So lets ban evolution/science in K12. Make it fair.

I can agree with that but if you look at the article it talks about bible classes, new and old testament. Somehow despite the best intentions I can't see someones persona views and bias not seeping into their teachings. Can you picture teachers in the midwest talking about the koran? I never had religion classes in highschool but in grade 5 we had a religion class, it consisted of two guys who came from a local church basically making us memorize "facts" from the bible. We all got a little bible of our own to keep and prayed at the beginning and end of class. Two classes in and I got my mom to pull me out because it wasn't about learning, questioning things, expanding our minds. It was about getting that information into our minds while we were young and vunerable.

I don't think it's theology. It's no different than any of the old books you read in English class. We read Oedipus, Shakespeare, and ancient stories all the time in class. Why should the bible not be treated as a piece of literature?

But the biggest teaching of it is in history. From the Crusades, to the evolution of Europe, religion has played a huge role. The same goes for the Middle East. How can you teach any history without teaching them of their beliefs?

The reality is that it isn't science vs religion. Only fundamentalist wackos make it out to be that way, and nobody takes them seriously. Evolution is basic science that is the foundation of a number of scientific disciplines. It is essential stuff. Theology is not.

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. - Theodosius Dobzhansky"

I have no problem with religion being mentioned in context, such as in history class but Splum is suggesting it be covered in detail in some sort of comparative religions class. Kids can barely read and write these days. Personally, I think teaching theology on its own is a waste of time. Let them do it in detail at university if they are so inclined.

Or we can just teach our students better and not let schools dumb down tests so kids can pass. I agree that kids have other things to worry about, but they shouldn't. It's embarrassing that kids in high school are still learning the basics of reading and writing. That we aren't capable of teaching them the classics because of their lack of intellect. We either need better teachers, more schools, or more involved parents. My dad read me Poe when I was in Middle School.

I don't believe in a comparative religions course in high school since there are simply too many religions to compare. But I do support it in the context of teaching history. My brother was in high school and was talking about the crusades (when Kingdom of Heaven came out). They learned about the crusades, but none of the religious implications behind it (the school wasn't allowed to). It just amazed me that we can't teach our children basic history without getting into a religious debate.

But I agree, religion and science aren't the same thing. They have no business being taught in the same class. The reason it is an issue is because most science contradicts religion. It's hard to read the bible and then find a fossil that is hundreds of thousands of years older than the bible says the world is.

Science itself is a religion.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

all the major religions should be taught, as well as all the classics etc.

Agree with pretty much all of what you say. I agree it should be covered in history class but Splum is framing the debate (like all religious wackos do) as religion vs science. His agenda is transparent. Science class is for science, as it should be.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Funny stuff.

50 Non-believers

Do you often find Albert Einstein quotes funny?

No, its funny seeing you attempt to hijack an Einstein quote to push your fundamentalist agenda. Einstein and you have exactly nothing in common. He did not believe in a personal god, "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

By the way, you didn't finish the quote: "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist." :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

I dont know why you are laughing Einstein was a brilliant man who is revered by scientists everywhere, yet even he, arguably the pinnacle of human intelligence, believed and had faith in religion. Your narrow simplistic mind can only equate religion with "christianity/islam etc" but there is so much more about religious faith and belief in higher entities that you do not understand.

Considering science contains a plethora of provable facts, if science were to be a religion (which it isn't), it would be the most truthful religion ever known to human civilization. (That is, if people like worshipping facts.)

You misunderstand, I am not laughing at Einstein I am laughing at you.

You also misrepresent Einsteins religious views.

On the Bible: In his autobiographical notes (written at age 67) he says, "Thus I came--despite the fact that I was the son of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents--to a deep religiosity, which, however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true."

On the Power of Prayer: "Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e., by a wish addressed to a supernatural Being."

On Morality and Ethics: "I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."

Einstein didn't believe in god, he believed in the laws of nature. He had zero belief in a personal god which is something you have professed to believe.

We could trade Einstein quotes all day but you are boring me Splum. Einstein would have spat in your hateful face. That much is a certainty. :1orglaugh

Everything contains a plethora of selective provable facts. There are many "facts" that science cannot prove. Who says people dont worship science? There are many who worship science as "fact". :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Einstein(the worlds greatest scientist) WAS religious and DID believe in a "God".
http://www.hal-pc.org/~wtb/einstein'sreligiousviews.html

You owe me an apology for lying. :)

In the end my point is that religion should be taught in public schools.

I was just saying, since science has many facts (like all known facts), it has the 1-up on religion, because religion can't even get basic facts (such as weather, mental illness, etc) correct.

And that "Everything" that you mentioned that contains a plethora of facts, is in fact, science... Whether it be social science, biological science, political science, history, or anything else...

You owe me an apology for being an idiot and wasting my time.

Please define what god you claim Einstein believed in.

So Einstein believed in nature and the laws of nature... not "god".

You are playing a game of semantics here, Einstein believed in a "God". If your small brain cant make the connection between the God of Abraham and the literal meaning of a "God" there is nothing more I can say to make you understand.

Spoken like a true worshipper of science. :)

I meant distinction, was responding to another post and edit time ran out. :)

You are playing a game of semantics here, Einstein believed in a "God". If your small brain cant make the DISTINCTION between the God of Abraham and the literal meaning of a "God" there is nothing more I can say to make you understand.

Science is a religion by definition. It's a series of beliefs and practices held by individuals. The scientific community adheres to practices and common beliefs in their work. Religion is a vague term. I can create a religion by believing that everyone should eat Spaghettios on Thursdays.

Science is not a religion. Science is just a collection of facts, and a means by obtaining facts and finding unknowns.

Not really, are you a "worshipper" of science since you accept that fact that humans need oxygen to survive? By your logic, if you believe in any fact, you are a "worshipper" of science.

It depends on your definition of religion. Most people look at it from a spiritual sense, but the word can mean many different things. Here is one of the definitions:

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Semantics... I'm using the definition of religion that refers to mystical experiences and faith (the one you think of when you think 'religion').

Oh certainly I am a "worshiper" of science(but not exclusive to it). For instance when scientists report something(in their biblical-like white papers) as "fact" I give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Thats where the "faith" comes in.

that's where you're wrong. scientific theories are proven and disproven all the time. there was a time when it was a fact that the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. oh how wrong science was. just because we have atom smashers and hubble telescopes doesn't mean we know everything. 90% of the matter in the universe is something we can't even detect. leaves alot of possabilities out there. don't be a sheep please.

I would say no, mainly because of the reality of the implementation.
In an ideal world you'd have an impartial history & literature teacher going over the historical relevance and influence of both the bible and the koran (as the global culture war of this century is looking like being framed this way.)
However anyone with experience of religion classes in public schools would know that they simply bring in a few guys from the local church group to "teach the bible" and it ends up being nothing more than a slightly more advanced sunday school. It would take a great deal of organisation and will for this not to be the case and I don't really see it happening.

I also believe that this is far down the list of educational needs. There are FAR more important things for kids to learn than the titles of gospels. And simply put, I think only a minority of students would really get anything out of even an ideal comparative religion class. Most kids in highscool just aren't that interested in how these books have defined and shaped humanity. they're more worried about what happened on the OC.

Scientic theories are never proven. They can only be falsified.

If by "god" you mean nature and natural law then we agree. But I prefer to call it nature. Einstein certainly believed there was no intelligence or consciousness involved.

Tell me, is the god you believe in nature?

Actually that the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth was a biblical conceit.

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

You remember Galileo right? What the church did to him when he tried to prove the movement of the earth?

I wouldn't blame science that much for this one. And even if you could, there wasn't a seperation science and religion until at least the enlightenment.. and even then you had Isaac Newton saying that god interfered with the alignment of the planets every now and then to keep them on course.

But in essence you are mostly sound in that science "learns from it's mistakes" but it's facts AND theories... not just theories. It takes a lot to become a fact and a scientific theory isn't the same as a common theory.. Gravity is "only" a theory.

There would be bias in the course, but that's true for most courses. Compare a US history textbook with a European history textbook about the same events and you'll find some differences. Bias comes with the territory but the hope is that a person is presented with enough facts that they can derive their own conclusions or research further.

Teaching religion in historical context is fine, but a dedicated religion course in highschool is waste of time, especially at a time when 1/3 of American kids are illiterate. It has no immediate practical use - the same reasons we don't learn about ancient history in public school. People can take up these topics on their own or in post secondary school disciplines. There are more pressing subjects - like the basics - that need to be taught.

The word "nature" is not sufficient enough to explain the "higher power" that is obviously evident within our "realities and experiences" but if you insist on dumbing it down as so I suppose the you could call it "nature".

I am sorry I disagree. Our kids must understand religion in all of its contexts. Religion affects our world in incredibly drastic and profound ways, to have greater knowledge of all religion and its meanings is to have greater tolerance and understanding of other peoples beliefs. Surely that is one of the most important lessons in life that our schools currently do not teach effectively.

What do you mean by "higher power"? Nature is a higher power for sure but it is obvious you are referring to something with consciousness and intelligence.

Am I correct?

Do you think nature isnt "conscious" or "intelligent"?

I never said humans know everything, I am saying that there are certain things that can be tested, and are KNOWN. Just because there are facts, doesn't mean people worship them... It isn't, "Oh, I have faith that humans need oxygen to survive", it is just known - can be tested, put your head in a plastic bag.

No I don't. Nature "acts" accoring to natural laws.

Do you believe nature to be intelligent or have consciousness? Do you believe that this consciousness deliberately starts tornadoes, hurricanes and tsunamis?