.

Is it a legitimate threat to the institution in Arkansas though, or is it just paranoia on the part of the facility?

[west3man]

here's the thing west.... sometimes extreme examples define a word in the vernacular, and the power of those examples give more weight to the connotation as opposed the strict definition.

I could say that my cat persecuted all morning until I fed him, and be correct by the standards of the definition you've provided, but it would be an unclear way to communicate because of he accepted connotations.

language is an evolving animal, and a word like "persecute" conveys far more than "to bother", despite what may have been printed in a dictionary.

Know what I mean?Until your cat makes it clear that it's your religion or race that made you worthy of persecution, though, I think that kind of example will always fall short of the glory.

But still, I get that how we use a word can define it, but it's definition really ought to factor into how we use it. It's a two-way street.

In this case, "persecution" needn't require gas chambers or the shaving of heads. A pattern of poor treatment, especially due to religious or racial identity is close enough, in my estimation.

[Erebus]

I have a friend who's a deeply devout Christian, and while most of them simply say "I'm right because it's in the Bible," he actually tells me scientific evidence that supports the Bible.

[Solaris]

Good gods. This makes me absolutely sick. And, unfortunately, it illustrates all too clearly how ignorance, forced on the many by the few zealot fundamentalists who want to prevent contact with fact, preferring their "belief" be taught to ALL children, has gained control in many instances of our education system, as well as our politics. I am physically nauseated by this---my stomach is queasy now.

You CANNOT say that this is just "a local issue" or "a local problem." Take a quick read of the last two paragraphs in the article---it explains all too clearly how "local" policies on this are having WIDESPREAD effect. The Governor Huckabee mentioned is the Gov. of Arkansas, and is pro-creationist:

The shortcomings of evolution instruction in Arkansas don’t end at the state’s borders. But we seldom realize the wider influence our local politicians might have. For instance, the Educational Commission of the States is an important and powerful organization that shapes educational policy in all 50 states. Forty state governors have served as the chair of the ECS, and Governor Huckabee currently holds this position.

Because anti-evolutionists have been quite successful in placing members of their ranks and sympathizers in local legislatures and school boards, it is imperative that we point out the danger that these people pose to adequate science education. The science literacy of our future leaders may depend on it. Although each school, each museum, or each science center may seem to be an isolated case, answering to — and, perhaps trying to keep peace with — its local constituency, the examples suggest that evolution is being squeezed out of education systematically and broadly. Anti-evolutionists have been successful by keeping the struggle focused on the local level. The fallout is widespread ignorance of the tools and methods of science for generations to come.

Many people are complacent with the U.S.'s high standard of living and economic clout, compared to the rest of the world. I hope these people are ready to see other countries taking the lead, the jobs, and advances away from us, as we raise our children to be equipped for little more than "You want fries with that?" In the article,

Randy runs professional development science education workshops for public school teachers. He’s been doing it for a while now, and he has been taking information on the teachers in his workshops via a survey. He shared some data with me.

According to his survey, about 20 percent are trying to teach evolution and think they are doing a good job; 10 percent are teaching creationism, even though during the workshop he discusses the legally shaky ground on which they stand. Another 20 percent attempt to teach something but feel they just do not understand evolution. The remaining 50 percent avoid it because of community pressure. On an e-mail to members of a list he keeps of people interested in evolution, Randy reported that the latter 50 percent do not cover evolution because they felt intimidated, saw no need to teach it, or might lose their jobs.

By their own description of their classroom practices, 80 percent of the teachers surveyed are not adequately teaching evolutionary science. Remember that these are just the teachers who are in a professional development workshop in science education!

[b]EIGHTY percent of the teachers surveyed are not adequately teaching evolutionary science, and TWENTY percent don't adequately understand Evolution THEMSELVES! And these are the "creme de la creme" of their education system---teachers taking a workshop to further their knowledge in their "specialty." How long until the rest of the world leaves the US behind in science, and in other areas, because we are raising so many children into wholesale ignorance, based on the loud and vehement protests of the few who *want* this ignorance to be "across the board," rather than limiting it to their own children (and keeping their OWN kids ignorant is bad enough).

I think, over time, we're gonna see many more families like the Phelps springing up, as more and more kids are raised with virulent rhetoric and deliberate ignorance of anything that might, MIGHT serve to contradict their viewpoint. Break out the crosses and the gasoline, boys and girls. Or in the case of many, go buy a boatload of fire extinguishers. If we don't fix this, it's coming. Mark my words.

We are raising a generation of ignorant idiots, in far too many subjects and in far too many places, because a vocal few don't want ANY children exposed to something that they believe disagrees with and/or challenges their religious beliefs. Welcome to the Dark Age of America.

[west3man]

I've been part of the textbook selection comittee for the elementary school I used to work for. Textbook publishers are generally afraid of the word evolution, but the concept is there pretty firmly in most of the books, still being taught if the teacher follows the program. It's just called something else, usually "adaptation", ie, animals and plants are adapted to their environment, and develop adaptations over time to better enable them to survive in their environments.

American public schools aren't atheistic in nature, they're not teaching that God doesn't exist, which would be as much a violation of the first amentment as teaching religious beliefs directly. Schools are secular, or ideally are secular, in that, if they are not religious schools, they take no position on religion. It's appropriate to teach about religion, but not to teach religious beliefs directly.

In other words:

Jesus was the son of God--not acceptable.
Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God--acceptable.

Gilda
That's a perfectly simple, highly affordable, and appropriately tolerant solution.

I don't see what's so wrong with that approach. Maybe I never will.

[Solaris]

I have a friend who's a deeply devout Christian, and while most of them simply say "I'm right because it's in the Bible," he actually tells me scientific evidence that supports the Bible.


Pseudo-science, engineered specifically in order to attempt to give their argument validity. There's plenty of stuff out there that completely debunks all of that. Ask (or look) around. Basically, if you take a lie, and wrap it in scientific terminology... that does NOT make it Science OR the Truth. In many ways, it's like the elaborate postulations some people went through in order to "prove" that Man Walking on the Moon was really a hoax engineered in a Hollywood backlot. It's amazing how many people will laugh at *that* attempt at pseudoscience, who will turn around and *believe* the pseudoscience made up to support "creationism."

[Solaris]

This kind of idea would never be tolerated over here in Britain.

Religion has been taken out of most schools except for non denominational RE classes which teach about several religions including Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. Only Catholic schools seem to bother with using religion as a major issue and they are very much in the minority.

Science classes here totally acknowledge the evolutionary theories and modern scientific principles.

I'm a Christian myself (Salvation Army) and I believe the world developed in eras, not days. Much of the bible is not literal and shouldn't be taken as such.


Get ready for a wonderful boost to your economy, and Europe's, in about 20-30 years or so, as the children we're raising ignorant hit the workplace and can't handle the highly scientific jobs, then. I'd give it 30 years, just to be on the safe side. You guys are gonna have a lot of American employers either putting in offices over there to handle "R&D" and stuff, or they're gonna try to entice you to move here. I'd opt for the former, because the latter means you gotta LIVE with the dummies, and they're gonna try to make your kids as ignorant as theirs.

[Solaris]

That's very worrying.

Is it a legitimate threat to the institution in Arkansas though, or is it just paranoia on the part of the facility?


Said by the guy who runs the science workshops for the teachers:

“After one of my workshops at a [state] education cooperative, it was asked that I not come back because I spent too much time on evolution. One of the teachers sent a letter to the governor stating that I was mandating that teachers had to teach evolution, and that I have to be an atheist, and would he do something.”


*raises eyebrows*

Paranoia? When the complaint of ONE teacher shuts off the availability of the workshop to ALL the teachers in that education cooperative?

No. I certainly don't think it's paranoia. There's more about stuff like that, as well, in the article... if you read it all. And trust me: it's WELL worth the read.

[Charles RB]

Get ready for a wonderful boost to your economy, and Europe's, in about 20-30 years or so, as the children we're raising ignorant hit the workplace and can't handle the highly scientific jobs, then. I'd give it 30 years, just to be on the safe side. You guys are gonna have a lot of American employers either putting in offices over there to handle "R&D" and stuff, or they're gonna try to entice you to move here.

Suddenly this whole thing sounds a lot less worrying to me. ;)


Paranoia? When the complaint of ONE teacher shuts off the availability of the workshop to ALL the teachers in that education cooperative?

Damn.

[Solaris]

Suddenly this whole thing sounds a lot less worrying to me. ;)



Damn.


Yeah. Maybe we'll move to Britain (or Ireland) after all... ;)

And honestly, that's another point: attrition of people from the U.S. who *are* well educated, by many of them moving to other countries where their kids can get a decent education...

...maybe we should buy a plot of land over there now, just in case. :D

On the other hand, it may all be a moot point: as we get more and more ignorant people in positions of power, eventually we may have some incredible dummy in control of our military and our nuclear weapons, who decides on a Christian Jihad, or that we need to blow up the place and "bring on Judgement Day."

Wait. We're not that far off from it, now (looks at Dubya Bush).

The thought of someone STUPIDER than Bush being in the White House is positively *terrifying*. And the things is, by then we'd also have a majority of dummies in the rest of govt. and in the military, so... shit. Either you all may "become" Americans by conquest, or we'll all be playing harps. :rolleyes:

[Erebus]

Pseudo-science, engineered specifically in order to attempt to give their argument validity. There's plenty of stuff out there that completely debunks all of that. Ask (or look) around. Basically, if you take a lie, and wrap it in scientific terminology... that does NOT make it Science OR the Truth. In many ways, it's like the elaborate postulations some people went through in order to "prove" that Man Walking on the Moon was really a hoax engineered in a Hollywood backlot. It's amazing how many people will laugh at *that* attempt at pseudoscience, who will turn around and *believe* the pseudoscience made up to support "creationism."
Example*:
My Friend (we'll call him Joe) believes that God taught humans language. Evidence? When feral children, or children brought up in the wild, are found and brought to modern civilization, it's nearly impossible for them to learn anything pass rudimetary language. So, how could early mankind even concieve any words by themselves, when modern day humans can't teach these children? If you think about it, Joe's point makes sense.

Note: I do not believe in creationism. But I see bias on both sides. Christians (and many other religions) don't believe in evolution, and say it should not be taught in schools. Atheists and other people who do believe in evolution say that creationism should not be taught at schools, but evolution itself has very little evidence. I myself believe that all theories should be taught, but taught very carefully.

[Harlock]

Well Solaris, I agree with some of what you say, and some for different reasons. American public education is suffering in many areas. We have school systems who base promotion and raises on standardized test results which results in teachers who teach for a test. We have State and Federal government basing funding upon standardized testing which results in School District administrations stressing teaching for testing even further.

We have people who bemoan the state of American education but who vote down tax increases that could increase funding for education and for teacher's salaries. We have people who rant and rave about the poor quality of educators yet don't realize that some teachers are making less than $30,000 without much potential for upward mobility while other college grads can expect much better. How do you attract quality people without quality pay?

Then we have declining standards in parental accountability and responsibility. No one thinks their little angel would lie about why they made a poor score on a test or for a term. "My teacher doesn't like me," is actually a line more parents are willing to buy these days than admit to themselves that their child has some other issue. School is viewed by many people as their babysitter, and who can blame them when it's hard as hell to make it in today's world without being a two-income-family?

If people want a higher quality of education then it is time to put up or shut up. It's easy to sit back and blame the "fundies" or a Presidential Administration or a political party or an ethnic group for the declining quality of our childrens' education. It's a lot harder to stop pointing fingers at everyone else and realize it is the responsibility of all Americans to ensure that our children are fully equipped for the real world by our own educational system.

And unfortunately, many of the reforms that could improve education are not just needed to the educational system itself. America's value system just might need a revamp. Accountability and responsibility are two words that seem to be slipping further and further out of our collective vocabulary. We see it in every facet of life, from frivolous lawsuits to parents who refuse to participate in their own children's education. This trend is not endemic to only Arkansas or the Bible belt or red states or blue states, it's a national disaster that we all have to work to prevent from getting worse and then work to improve for all of our sakes.

[Weetomuncher]

I'm a Christian and regularly attend the local Salvation Army services.

I believe that the universe was created by God but that his power was used to create the order of the universe.

I don't believe that the world was created in seven days but I do believe that the world gradually developed into what we have today.

A lot of my beliefs come from the fact that the universe is so advanced in many ways that it just seems odd that it could have just came together on its own. I just think someone must have done something at one time to create it.

I believe in evolutionary theories and that man evolved from ape but I think this is the way the world was supposed to be.

I don't understand other churchgoers who insist in biblical literalism when much of the Bible is clearly set in the ancient mannerisms of the writers.

People before the time of Christ would have great difficulty understanding the progression of evolution and the notion of God creating the world in a week would explain a form of evolution, with one thing then another but I don't believe in it being done in a literal week.

I think the main problem with people who take their religion too seriously is that they can't see the flaws and problems in their faith.

No one should take a book which almost completely dates over 2000 years ago as complete truth but I do accept the message of the Bible and that is what Christians should do.

[Nikita]

This kind of idea would never be tolerated over here in Britain.

Religion has been taken out of most schools except for non denominational RE classes which teach about several religions including Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. Only Catholic schools seem to bother with using religion as a major issue and they are very much in the minority.

Science classes here totally acknowledge the evolutionary theories and modern scientific principles.

I'm a Christian myself (Salvation Army) and I believe the world developed in eras, not days. Much of the bible is not literal and shouldn't be taken as such.



That's it, I'm moving to Britain.

I love living in America, but man, this country really gets on my nerves sometimes.

[Winslow]

That's pretty messed up.

I'd be interested in any stories Gilda had about censorship from both sides of the political spectrum in text selection.

[JuggernautRM]

Im by religion a greek orthodox christian, personally, I consider my self not believing in any religions.

Yes, I do believe that there might be something above us that helped us and maybe even created us. But I don't think God has his hand's in every prospect of our lifes and the lifes of animals.

I believe in a certain philosophy about the progress of life. Life is evolving, but not just in a random pattern without guidance. I believe that there is something out there that is truley perfect, and that all of matter is trying to be as perfect as that perfect being, so life is constantly evolving to be as good as possible.

Now on the issue on the teachings of evolution or creation. I believe a teacher should teach style they want as long as it enriches the children with knowledge, then they should not have anybody interrupting them or threatening them. Its bad enough that America has few enough good teachers, we don't need to push them out and fill up the ranks with mindless automons who just read what the book says.

Like George Carlin said, Keep Thy Religion to Thy Self.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Example*:
My Friend (we'll call him Joe) believes that God taught humans language. Evidence? When feral children, or children brought up in the wild, are found and brought to modern civilization, it's nearly impossible for them to learn anything pass rudimetary language. So, how could early mankind even concieve any words by themselves, when modern day humans can't teach these children? If you think about it, Joe's point makes sense.

Only if you're completely ignorant about language development, and don't think much about the idea. First off, there is a fairly narrow age range in which language can be easily learned. This corresponds to the time when the nervous system has matured to a point allowing for language acquisition, but is yet plastic enough to easily change a lot. Kids who are not taught language during that time have a lot of difficulty learning it at all. This is not specific to feral kids - it's also why adults have a harder time learning new languages than do kids (and why it would make more sense to have language classes in elementary or preschool than in high school, really).

Second, your example assumes that language developed "as is." We know, however, this isn't the case. Languages evolve with time. The earlier languages were simpler than our modern ones. That's because the earliest languages were formed from scratch, but older languages can be built upon over time.

Atheists and other people who do believe in evolution say that creationism should not be taught at schools, but evolution itself has very little evidence.

Ummm... 100% wrong. The amount of evidence for evolution is greater - and the evidence itself stronger - for 90% of what we take for granted in most sciences, and in medicine. This is why it has become the accepted fact by all but the most ignorant of folk and the most benighted of religious fundamentalists. Your statement suggests you really are very uninformed about this topic.

[Jeff Brady]

The amount of evidence for creation is greater - and the evidence itself stronger -


Psst...you mean "evolution," not "creation," right?

[Spike-X]

Atheists and other people who do believe in evolution say that creationism should not be taught at schools...

No, we don't believe it should be taught in science class, at the expense of actual accepted scientific facts.

...evolution itself has very little evidence.

This is simply incorrect.

[Spike-X]

Well, calling them fundamentalist nutbags just might be persecution...

If calling a spade a goddamn shovel = persecution, then so be it. They want facts taught as belief (if they'll allow facts to be taught at all) and belief taught as fact. That don't sit well with me.

[Sir Tim Drake]

This is another example of how our country keeps its students stupid, closed-minded and uncurious. It is not Christians who are persecuted in America today; it's people who enjoy learning and who prefer to think for themselves. American-born graduate students are now outnumbered by foreign graduate students in many American sciences departments, and perhaps it's no more than we deserve.

[Charles RB]

Atheists and other people who do believe in evolution say that creationism should not be taught at schools

No, we say it shouldn't be taught in science classes as it's not a valid scientific theory with scientific evidence. You can teach it in Religious Education class all you want.

but evolution itself has very little evidence

It actually has quite a bit of evidence, which is why it's gone unchallenged in science for over 150 years and why scientists were convinced by it in the first place. It's only gotten more evidence as time has gone on. It convinced Darwin for a start, and he was a devout Christian originally training to become a priest.

[Gaz]

No, we say it shouldn't be taught in science classes as it's not a valid scientific theory with scientific evidence. You can teach it in Religious Education class all you want.



It actually has quite a bit of evidence, which is why it's gone unchallenged in science for over 150 years and why scientists were convinced by it in the first place. It's only gotten more evidence as time has gone on. It convinced Darwin for a start, and he was a devout Christian originally training to become a priest.
And no-one point out flaws in Darwin's original theory to show that the theory's shaky. That's like saying that planes today are unsafe because the Wright brothers' plane was unsound.

And Weeto, you must've had better RE teachers than me, and went to a different primary and high school (well, obviously, but my point's made,yes?). RE was usually taught with the assumption of Christian as default, and our teacher was very critical of humanism. And a minister visited the primary every week at assembly (compulsory, as most stuff is then) and every month or two in high school. (assemblies were less common, but still mostly compulsory)

[K'Nort]

It's interesting that on the one hand, the British school system is more rational about evolution/creationism than the US, but on the other hand, it apparently has Religious Education courses, which the US does not.

[DracoMalfoy]

Actually we do. It's called "Religion". However it studies ALL religions in an unbiased "textbook" manner. And it's an elective.

[Erebus]

No, we don't believe it should be taught in science class, at the expense of actual accepted scientific facts.



This is simply incorrect.
I'm sorry, I honestly don't know much about the development of mankind. I guess I was just funning my mouth :o

But I have met some douchebag atheists who think that the church is evil, everything they say is right, and that everyone who believes in God is incredibly stupid.

[Charles RB]

And no-one point out flaws in Darwin's original theory to show that the theory's shaky.

Especially since the reason it has flaws is partly because Darwin didn't have the same level of scientific evidence we have now. The basics of evolution still hold up.

[Dan Apodaca]

But I have met some douchebag atheists who think that the church is evil, everything they say is right, and that everyone who believes in God is incredibly stupid.

Yeah, and I've met some douchebag Mexicans, but that doesn't mean that all Mexicans are douchebags.

[Harlock]

I'm sorry, I honestly don't know much about the development of mankind. I guess I was just funning my mouth :o

But I have met some douchebag atheists who think that the church is evil, everything they say is right, and that everyone who believes in God is incredibly stupid.
That just goes to show that radicals/fundamentalists/militants of any stripe are pushy people who do their cause more disservice than a calm and rational approach would do.

Some for-instances:

Radical Islamist blowing up bombs and killing people = wrong way to convert people to your way of thinking. Holding seminars with a local Muslim leaders inviting to public to come and ask honest questions about their beliefs and views = a nice way to address differences and maybe even gain converts that find your approach appealing.

Militant Feminist waving protest signs outside of a Hooters restaraunt screaming at customers as they enter and exit that they are supporting the objectification and oppression of womankind = wrong way to convert people to your way of thinking. Feminist leaders conducting a town hall meeting about gender equality in the modern era with details about what gender discrimination is still happening in their own community with proposals to resolve said issues = the nice approach that is likely to garner more interest and sympathy to your cause.

Fundamentalist Vegan trying to teach people the evils of wearing leather or fur by throwing paint on them = the wrong way to convert people to your way of thinking (and if you do it to me, my foot in your ass). Vegans hosting a series of demonstrations on vegetarian cooking free to the public with an emphasis on the health benefits and international recipes = darn good way to get a hardcore carnivore like myself to come to your meeting.

That's the thing to remember. Anyone who tries to force someone to change is just going to get the person's defenses up right away. Someone who present a calm and intelligent argument laced with actual information that may be of use to their audience is much more likely to gain followers.

[Erebus]

Yeah, and I've met some douchebag Mexicans, but that doesn't mean that all Mexicans are douchebags.
I don't think all atheists are douchebags. Some of my best friends are atheists. I just think there's bias on both sides.

[Dan Apodaca]

I don't think all atheists are douchebags. Some of my best friends are atheists. I just think there's bias on both sides.

Well, that's not really an opinion. That's an indisputable fact. There's bias everywhere. That's what makes us people and not robots. Welcome to society.

[K'Nort]

That's what makes us people and not robots.

heh

.......

[Dan Apodaca]

heh

.......

The Iron Fairy came down and made me a real boy, and now I deny my robot past.

[Solaris]

One of the things the Creationists like to point to is the number of dinosaur bones (or other creature objects) found. They like to say stuff like "if they were really on earth, in the projected numbers... then there ought to be dinosaur bones in practically every back yard.

Which shows an appalling ignorance of geological processes and conception of the size of the earth as well as other ignorance.

The earth is *huge*. The upper crust alone (the solid part we walk on and dig in) is relatively thin compared to the other parts down to the core... but in terms of the size of humans and the tiny amount of digging and/or deep digging we've done... it's incredibly vast. You have a much greater chance of finding a needle in a haystack than you do in finding dinosaur bones... in part because so much of what was on the surface *then* has been deeply buried by geological changes *since* then. For that matter, we know much of the animals *and* the plants from those eras became... *ching!* crude oil.

Also, after millions of years, it's amazing that *any* fossils remain. Fortunately, occasionally conditions exist in nature that are *just right* for preserving bones, etc. Far more often, the remains, as remains usually do, deteriorated.

The further back you go in time, the *more* specialized conditions have to be to even *preserve* evidence of a creature's existence. When you add in that the evidence then also had to survive geological changes (earthquakes, volcanoes, erosion) to still be around for *us* to find, it's downright amazing that there's anything to be found at all... not to mention the infitessimal chance that the relic is gonna be close enough to the surface for us to find, and that of the sheer size of the earth making it very difficult for one of us unearthing something.

TBH, these people believe that in part because of the great "Fossil Finds" that are in various sites. What these folks don't understand that places near or on the surface of our planet that meet ALL of the criteria I just mentioned are exceedingly rare. Sure, a site may contain multiple fossils... BECAUSE, the site was one of the places that HAD all the right conditions. The fact that there *are* multiple fossils there simply attests to the fecundity and proliferation of the various lifeforms of the period in question. So, since scientists have been able to determine what many of those natural conditions have to be, in order to preserve evidence for millions of years, they try to narrow the search from "vast areas of the planet" to "areas where such conditions were likely to be present." Kind of like a private investigator keeping the subject's favorite hangout under surveillance, as the most likely place he will indulge in the activity in question, rather than simply driving all over town in hopes of bumping into the guy at the exact moment he's "messing around with the client's wife."

To continue the analogy, these people would say "well, the guy *couldn't* be screwing that other guy's wife, because if he *was*, the P.I. would've found evidence of it all over town, pretty much everywhere he turned.

Gotta run, back tonight or tomorrow.

[Calybos]

It's junk like this that makes me reject the notion of "states' rights" as foolish and unworkable. All it is, is a codeword for instituting local bigotry and superstition as official policy, like "parental/local control of schools."

They try to make it sound so reasonable: "I'm the parent; shoudn't I have some say in what they're teaching my kid at a public school?" Well frankly, no: because you're an ignorant moron, and your idiotic superstitions don't have a damn thing to do with real science and real knowledge.

Yes, I'm saying that trained scientists and professional educators are better qualified to teach your kid the truth about biology than you are, you ignorant hick. So deal with it. And shut the heck up while we try to teach your kid enough to recognize what an idiot you are and not repeat your pathetic mistakes.

Gad, I hate living in the south....

[Sir Tim Drake]

It's junk like this that makes me reject the notion of "states' rights" as foolish and unworkable. All it is, is a codeword for instituting local bigotry and superstition as official policy, like "parental/local control of schools."

"States' rights" is, essentially, a phony principle that's only invoked when people need an excuse for justifying bigotry. No one cares about states' rights in the abstract.

They try to make it sound so reasonable: "I'm the parent; shoudn't I have some say in what they're teaching my kid at a public school?" Well frankly, no: because you're an ignorant moron, and your idiotic superstitions don't have a damn thing to do with real science and real knowledge.

Yes, I'm saying that trained scientists and professional educators are better qualified to teach your kid the truth about biology than you are, you ignorant hick. So deal with it. And shut the heck up while we try to teach your kid enough to recognize what an idiot you are and not repeat your pathetic mistakes.

*applause* This may not be the most polite way of putting it, but I can't say I disagree.

[Citizen V]

Teachers at an unnamed (for fear of persecution) science education institution that serves several Arkansas public school districts are forbidden to use the “e-word” (evolution) with the kids, nor are they permitted to say that some rocks housed in the facility are thought to be about 300 million years old, for fear that some fundamentalist nutbag parent will kick up a stink and get their funding revoked.

Story here (http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=e7a0f0e1-ecfd-4fc8-bca4-b9997c912a91)

Yeah, tell me again how Christians are a persecuted minority in the US.

While most do belive in god,it all depends on who you are talking to.Its a shame teachers can not teach what they are paid to do,because people can not grasp the truth and their belifs may be wrong.

For example,i belive in a god.But at the same time,i understand that rocks or the planet could be millions or billions of years old.That doesnt bother me,people need to ajust.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Psst...you mean "evolution," not "creation," right?

Yup. Talk about a "d'oh!" kinda error...

[JeffreyWKramer]

It's interesting that on the one hand, the British school system is more rational about evolution/creationism than the US, but on the other hand, it apparently has Religious Education courses, which the US does not.

I think it would be a good thing for comparative religion to be taught as a standard subject in US schools, probably as part of a social studies cirricula. Keep in mind, though, that the same people who oppose evolution being taught in school would also oppose teaching of any religious ideas - even if only for information purposes, as oppposed to indoctrination - other than their brand of Christianity.

[JeffreyWKramer]

The Iron Fairy came down and made me a real boy, and now I deny my robot past.

How do you know he was a fairy? What did he do to transform you?!?!

[Gaz]

It's interesting that on the one hand, the British school system is more rational about evolution/creationism than the US, but on the other hand, it apparently has Religious Education courses, which the US does not.
Technically, it's the Scottish system Weeto would be referring to, which is markedly different to the English one, but this area should be the same across the UK.

And RE is technically supposed to be that plus philosophy and ethics primers as well. In my experience, religion and philosophy weren't distinguished, and ethics were taught mainly as morals as derived from that. (Granted, I ditched it at 16, but after 4 years of classes devoted to it, and 7 years of it being part of a primary curriculum, I wasn't prepared to hope it would be different.)

[Solaris]

I think it would be a good thing for comparative religion to be taught as a standard subject in US schools, probably as part of a social studies cirricula. Keep in mind, though, that the same people who oppose evolution being taught in school would also oppose teaching of any religious ideas - even if only for information purposes, as oppposed to indoctrination - other than their brand of Christianity.


Whenever people bitch about wanting religion in schools, I tend to go "Great! Let's have a Comparative Religions class! That's be awesome." A few are okay with it, but many more aren't happy with the idea at all.

In my high school, they taught "Bible" as a lit class. We studied the book on it's literary merit, including looking at some of how it's influenced various other literary works... much in the same way that things like the Greek mythos, or folk tales, have also influenced literature. Such things are cultural references, and if you don't have any knowledge of where they came from (i.e. the David and Goliath tale being about the smaller, weaker underdog triumphing), a reference to "Goliath" might sail right past you. Our teacher was also the Spanish teacher (that was the bulk of his load), and in his private life was also an ordained Baptist minister, though he didn't have a church---he'd worked as a missionary for a while. At any rate, the man objectively taught the literature of the Bible (and even at times the psychology of it), and sometimes discussed religious beliefs as an adjunct to that---but he never *preached* or tried to turn it into a "service-type" class. He kept things objective. I really admired that, and wish that all such classes and teachers would do so.

Rin had a comparative religions class in college. From time to time she'd discuss a current lesson with me, and it was fascinating stuff. IMO, there's NO reason why a school can't study "religions" as "a part of human culture and thought," and give fair examination and comparison of them, and the effects they've had on our history and our way of thinking. I think it's valuable learning, and it's sad that so many only want *their* religion in schools, and not as something to be examined and learned about, but as something to be *followed* and *believed in*.

IMO, there are some basic tenets that are common to many religions, and examining that in and of itself is both fascinating and promotes tolerance of religions other than your own. It's the latter part that gets some people's knickers in a twist: they don't want tolerance of *anything* different taught.

Sigh.

[Gaz]

Hypothetical question: Would this comparative religions course include stuff like humanism, which isn't strictly a religion?

[Gilda Dent]

Comparative religion used to be a basic part of the social studies curriculum, sometimes as a part of history, but more often as a part of geography. It's hard to find the best place for it when there isn't a specific course designed around it.

I agree completely with those who say it should be an integral part of the curriculum, as a comparative religion course or subset of one of the other courses. The problem becomes that everyone wants their particular view of religion X to be the version taught, esepecially when it comes to Christianity, and to a lesser extent, Islam. The struggle over the content of the social studies curriculum is very contentious as it is, with various groups wanting their view of history and the world to be the one that is dominant, regardless of what the facts are.

Which isn't to say that we shouldn't do it anyway, but it is going to be very difficult.

Gilda

[JeffreyWKramer]

Hypothetical question: Would this comparative religions course include stuff like humanism, which isn't strictly a religion?

Why should it? That would be like teaching cooking in gym class.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to cover humanistic POVs in a unit on ethics or philosophy, that would make sense. But the practice of some religious folk who seek to frame humanism or athiesm as religions for purposes of making lame, dishonest arguments... well, that should definitely be avoided.

[Spike-X]

Why should it? That would be like teaching cooking in gym class.

Or like teaching creationism in science class?

[Gaz]

Why should it? That would be like teaching cooking in gym class.

On the other hand, if someone wanted to cover humanistic POVs in a unit on ethics or philosophy, that would make sense. But the practice of some religious folk who seek to frame humanism or athiesm as religions for purposes of making lame, dishonest arguments... well, that should definitely be avoided.
Um, atheist here, and I grouped it in to allow for a variety of perspectives. Knowing that other people have considered those things can be enormously helpful/eye-opening/supportive to a confused kid. (I think I've mentioned my reading His Dark Materials being a similar thing for me in my early teens?)

[Solaris]

Hypothetical question: Would this comparative religions course include stuff like humanism, which isn't strictly a religion?

Actually, I think it should be a two-part course: first part, comparative religion, second part, comparitive philosophy. The two would, of necessity, overlap some, but you could pretty much keep the main focus on the one, and then the other.

I think it's very useful to compare AND contrast religions, as in "basic beliefs they have in common.... but also what are the details that may give a different spin to each," and "ways that the religions differ in a large way."

I also like the notion of having guest speakers from as many of the religions as possible to come into the classroom, speak a little, and then do a Q&A session with the students. I'd hope said speakers are scholarly and objective, not the kind coming in to get the chance to "preach" at the kids. For instance, if I were teaching such a class, having someone like Mort's Dad (as Morts has described him) to present on Judaism, would be awesome.

Also, while Christianity might take up a fair chunk of the class, given the Catholic/Protestant split and also all the denominations, I don't want it limited to "the big three" (Christian, Jewish, Islamic). I want to see some Buddhists, some Hindi, some Wiccans and Pagans, some Native Americans (granted, this one is also a tall order, because there's more variety in N.A. religions than there are protestant denominations!), and various other religions as well. So long as the person is knowledgeable about the faith, can present and answer questions intelligibly, and won't "proseltyze" when they're in the class... bring 'em on. :D

Now *here's* one that'd blow their socks off: I'd also like the teacher (yes, in this case the teacher, not a representative of it---if that's prejudice, sue me, because it fits the criteria of "cult," not "religion") bring in Satanism as promoted by La Vey. I'd like to see them dissect it, show where it "borrowed" from other religions and put it's own twist on it, and also the comments La Vey himself made about "creating a show for the marks" so to speak. For that matter, I'd also like to see them take a look at cults like the Moonies, Jim Jones, etc. I think examining all those things (maybe under the generic heading of "cults). I think it could serve the kids quite well to dissect the methods and presentation of cults, so that if they are confronted with such, they stand a better chance of recognizing it. (And hopefully, avoid getting sucked into one.)

[Gilda Dent]

Actually, I think it should be a two-part course: first part, comparative religion, second part, comparitive philosophy. The two would, of necessity, overlap some, but you could pretty much keep the main focus on the one, and then the other.

I think it's very useful to compare AND contrast religions, as in "basic beliefs they have in common.... but also what are the details that may give a different spin to each," and "ways that the religions differ in a large way."

I also like the notion of having guest speakers from as many of the religions as possible to come into the classroom, speak a little, and then do a Q&A session with the students. I'd hope said speakers are scholarly and objective, not the kind coming in to get the chance to "preach" at the kids. For instance, if I were teaching such a class, having someone like Mort's Dad (as Morts has described him) to present on Judaism, would be awesome.

Also, while Christianity might take up a fair chunk of the class, given the Catholic/Protestant split and also all the denominations, I don't want it limited to "the big three" (Christian, Jewish, Islamic). I want to see some Buddhists, some Hindi, some Wiccans and Pagans, some Native Americans (granted, this one is also a tall order, because there's more variety in N.A. religions than there are protestant denominations!), and various other religions as well. So long as the person is knowledgeable about the faith, can present and answer questions intelligibly, and won't "proseltyze" when they're in the class... bring 'em on. :D

And Emily's dad or one of her uncles could take care of Shinto (the native religion of Japan). We can have a CBR contingent of religion experts.

The comparative religion section of the basic social studies curriculum as I've seen it didn't have Christianity as the bulk of the class, but instead gave every one of the big six religions equal time, specifically for the purpose of avoiding the appearance of bias, and I think this is how it should be. There are similar divisions within Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism as there are in Christianity, with a variety of flavors being practiced.

Gilda

[Solaris]

And Emily's dad or one of her uncles could take care of Shinto (the native religion of Japan). We can have a CBR contingent of religion experts.

The comparative religion section of the basic social studies curriculum as I've seen it didn't have Christianity as the bulk of the class, but instead gave every one of the big six religions equal time, specifically for the purpose of avoiding the appearance of bias, and I think this is how it should be. There are similar divisions within Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism as there are in Christianity, with a variety of flavors being practiced.

Gilda


I think that's a VERY sound approach... so long as some decent time is also given to the less widely-known religions. Don't want them thinking that the Big Three, or Big Six, are all there is. (And I think we've got a good start on a CBR comparative religions class, between Emily's dad and Mort's dad!) :)

And again, I also see strong value in teaching about cults... but I think the term "cult" needs to be defined as "an organization that psychologically manipulates members to their own detriment, to the extent of using methods like "brainwashing" (give definition and examples of this), so that said members lose all or nearly all ability to practice individual discernment in their religion and how it affects their daily life." I'm sure someone could come up with a clearer definition than that; my point is, often real religions are branded as cults when they aren't, and nearly all cults try to *masquerade* as a religion... so you need some definitive criteria in deciding what *is* a cult, and what is *not* a cult. Also, it needs to be pointed out that various cults have, at times, attempted to use the "cloak" of religion... i.e. Jim Jones and Christianity, Moonies and Buddhism (? is that right?), etc., when they have little to nothing actually in common with the main philosophies and practices of said religion.

A "cult" isn't a religion that someone finds "weird and outlandish" (as some Christians see Wicca, for example). It's something that sets out to control the minds and lives of it's members completely as possible... basically, turning members into robots that say "yes" to whatever the cult leader wants, without giving a single thought as to whether or not it's a good thing... even to the point of killing themselves and their families. In some ways, I guess you could say that a cult is "deliberately fostered insanity that's inculated in the members."

[Spike-X]

A "cult" isn't a religion that someone finds "weird and outlandish" (as some Christians see Wicca, for example). It's something that sets out to control the minds and lives of it's members completely as possible... basically, turning members into robots that say "yes" to whatever the cult leader wants, without giving a single thought as to whether or not it's a good thing... even to the point of killing themselves and their families. In some ways, I guess you could say that a cult is "deliberately fostered insanity that's inculated in the members."

So the Westboro Baptist Church would qualify?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Or like teaching creationism in science class?

No, that's even more silly.

[Dan Apodaca]

How do you know he was a fairy? What did he do to transform you?!?!

He appeared on the night of the chain-link moon, and floated down in a slate gray glow. He spun one of his magic gears onto my finger and I became flesh. I still have to wear this clunky steel gear as a ring, or I could revert.

[Solaris]

So the Westboro Baptist Church would qualify?

To give as objective a viewpoint as I can, based on what I know of them... they're borderline cult. If they homeschool and use it to completely indoctrinate their children in their hatred, devote most of their resources to their hatred, believe their leader blindly (I know this one is true), and make a conscious effort to isolate themselves from society as much as possible... they may well be. I don't know what kind of teaching methods they use on their children, for instance. If they are keeping the kids from sleeping, and/or on bread and water rations for a week or more, if the kids "break doctrine"... may indeed be cult. If they use "programming" methods on members/kids... cult. If they actively step in and take control of member's moneys, resources, corporal or deprivation discipline for the member's children... cult.

I'm not sure how many of these kinds of things that church is doing. Just looking at them I'd say they're borderline cult material... but I don't have enough info on their day-to-day methods of operation and practices, within their membership, to say for certain that they're a cult, and not just a nutcase branch-off of a religion. Hate-filled? Sure... nearly to the point of insanity, which might well be another "cult" qualifier.

Let's put it this way:

If an average member becomes sort of a "non-person," in terms of control of their life and resources and children, and if they have no true ability to think on an individual basis... it's probably a cult.

[Paul McEnery]

Why should it? That would be like teaching cooking in gym class.


There's probably enough yeast around to make a decent fist of breadmaking. :D