Add Reply
Related Information to Teaching Against DarwinTeaching Against Darwin - Page 2 of 5
I didnt mean to say that you said that directly. - Page 2 - Sciences, Education, Art, Writing, UFO - Posted: 16th Mar, 2005 - 2:55am
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ Sciences, Education, Art, Writing & UFO
Posts: 38 - Views: 6157
Atheist - Atheism
Related Information to Teaching Against DarwinPost Date: 13th Jan, 2005 - 6:41am / Post ID: #
Teaching Against Darwin - Page 2
I think that people need to consider that the different ideas are not necessarily incompatible. The problem comes in one side or the other blindly holding to the tenets of what they believe.
There is evidence of evolution in some living beings. But there are large, noticable gaps in the fossil records. Einstein himself believed in creation, citing that there was no evidence that disproved God's hand in the world.
I think that the Theory of Evolution should be taught as theory, with the facts that both support it and contradict it. I think that a variety of spiritual viewpoints would not be a bad thing to teach, either. The biggest problem, as far as I am concerned, is in giving a skewed perspective and not presenting the information as it really is and letting the students make a reasonable decision of their own. But, then, some people don't think that others are smart enough to make their own decisions and would rather do the thinking for them. I am not one of those, no matter how easy it would be at times.
As a side note because the original post talked about it, the separation of Church and State that many secularists cite is actually not to be found anywhere in the constitution and is only a modern interpretation of some of the writings of our founding fathers. If you go back and take an unbiased look at history and the U.S.'s founding documents, they are very religious in nature. The so called separation of Church and State had only to do with it not being legal to force anyone to be part of any particular religion in order to be a full and participating citizen. In many areas of the early U.S., the local governments were run by the local religious leaders. I think that most of us will also find that truly spiritual leaders will work for the welfare of all of those under them, no matter what beliefs they espouse.
Sponsored Links:
Post Date: 13th Jan, 2005 - 8:09am / Post ID: #
Darwin Teaching
Why isn't creationism a theory? I think that it is and I found this to support my thinking:
| QUOTE |
| Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary |
Also:
| QUOTE |
| Main Entry: the·o·ry: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another; abstract thought : SPECULATION Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary |
Although creationism may be based on religion, there is evidence and speculation (just as in other theories) that make it as likely a theory as any other. The theory of creationism, which religion may be a part of, isn't any less a possibility just because someone doesn't believe it. The same could be said about Darwinism, that it isn't less possible just because I don't believe it. That would be like saying that faith doesn't help heal because that is just a religious belief and I don't believe in that, even when there is evidence and speculation to the contrary. Just because it might be a religious theory doesn't make it less true, or possible. Now, I do not think religion should be taught at school, but if it is a legitimate, widely held theory that is reasoned by a religious theme, I have no problem with it being taught as one of the options for how the world was created.
Teaching Against Darwin UFO & Writing Art Education Sciences
| QUOTE |
| Just because it might be a religious theory doesn't make it less true, or possible |
I was not saying it is less true, I was saying it is less scientific. It is not something that should be tought, in my opinion, but rather just believed in, because the only evidence for that is the bible (correct me if I'm wrong) which requires faith, instead of reason. I am not saying that one is superior, only that one (reason) fits at school, and the other at church, or at home.
Page 2 Darwin Teaching
Uh, oh. I think you won't be too happy with this one:
| QUOTE |
| Since 2002, Dr. Kenneth Miller has been upset that biology textbooks he has written are slapped with a warning sticker by the time they appear in suburban Atlanta schools. Evolution, the stickers say, is "a theory, not a fact." What it tells students is that we're certain of everything else in this book except evolution," said Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, who with Joseph S. Levine has authored three texts for high schoolers. On Thursday, Miller -- along with fellow teachers and scientists -- cheered a federal judge's ruling that ordered the Cobb County school board to immediately remove the stickers and never again hand them out in any form... |
Darwin Teaching
This is an issue I have been very interested in- and I would like to share a few of the conclusions I have come to on this issue-
I noticed that in the original post Smudge was talking about teaching Darwinism/evolutionism and/or teaching the intelligent design theory- later he posted that
| QUOTE |
| I think the major difference is that Darwinism is a theory and creationism is a belief. One is based on evidence and guesses, and the other on religion. Now, it seems obvious to me that religion should not be taught at school. |
I first want to state that, in my opinion at least, Intelligent design theory (as I understand it) is completely compatible with creationism: Intelligent Design theory claims that the life on earth is too complex etc to have happened by accident or coincidence- someone/something "did it." This theory literally becomes creationism when you replace "God" (or the equivalent) with "someone/something." Thus, Darwinism being "a theory," but creationism only "a belief" doesn't ring true to me. If one would like to make the argument that because creationism still requires a belief in God still makes the entire system only a belief, you could.
However, the argument is about intelligent design theory being taught in schools. On that note, schools are (supposedly) places to learn. Places to learn about mathematics, history, and science. History is full of religion (there is no going around it), however, no one gets upset about learning about religions from a historical perspective because all you do is learn about them (not taught to practice them or that a certain one is true). In science, people (especially politicians) go berserk at the mention of religion or a religious belief- because they worry that if you say "religion A believes/teaches X" as it concerns a scientific principle then you are overstepping bounds set by separation of church and state.
But, going back to Smudge's comment that "One is based on evidence and guesses, and the other on religion. Now, it seems obvious to me that religion should not be taught at school." I would argue that completely leaving out the idea that anything but darwinism/evolutionism is correct or even possible, is far more indoctrinating to students than mentioning other perspectives and either letting them decide or encouraging them to discuss their beliefs with their parents instead of saying "this is factually correct and that is just a religion." So, when it comes down to it, the state does end up teaching children religion in schools- atheism (which appears to be the only politically correct religion in the USA).
Smudge- at this point I honestly feel that there is no reasonable way to avoid teaching religion in schools (I also don't believe that the clause used for separation of church and state was intended to evolve...no pun intended...to prevent freedom of speech or of practise of religion). Religion will be taught, one way or another- the question is, will we be teaching only one religion and controlling speech on all others, or will we give that authority of "who is right" back to the students and their parents (where I think it belongs).
Can one really argue that teaching atheism in schools respects separation of church and state?
Disclaimer and PS note: I realize I have taken a rather strong stance on this- and may have put my opinions rather bluntly- I want everyone to know that have meant no offence to anyone and really appreciate the previous comments- many of which I agreed with (or at least parts)- I just really wanted some of this to be said- I hope it will be taken that way- and any critique of my arguments will be appreciated (I figure it will either help me make them stronger or it will help me understand something I had previously missed)
Post Date: 15th Mar, 2005 - 11:38pm / Post ID: #
Teaching Against Darwin
Atheism isn't a religion.
"re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. "
(Dictionary.Com)
Atheism is the denial of a god or supernatural being.
"a·the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.
Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality."
(Dictionary.Com)
This country was founded, without a religion, and even though many of the founders were religious, they did not at any time and in any way intend this to be a religous country in whole. Schools teach scientific theories and facts, not beliefs. Now I understand the whole intelligent designer theory, but just because someone has some theory and wants it to be taught, that don't mean it should. They teach theories and things that have been accepted by many scientist of the scientific community and have vast amounts of evidence supporting the theory. Religion cannot be taught in school, because then all would have to be taught. Anyhow, my opinion is that religion isn't nescassary, its something made up by humans, trying to explain the unexplainable, or trying to fill a purpose in their lives. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against religion, though I'm atheist. But as to being taught in school as scientific information? Nope. Doesn't make the cut for me.
Teaching Darwin - Page 2
| QUOTE |
| Atheism isn't a religion. |
You are entitled to your opinion, JPQuiceno; but I still consider Atheism a religion. (I would point out that in your profile you have listed "Atheist" as your religion, but that might be getting a little too nit-picky.)
| QUOTE |
| Now I understand the whole intelligent designer theory, but just because someone has some theory and wants it to be taught, that don't mean it should. They teach theories and things that have been accepted by many scientist of the scientific community and have vast amounts of evidence supporting the theory. Religion cannot be taught in school, because then all would have to be taught. [...] Don't get me wrong, I'm not against religion, though I'm atheist. But as to being taught in school as scientific information? Nope. Doesn't make the cut for me. |
Ok, now that really disturbed me- that is not at all what I meant to say. I am sorry if I was unclear. First of all, I guess I should explain that I am not "for" teaching religion in schools. Period. But, (yes, I realize that having a "but"here doesn't look very good), I think that the subject of religion is not avoidable in schools- especially in science (and history and social studies etc) classes. Therefore, I was saying that because schools should not teach a certain religion to their students (at least not public schools), teaching that all religions that believe in any kind of creation or any god(s) are either false or not to be discussed is not the answer- I still consider that to be teaching religion. If Iwere a parent I would consider that as the school infringing my right to bring up my children in the religion I choose- just because the school should not teach religion doesn't mean they should teach no religion- ie atheism (which I still consider a religion)- does it? (if that makes any more sense)
The other thing I would like to address from that quote is, I did not mean to leave the impression that intelligent design theory and creationism are synonomous- they are not. In fact, Intelligent design theory leaves the door wide open for life on earth to have been created by aliens of some advanced race- or many other things. But, the point I was making was intelligent design is compatible with many religious beliefs. The reason I found that important is because intelligent design is in fact a very supported and even respected theory in the scientific community- not simply a religious twist at science. As The Center for Science & Culture states on their web site
| QUOTE |
| "5. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who support intelligent design theory? Yes. Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia. 6. Is research about intelligent design published in peer-reviewed journals and monographs? Yes. Although open hostility from those who hold to neo-Darwinism sometimes makes it difficult for design scholars to gain a fair hearing for their ideas, research and articles supporting intelligent design are being published in peer-reviewed publications. Examples of peer-reviewed books supporting design include The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press) by William Dembski and Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) by Michael Behe. Additional peer-reviewed books about design theory are scheduled to be published in 2003 and 2004 by Michigan State University Press and Cambridge University Press. In the area of journals, Michael Behe has defended his concept of "irreducible complexity" in the peer-reviewed journal Philosophy of Science published by the University of Chicago. There is also now a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on design theory, Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, which has an editorial advisory board of more than 50 scholars from relevant scientific disciplines, most of whom have university affiliations. Finally, the works of design theorists are starting to be cited by other scholars in peer-reviewed journals such as the Annual Review of Genetics. 7. What about the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and its resolution against intelligent design? In 2002 the board of the AAAS issued a resolution attacking intelligent design theory as unscientific. Unfortunately, the process by which this resolution was adopted was itself anything but scientific. In fact, the resolution was more a product of prejudice than impartial investigation. After the resolution was issued, members of the AAAS Board were surveyed about what books and articles by scientists favoring intelligent design they had actually read before adopting their resolution. Alan Leshner, the Chief Executive Officer of the AAAS, declined to specify any and replied instead that the issue had been analyzed by his group's policy staff. Two other AAAS board members similarly declined to identify anything they had read by design proponents, while yet another board member volunteered that she had perused unspecified sources on the Internet. In other words, AAAS board members apparently voted to brand intelligent design as unscientific without studying for themselves the academic books and articles by scientists proposing the theory. It should be noted that a number of the scientists supportive of intelligent design theory are members of the AAAS, so the AAAS board clearly does not speak for all members of that organization. |
I realize that that was a long quote- but I sincerely feel that all of that needed to be said. For even more information and answers to common questions check out their website. I hope I clearified my position- I will save my other comments for later as I am sure I have used up all of my space.
TOPIC: Teaching Against Darwin