On the topic of creationism being taught in public schools: No. It doesn't belong. If you can't give valid scientific evidence that doesn't rely on the bible, then it has no place in public schools. Teach it all you want in private schools, but as I said above, keep religion OUT of PUBLIC schools, specifically in Science classes.
As for skills that you actually use in life, like math, science, language arts, and reading, that is what public schools are for.
Last time I checked religion is not required to live a productive life, obtain a job, and keep a career.
And education is not just about usability, but also just knowledge in general.
Why is it so wrong to teach religion in schools if done objectively?
Not that I believe that christains should force this religion upon others, but I believe that (and I agreeing) America is declining, and this is one of the reasons why. I am a christain and an American, and I believe we should keep prayer in school. And that bashing any religion, is not going to solve this case
^ statistics came from here
German education ftw!
But anyway... Religion shouldn't be taken too serious.
It is just mythology and should give some people hope.
I am open for religious freedom and saying that faith should not be allowed somewhere sort of robs people of that freedom. Creationism is not something that should be taught. My teacher kept telling us that religious tales of other faiths was just fairy-tales and not fact, but kept calling the Bible fact.
The Bible is as reliable as Wikipedia, some things are true.. but most of it is not true.
I do respect all faiths, this is just my view.
I agree. I believe in God but I don't think a public school is an appropiate place to teach it. Churches and such should be the only place to teach about Christianity or whatever. I mean not everyone on Earth is a Christian or a religious person in general and we need to accept that fact, even if some of us may not like it.
But honestly, since people of different beliefs attend public schools, I think teaching both Religion and Evolution should be electives.
You know? So people can choose.
I just think it should be an elective.
It's my personal opinion.
Where you got the idea that I said it should be kept out of schools... I have no idea.
"If Religion is kept out of Public schools, then so should Evolution." Straight from your post.
I simply think Religion should be available as an "elective".
Of course no one should be "forced" to study religion.
I contradict myself on many things... but this time I'm just left confused.
I do consider myself one of those people who would ask myself "Where am I ever going to use this?"
It's not just THIS specific topic. I think force teaching Algebra doesn't have a point either.
Now back to contradicting myself, what I wrote clearly says that I think both "evolution" and "religion" should be taught as electives. I didn't contradict myself. I wrote that in there.
It's a theory.
It's disrespectful to make religious individuals study evolution.
I don't believe in most teachings of evolution.
I know there are religious schools.. but not only do those cost money... but it's wrong to force religious people to go to a private school.
Public school should have something for everyone. You know? Open to the public and "free".
So what I'm saying is...
Not everyone believes evolution is fact.
IN MY OPINION... it requires more faith to believe that we evolved from completely different species and such then to believe in God.
I can respect what other believe to be fact... but making others study evolution is pushing the theory on them. That's why I think it should be an elective.
You are basically proposing that you have the option to stay within a religious bubble regardless of your education suffering. That's dangerous and it will get you trampled. You can personally believe it's not true, but you still need to learn what it is and how it works so you'll be educated in your opinions.
You are saying a lot of things here that are tailored to fit the comfort of someone with your beliefs, and your beliefs only. You aren't framing it from a non-Christian view, and that is short-sighted. You contradict yourself a few times here, too.
"But you see, evolution isn't proven "fact".
And neither is Creationism or even the Bible in general. As far as everyone else is concerned, it's just a book. It holds just as much credibility to non-Christians as the Koran does to you. If evolution shouldn't be studied by everyone because it "isn't proven fact", Creationism shouldn't, either.
Creationism belongs in theology studies or, in the case of how it was presented when I was in college, anthropology. It was included in a class that was focued on the creation/origin stories of many different cultures and religions, Christianity included. It's good to be educated in beliefs that differ from your own.
"It's disrespectful to make religious individuals study evolution."
And it ISN'T disrespectful to force everyone to study Creationism even though it's a Christian doctrine with no science behind it whatsoever? Or are you just saying public schools should be structured around Christian respect?
Studying Evolution is part of studying science/biology and having a well-rounded education. Even in the Christian school I attended we were taught about evolution in biology. It was presented after the Creationism chapter as "another theory".
If you only study the things that make you comfortable in your religious bubble, you're going to be poorly educated and ignorant as an adult.
"I don't believe in most teachings of evolution."
That doesn't matter. You can't choose to study only the things you personally believe, and that reaches beyond theological subjects.
Have you ever considered that God may have used evolution as an extension of creation? Not on human beings, but in all other things? Scripture doesn't specifically say how God created everything, nor does it specify that each "day" was 24 hours. Do you honestly think God would be constrained by our little human standards of time? A day could be a thousand lifetimes or five minutes.
"it's wrong to force religious people to go to a private school. Public school should have something for everyone. You know? Open to the public and "free"."
The separation of church and state contained within the Constitution extends to public schools. They are funded by the government/tax dollars, so they are considered part of the state. Religion has no place outside of classes centered on theology.
"Something for everyone"... so you would study Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, Paganism, Shintoism, Judaism, etc., too? Their holy texts, creation stories, codes of conduct, etc? Based on your previous statements, no. That would fall under "It's disrespectful to make religious individuals study evolution". That is, unless you are again saying something broad but actually meaning "for Christians".
"Not everyone believes evolution is fact."
That doesn't mean jack. If you don't think you need to study evolution solely because you don't believe in it, public schools aren't structured around Christians. They are structured to keep religion out of everything in order to be in line with the Constitution and everyone's religious freedom.
If you don't think you should study evolution simply because you don't believe in it, what's to keep Johnny in Mrs. Anthony's class from declaring he doesn't believe the Holocaust happened, thus he shouldn't study World War II? You need to think about how these things would effect EVERYONE in the public school system, not just you and Christians.
"... it requires more faith to believe that we evolved from completely different species and such then to believe in God."
And once again you are thinking and speaking purely from a Christian perspective and completely ignoring other viewpoints and religions. Step outside of yourself.
It absolutely does NOT take more faith to believe we evolved from another existing species than to believe we came from dirt because a supreme being flicked His wrist and said "let it be so". If you aren't a Christian, aren't religious, or are very scientifically-minded, you aren't going to find God easier to believe in. For those people, God is akin to saying "just because" as an explanation of why things happened.
Faith has NO place in science. Theology, yes. Science, no.
Your education shouldn't be based on your own opinions. There is actual evidence to support evolution, which is why the theory exists in the first place. On the other hand, there is no evidence to support the notion that the Christian God exists. Christians take certain things as evidence for the existence of God because of faith, just as every religion believes in the existence of their deities because of faith.
Basically, you need to remove your religion from your education and step outside of yourself when thinking about things. In order for any of your opinions to be considered "educated", you need to learn about both sides of the issue, not just yours. And that's for everything, not just evolution.
I never said that Creationism was proven "fact". It's a theory like Evolution. I think BOTH should be labeled as "electives". And who knows? Maybe some Christians would choose to study evolution if that was the case.
I said that I don't believe in MOST teachings of evolution. I still think some facts are put into it. I just don't believe in the entire theory itself.
I personally don't think Christians should be forced to study evolution. And I make it even. People shouldn't be forced to study religion either. As I said. "Electives".
And when I said that it requires more faith to believe we evolved, that was my opinion. I'm respecting that non-religious people think differently.
If my strict Christian school had us study evolution in order to be educated about it, you can deal with it too. Not a SINGLE PERSON in that school ever objected to it in the years I was there. Being educated isn't an affront to religion, and seeing it as that is dangerous. Why you would feel guilty about stepping outside of your religious bubble to get some academic fresh air is beyond me. Jesus certainly didn't stay in one -- he purposely stayed away from it.
When it comes down to it, the truthfulness of something does not care whether or not you believe in it or not. It is either true or it is not true. It would be intellectually dishonest to teach anything other than what we know to be the truth regarding evolution.
That all said, what makes you think that you're right? Do you have evidence that Creationism is true, or at least more provable than evolution? Or are you just disbelieving in evolution because it makes you uncomfortable, or challenges your personal beliefs?
I don't believe evolution is fact simply because of my religious beliefs.
And yes, there's nothing wrong with challenging what I believe by heart.
It's not because I grew up this way (even though I did).
I put thought into it.
My religion isn't about proof, it's about faith.
And yes, what I believe does have it's evidence.. while it can't be proven fact.
An example is the existence of Bible prophecy.
I know it's dumb to say "I believe this only because a book says so!"
I'm not once of those people. One reason being, I can think for myself. Another reason being, The Bible is taken out of it's context way to often. No Christian has every detail 100% accurate. Just like science doesn't have every detail 100% accurate. If it did, so many theories wouldn't come up just to bash previous theories.
As for Prophecy, many prophecies of the Bible have happened and match up with the time they should happen. I believe we're in our last days (but I know I can't make you believe. As I said, I can show respect for what you think is truth).
And yes, I believe a lot of science is accurate. I think Science can have a connection with religion... depending on the topic.
And I never said I never had doubt about the Bible. I still have doubt about some details in the new testament of the Bible. Some things just go unexplained.
"I don't believe evolution is fact simply because of my religious beliefs."
So because you believe things to be a certain way, everyone else is automatically wrong and we should never ever ever offend people by trying to teach them about theories which we have evidence to support? I'm sorry, but life does not work like that.
"My religion isn't about proof, it's about faith."
That's all well and good for you, but science is about evidence. And we have a responsibility to teach what we have evidence for in science classes. And there is evidence for evolution.
The Bible prophesied that Egypt would be destroyed, that the Nile would dry up, that the king of Judah would not be harmed by his enemies, that Egyptians would speak in the dead language of Canaan, that Israel would live in peace with its neighbors, that the Davidic line would endure forever, and more. None of those came to pass. Plenty of other people have prophesied things that failed in the past, too. Montanus, the many prophecies of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Nostradamus, the list goes on and on and on.
I have a few questions.
1) Can you explain to me what evolution is in your own words? What does it mean when someone says that humans evolved?
2) What reason do you have to believe that biologists, paleontologists, geologists, geneticists, anthropologists, and molecular biologists are all wrong about it?
3) Name one real-life, nonreligious instance in which faith/gut feelings about a situation have ever been more valuable than observation and evidence.
When I said "nope", I meant that I don't believe evolution is fact... but not because it makes me feel uncomfortable and challenges what I believe.
As I said, nothing wrong with a challenge on one's faith.
I'll say one guilty confession though, for a Seventh-Day Adventist, I'm not good at my own religion. It's not faith that's hard to me, it's commitment.
I can't say your wrong because I don't have proof. I never said my faith makes anyone wrong. I believe by heart that my faith is correct, but I wouldn't poor that on you. If you think evolution is truthful, then I can respect that. But we are debating, so of course I'm sticking up for my own beliefs.
Also, I even brought up that religion does have it's an amount of evidence.
As for prophecy, I said some have came, but I didn't say all of them did. I believe the others will arrive some time in the future. The world hasn't ended yet. There's still time for the arrival of others.
And yes, I'll try defining evolution. Evolution is the theory of how humans came to be. The theory explains that we evolved from different species other than our own.
Remember, that's just in my own words.
When someone says humans evolved, I believe they mean "changed over time from how we originally came to be". And evolution teaches than we came from other species... as I mentioned before.
Biologists and others are probably right about lots of things. They've done lots of research, and many might support evolution. What I believe, is that the evidence is from parts of History that these people just got wrong. They may have evidence to put pieces of the puzzle together that may "seem" accurate, but are actually not. It's like how other theories have been made and proven false. But I do understand that this is a big one, and may never be proven false.
I admit, the last one's a tough one.. since you said "nonreligious". I'll tell you something, religion and spirituality are not the same. A person can have some faith without religion. Christianity is just based around the faith, and has some evidence of it's own. I did come up with something, but it's a personal topic.
Faith and hope can save a person's life.
It's not easy at times, but in many cases, faith that things get better. That rainbows come after storms pass... have prevented suicide. It doesn't need to be religious, and it does take more the faith. But it's hard to move on and hard to try your best when you don't have the hope/faith. Even though evidence (which is other's experiences) are important, it doesn't help people who are currently in the situation.
I understand I can’t dissuade you from believing that the world is going to end, as it’s pretty much the main part of your religion. But it’s important to look at all the other “prophecies” that have come to pass, that didn’t happen. I’m going to use an example here: The May 21, 2001 prediction of Judgement Day that was made by the Family Radio group in Oakland California.
The folks at Family Radio predicted that the world was going to end on May 21st, with the old man running it, Harold Camping, predicting “a big earthquake that will make the one in Japan seem like a Sunday school picnic” as what would happen when God decided to start destroying the world.
Now, of course this didn’t come to be. But did that dissuade Harold Camping? No, it did not. Instead, he moved his date forward, to October 21st, 2012. And that date came to pass, and still, nothing. People can make predictions, and the predictions can be somewhat fulfilled, or can be unfulfilled time and time again, but the people will continue to believe in them. Why is this?
Confirmation Bias is a tendency of people to favour information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses, meaning that people can (and often do) ignore the evidence that challenges what they believe. It’s why so many people still believe in doomsday predictions when all the previous ones have failed, and why people do things like believing that vaccines cause autism, or why some people listen to Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly exclusively, or others to Rachel Maddow and Piers Morgan. It’s easier to hold on to information that agrees with your worldview than it is to face things that don’t agree with it. And no, I’m not immune to it, either. We all do it, it’s just part of being human.
When we notice it, though, that’s when we have the choice to do something about it. A person who sticks to only one side of the media could choose to be more openminded and try to find more neutral or even opposing news sources. A person who believes in doomsday predictions might choose to really think, what reason is there to believe in doomsday predictions if none of them have come true in the past? Is it really worth wasting time out of my life worrying or hoping that it’s going to end soon? Should I really be taking it “on faith” just because someone who is routinely wrong was randomly right once in the past?
That’s just something to think about, I’ll share a couple of links at the bottom if you’re interested in learning some more about it, but if not that’s okay, no hard feelings.
If you don’t mind me asking, which parts of history do you think disprove human evolution? How is evolution like a puzzle that “seems” accurate but is not?
Theories have been made and disproven in the past, but that’s because it’s in the nature of science to refine our explanations of things until we arrive at the most likely solution judging from evidence, tests, and observation.
Have you ever had a vaccination against the flu, or something else? If so, you have an understanding of biological evolution to thank. If we did not understand how evolution works, then we wouldn’t be able to address the constantly changing nature of disease (how do you think drug-resistant bacteria came to be? They evolved to adapt.) If we didn’t understand evolution and natural selection, we wouldn’t understand biology.
That is the reason why it’s necessary for us to teach evolution in schools. If we don’t understand evolution, then we don’t understand biology. And if we don’t understand biology, we’re doing a great disservice to our nation, because we’d be raising a generation of children who would have no understanding of basic science, and our education and health would suffer for it.
I have absolutely no doubt in the power of faith. I bet that sounds weird coming from an atheist. I believe that what you believe is absolutely real to you, or any of the other faithful people out there. But that’s just the thing – it’s real to you, not necessarily to everyone else. There is a scientific explanation for many things (like the rainbow after the storm – Wikipedia: How Rainbows are Formed), but if you believe absolutely with all your heart that god sent you that rainbow, there’s nothing I can say that will change your mind.
It’s just important to remember that faith is a personal thing that is only meaningful to people who are faithful. Science, however, is something that applies to everyone, even those who disagree with it. We evolved, there is evidence that confirms it (University of California: Berkeley - What is the evidence for evolution?), and even if it doesn’t send the same feel-good feelings up and down a person’s spine as the thought of a supreme deity lovingly creating them from dust or whichever creation myth they adhere to, it doesn’t mean that evolution is false.
"Superstition" - QualiaSoup (Youtube)
Confirmation Bias (Wikipedia)
What is Evolution? - Stated Clearly (Youtube)
Facts about Human Evolution - SciShow (Youtube)
University of California: Berkeley - Understanding Evolution Resource Library
we actually have a bible club just for religious people.
Yes, you can choose to have your mum/dad/caregiver to give them a note excusing you from these classes and seeing the band but it makes you into some friggen outcast pretty much.
Before I do, though, I'll just say this: science is something observable, with one or more of the senses, seen in the present, that can be repeated. Creation cannot be repeated in a laboratory setting, and neither can evolution.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.
CORRECTION: This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can't run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website.
I enjoyed reading that paragraph you sent--it was very interesting!
However, I don't think that what the scientists are observing is evolution, per se, but adaptation. One of my favorite books is a science desk reference, and in it is one example of evolution, taking place in the seventeen- to nineteen-hundreds. The book states that a certain type of moth (can't think of the name right now), a white type, which lives in England, began to die off during the Industrial Revolution, because the soot from the factories had begun covering the trees, hiding the white moss that the moths used to hide from predators. The book says that the moths began to change from white to black to match the soot, and were thus saved. In the ninteen-hundreds, the white moss began to reappear, and so the black moths became white once more.
I believe that this is not necessarily an example of evolution, but adaptation, since the only thing to change was their color. Also, who's to say that there weren't two colors of the same species in the first place? This occurred in the seventeen- to eighteen-hundreds, remember, and even now there are still few of the black moths there.
"While some traits are adaptive, it's important to keep in mind that many traits are not adaptations at all. Some may be the chance results of history. For example, the base sequence GGC codes for the amino acid glycine simply because that's the way it happened to start out — and that's the way we inherited it from our common ancestor. There is nothing special about the relationship between GGC and glycine. It's just a historical accident that stuck around. Others traits may be by-products of another characteristic. For example, the color of blood is not adaptive. There's no reason that having red blood is any better than having green blood or blue blood. Blood's redness is a by-product of its chemistry, which causes it to reflect red light. The chemistry of blood may be an adaptation, but blood's color is not an adaptation."
What qualifies as Adaptation?
Not Everything is an Adaptation
I'm not a biologist, so I have only a fairly basic understanding of many of the concepts we're talking about. This website is very helpful though, they go through a lot of the information that is available on evolution, and even have a "common misconceptions" page, which is always helpful for interesting questions from basic to complex.