To what extent..
- Thread starter Slipknot1Justin
- Start date
ugg... I love how the religious started bashing the atheists, and the atheists started bashing the religious. (Not sure in what order. Honestly, it does not matter.)
Now, this has gotten some well reasoned out posts that have gone completely ignored(I am looking at theory vs hypothesis, and a couple others.)
while some of the less thought out posts have been latched onto. by both sides.
This has led to what can only be described as a flame war. come on. I joined the escapist because I wanted a place where most people were polite to each other, and used well thought out, reasoned, arguments. and I ain't seeing much of that here. Not only is this so far off topic that it warrants a spam section being created for the forum, but it was also a flame war. as I read these arguments, I couldn't help but facepalm. repeatedly. let's just hope a mod closes this before it gets even worse.
Oh. and separation of church and state is in the Constitution.(First amendment deeming that the law will not limit the church, and the church shall not limit the law. to quote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." It details more then just free speech!) check your sources kiddies!
now that THAT wall of text is over. lets make a new one.
Lets get back to the O.P.'s question/concern.
It depends on the school. but mainly, if it is a state funded school, then it will teach Evolution theory. What gets into the muck is when they are also teaching creationism. Many believe that it isn't a scientific explanation, and as such should not be in a science class.
and rightly so.
Now before this post gets flamed(As I am sure it will) please remember to look up the scientific process, including Peer-Review, and the establishment of a theory. A scientific theory only gets put into place after many years of testing hypothesis after hypothesis. Narrowing it down until the margin of error is nil to non-existent. Even then, in published papers, they have to post what that margin of error is, and explain it. One person saying that things evolve isn't enough. it has to be put through rigorous tests by multiple people. Many of which have active hate for the idea, and will work their hardest to disprove it, and that is where peer-review gets it's strength. Every scientist with a new idea, will have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what they believe is true, before it will be even close to accepted by the full scientific community.(Not to say that it is perfect. Things DO slip through any systems cracks)
Religion however, seems to have no review system, or any proofs to it. The only thing that seems common is age, and the fact that it has withstood the tests of time. but for me, that is not enough.
I will not bash any who believe on Faith alone. That is your own choice, and I have no right to change it. But I require verification before I make a choice though. For me, Faith is not enough.
Keep in mind, that I have read extensively from many holy books. (Although I will profess a severe lack of the far eastern religions, mainly due to lack of access to hard copies.)
so even if I do not agree with it, I at least attempt to understand it.
Now, this has gotten some well reasoned out posts that have gone completely ignored(I am looking at theory vs hypothesis, and a couple others.)
while some of the less thought out posts have been latched onto. by both sides.
This has led to what can only be described as a flame war. come on. I joined the escapist because I wanted a place where most people were polite to each other, and used well thought out, reasoned, arguments. and I ain't seeing much of that here. Not only is this so far off topic that it warrants a spam section being created for the forum, but it was also a flame war. as I read these arguments, I couldn't help but facepalm. repeatedly. let's just hope a mod closes this before it gets even worse.
Oh. and separation of church and state is in the Constitution.(First amendment deeming that the law will not limit the church, and the church shall not limit the law. to quote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." It details more then just free speech!) check your sources kiddies!
now that THAT wall of text is over. lets make a new one.
Lets get back to the O.P.'s question/concern.
It depends on the school. but mainly, if it is a state funded school, then it will teach Evolution theory. What gets into the muck is when they are also teaching creationism. Many believe that it isn't a scientific explanation, and as such should not be in a science class.
and rightly so.
Now before this post gets flamed(As I am sure it will) please remember to look up the scientific process, including Peer-Review, and the establishment of a theory. A scientific theory only gets put into place after many years of testing hypothesis after hypothesis. Narrowing it down until the margin of error is nil to non-existent. Even then, in published papers, they have to post what that margin of error is, and explain it. One person saying that things evolve isn't enough. it has to be put through rigorous tests by multiple people. Many of which have active hate for the idea, and will work their hardest to disprove it, and that is where peer-review gets it's strength. Every scientist with a new idea, will have to actually prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what they believe is true, before it will be even close to accepted by the full scientific community.(Not to say that it is perfect. Things DO slip through any systems cracks)
Religion however, seems to have no review system, or any proofs to it. The only thing that seems common is age, and the fact that it has withstood the tests of time. but for me, that is not enough.
I will not bash any who believe on Faith alone. That is your own choice, and I have no right to change it. But I require verification before I make a choice though. For me, Faith is not enough.
Keep in mind, that I have read extensively from many holy books. (Although I will profess a severe lack of the far eastern religions, mainly due to lack of access to hard copies.)
so even if I do not agree with it, I at least attempt to understand it.
I'm pretty sure the phrase "separation of church and state" is nowhere in the Constitution. It was something Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to a friend. The 1st Amendment says merely that the government cannot pass laws that discriminate or limit the expressions of religion. That doesn't mean that religion cannot be taught in schools as one of many aspects of a balanced curriculum, but it does mean that it shouldn't be the only thing taught, just as evolution shouldn't be the only thing taught. However, I fail to understand how religious people can't view evolution as God's way of creating the earth. Some of us do, but I hear way too many claiming that it's one thing or the other. Peanut butter or chocolate. I just want a Reese's.zebrin said:
From a Christian perspective they can't accept that because Genesis description is incompatable with that explanations.C Lion said:
Creationism should not be taught in science classes (Aside from not actually being a science) simply because it is endorsing one religion over another (Christianity) Im sure many creationists would objects to the creation stories of the Aborigines or Hindus etc. being taught during the same lesson when It can just as easily be taught in relgious studies instead where it belongs.
My, my, this is quite a wonderful parade of misinformation.
"Separation of church and state" is a term for a class of concepts that are right there in the Cosntitution. Here, look at the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Now, this "separation of church and state" refers more to the state messing with the church, not vice versa. However, a religiously-motivated state can't go very far without infringing on others' free exercise of their religious beliefs, so we end up with a few traditional and strictly voluntary "under Gods" here and there but no laws that explicitly uphold one set of beliefs as the right one.
Epperson v. Arkansas decided that banning evolutionary theory in schools was unconstitutional (which, by the way, means "against the Constitution", not "not in the Constitution") on the grounds that it was advancing a particular religion. Edwards v. Aguillard then struck down a state law to force "equal time" for creationism on the same basis,
...
Darwin didn't denounce anything on his death bed.
Speciation occurs when two separate populations change so much that they're unable to interbreed. That's kind of a feature of how we defined "species" in the first place.
...
"Faith"? Which part of this is faith?
Here's an absolutely trivial observation: different animals fare well or poorly in different environments. Selective pressure clearly exists in nature.
We know that the mechanisms of biological reproduction introduce noise into genetic data ("mutation", &c.). Darwin may not have had the equipment, but we nowadays we can look at genes and observe that all firsthand. Every dog, every farm animal, and almost every plant used in human agriculture is evidence of how those mechanisms, when combined with the power of artificial selective pressure applied over just a scant few thousand years, can produce radical changes in a population.
That's all the parts of "natural selection" right there. Trivial.
...
...
Hypothesis: an unproven but informed assertion
Theory: an explanation supported by evidence -- lots and lots of evidence, lots and lots of scrutiny, lots and lots of research that has gone into trying to figure out where it's weak and update it accordingly, or discard it altogether if the theory proves unworkable
Law: a quick and dirty model supported by empirical observation, but without an explanation of why it works -- i.e. something inferior to a theory.
...
Most of our actual understanding of gravity is based on the Theory of General Relativity.
...
...
-- Alex
Untrue.Grand_Poohbah said:
"Separation of church and state" is a term for a class of concepts that are right there in the Cosntitution. Here, look at the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Now, this "separation of church and state" refers more to the state messing with the church, not vice versa. However, a religiously-motivated state can't go very far without infringing on others' free exercise of their religious beliefs, so we end up with a few traditional and strictly voluntary "under Gods" here and there but no laws that explicitly uphold one set of beliefs as the right one.
Epperson v. Arkansas decided that banning evolutionary theory in schools was unconstitutional (which, by the way, means "against the Constitution", not "not in the Constitution") on the grounds that it was advancing a particular religion. Edwards v. Aguillard then struck down a state law to force "equal time" for creationism on the same basis,
...
Hogwash.Grand_Poohbah said:
Darwin didn't denounce anything on his death bed.
Speciation occurs when two separate populations change so much that they're unable to interbreed. That's kind of a feature of how we defined "species" in the first place.
...
It's as "proven" as any other scientific theory.Grand_Poohbah said:
"Faith"? Which part of this is faith?
Here's an absolutely trivial observation: different animals fare well or poorly in different environments. Selective pressure clearly exists in nature.
We know that the mechanisms of biological reproduction introduce noise into genetic data ("mutation", &c.). Darwin may not have had the equipment, but we nowadays we can look at genes and observe that all firsthand. Every dog, every farm animal, and almost every plant used in human agriculture is evidence of how those mechanisms, when combined with the power of artificial selective pressure applied over just a scant few thousand years, can produce radical changes in a population.
That's all the parts of "natural selection" right there. Trivial.
...
If you're gonna walk into a thread that says "Hey, to what extent is evolution taught in schools?" and talk smack about a theory you don't seem to understand to well, damn straight people should call you out for it.Say Anything said:
...
I'd rather summarize it as:Lunar Shadow said:
Hypothesis: an unproven but informed assertion
Theory: an explanation supported by evidence -- lots and lots of evidence, lots and lots of scrutiny, lots and lots of research that has gone into trying to figure out where it's weak and update it accordingly, or discard it altogether if the theory proves unworkable
Law: a quick and dirty model supported by empirical observation, but without an explanation of why it works -- i.e. something inferior to a theory.
...
Newton's Law of Gravity is an equation that models gravitation between two bodies. It's actually a simplification. Like most "laws", it's a good-enough model for most cases rather than an accurate and comprehensive explanation of why stuff behaves the way that it does (look up "ideal gas law").Grand_Poohbah said:
Most of our actual understanding of gravity is based on the Theory of General Relativity.
...
You mean like Australopithecus? Or Homo habilis? Or Homo erectus? Or -- jeez, there's a ton of them.TheNecroswanson said:
...
Yes, religion most definitely doesn't have to be an idiot fairytale. Jumping whole hog onto creationism will turn your religion into exactly that, though.Say Anything said:
-- Alex
Can someone explain to me where I was talking about evolution in this thread? This is the second time someone has came into this topic and accused me of disagreeing with the theory of evolution, which is simply not true and not stated by me anywhere in this thread.Alex_P said:
Back in my school we were first taught about it in religion class where, as the entire class and teacher were all religious, just laughed it off afterwards. "Oh hohoho, we used to slime, did we?" "Well maybe you came from monkeys but I didn't!" etc.
And then again in biology where there was an argument that lasted the length of the lesson.
Getting in trouble for teaching it is ridiculous, I've never heard of that.
And then again in biology where there was an argument that lasted the length of the lesson.
Getting in trouble for teaching it is ridiculous, I've never heard of that.
You flunk US civics; "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment] That's in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and it actually forms the very first clause of that amendment.Grand_Poohbah said:
As to "how much evolution" is allowed in class, I'd say everything. It's an incredibly valuable discovery, proven over and over again and witnessed (inside controlled experiments, too) and it not only explains a lot of what we see in biology but it also allows biologists to predict results. (For example, antibiotic-resistant diseases arising.)
-- Steve
I hate most Atheists, just for their arrogance ,. If you don't like christianity than just leave them alone . I'm atheist and I never try to shut others that have a faith down .
On topic ... I go to a Catholic school and in Science and religion class they teach us both and simply let us choose wich one we belive in . nuff said
On topic ... I go to a Catholic school and in Science and religion class they teach us both and simply let us choose wich one we belive in . nuff said
I find it strange that people complain about evolution theory. To me, it is as clear and proven in the same way as "1 + 1 = 2", and noone is complaining about that.
People who don't like evolution generaly think it disproves creationism. You can just as well reason that evolution is a tool of god.
The evolution theory only gives an explanation about how life well... evolved, not how it was created in the first place. I believe such misconceptions can only be solved by proper education about it.
People who don't like evolution generaly think it disproves creationism. You can just as well reason that evolution is a tool of god.
The evolution theory only gives an explanation about how life well... evolved, not how it was created in the first place. I believe such misconceptions can only be solved by proper education about it.