separation of church and state

[pghin08]

Unless it turns out that Creationism is the fact and evolution is a logical pipe dream If that were the case, what are we teaching our kids now?

That's irrelevant. I'm not pontificating over what will end up being right over the next million years (However, if I had to choose, I'd go with the one that at least had a bit of physical evidence). My point is that it's the job of the public schools to teach facts and if we don't have all of them, the best guesses we have. I'm not arguing your point of teaching evolution as 100% fact (though I went to high school in western Pennsylvania, a fairly liberal area, and evolution wasn't taught that way to me). My argument is solely that each have their place in the world, and one shouldn't impose upon the other.

I don't have to answer that for you to know my answer. Thing is, everyone spouts off about how the Bible was written by man and is therefor fallible, but put all their faith into texts of science. Who wrote those texts? Man.
Basically, we're deciding what unknown truths to tell our children.

Maybe someone spouts off about that, but that person isn't me. The Bible is fallible, as is scientific theory. If you think that Creationism is a belief based on religious text (which I'm inferring that you are, please tell me if I'm wrong), then why should we teach it as science? Teach it for what it is.

We're not "deciding what unknown truths to tell our children", we're simply presenting them with our best theory as to why things exist as they do.

Responses in italics.

[Wickabee]

That's irrelevant. I'm not pontificating over what will end up being right over the next million years (However, if I had to choose, I'd go with the one that at least had a bit of physical evidence). My point is that it's the job of the public schools to teach facts and if we don't have all of them, the best guesses we have. I'm not arguing your point of teaching evolution as 100% fact (though I went to high school in western Pennsylvania, a fairly liberal area, and evolution wasn't taught that way to me). My argument is solely that each have their place in the world, and one shouldn't impose upon the other.

I'm not trying to pontificate on that either. What I'm saying is that we're teaching things we don't know are 100% facts as 100% fact. Everyone goes bananas over the Catholic Church making "the Earth is flat" a 100% fact teaching (despite the books of Job and Isaiah saying otherwise), but who knows how we're going to look in 500 years for teaching what we do as 100% fact.

Maybe someone spouts off about that, but that person isn't me. The Bible is fallible, as is scientific theory. If you think that Creationism is a belief based on religious text (which I'm inferring that you are, please tell me if I'm wrong), then why should we teach it as science? Teach it for what it is.

I know it's not you, but it's always someone. Obviously Creationism is based in religious text and not through observation, since religious text is the only thing that mentions it and no one was around to see it. Saying otherwise would be ignorant. Science is based on human observation. Humans are incredibly fallible. Yet these observations are taught as infallible fact when we don't know that for certain. We have observations of past humans written in books that we feed to kids.
How is that any different from Religious teaching, outside of the subject?

We're not "deciding what unknown truths to tell our children", we're simply presenting them with our best theory as to why things exist as they do.

Yes, but we present that theory as fact. You and I maybe not, but society does. There is more evidence to support evolution than creationism as those two theories exist. However, there is not enough to say either is "right". It could be that we're finding things we don't understand, and making them fit our preconceived ideas. It could be that evolution and creationism (as the story goes) are one and the same, just both part of a bigger answer.
There are millions of possibilities that we can't even fathom or imagine, yet we teach our kids that what we think is the way it is. I don't see how that's any different from religion.


You seem to be under the impression I want creationism taught in science class. I don't. I want science taught in science class. What I don't want is science taught the same way I don't want religion taught. As absolute fact. If we teach facts that aren't true, we set real discovery back without knowing it. The only reason to teach science as absolute known fact is arrogance. Arrogance that we can know these things so easily. Arrogance that we've got everything right to date. Arrogance that so many think science has disproven the existence of God. It hasn't come close.

[pghin08]

[/I]I'm not trying to pontificate on that either. What I'm saying is that we're teaching things we don't know are 100% facts as 100% fact. Everyone goes bananas over the Catholic Church making "the Earth is flat" a 100% fact teaching (despite the books of Job and Isaiah saying otherwise), but who knows how we're going to look in 500 years for teaching what we do as 100% fact.
I know it's not you, but it's always someone. Obviously Creationism is based in religious text and not through observation, since religious text is the only thing that mentions it and no one was around to see it. Saying otherwise would be ignorant. Science is based on human observation. Humans are incredibly fallible. Yet these observations are taught as infallible fact when we don't know that for certain. We have observations of past humans written in books that we feed to kids.
How is that any different from Religious teaching, outside of the subject?
[I]
Yes, but we present that theory as fact. You and I maybe not, but society does. There is more evidence to support evolution than creationism as those two theories exist. However, there is not enough to say either is "right". It could be that we're finding things we don't understand, and making them fit our preconceived ideas. It could be that evolution and creationism (as the story goes) are one and the same, just both part of a bigger answer.
There are millions of possibilities that we can't even fathom or imagine, yet we teach our kids that what we think is the way it is. I don't see how that's any different from religion.


You seem to be under the impression I want creationism taught in science class. I don't. I want science taught in science class. What I don't want is science taught the same way I don't want religion taught. As absolute fact. If we teach facts that aren't true, we set real discovery back without knowing it. The only reason to teach science as absolute known fact is arrogance. Arrogance that we can know these things so easily. Arrogance that we've got everything right to date. Arrogance that so many think science has disproven the existence of God. It hasn't come close.

Well then, my good sir, I think we actually agree!

[Wickabee]

I would love to see religion as a mandatory class in high school taught only by atheists who can respect belief systems. I would love children to learn about all the major religions (I say major because there is only so much time in high school). Maybe it could encourage them to find out about other minor religions. I want religion taught as "these are the beliefs" and you can't get that in a church. A church gives you "these are the facts, deal with it" the same way science is in school.

I also think the only way to end certain societal prejudices is to force people to learn better. Do you think Obama would be President today if the government never forced desegregation? I sure don't. People tend to go with what they know. If something is generally accepted, that's the end of it. Back then, racism was the norm and the majority just went with it. It wasn't until a few stood up and made the government force the issue that change was created. Today, religious intolerance seems to be becoming more and more normal, and people are just going with it. The government will eventually have to force that issue somehow. Religious logic says they will ban all religion and the end of days will come (Revelations) but I'd rather see education leading to tollerance than Armageddon.

[Star_Cards]

I'm confused. Is evolution not taught as the Theory of Evolution? When I was in school it was presented as a theory, not an absolute. Not everything taught in school has to be an absolute.

[Wickabee]

I'm confused. Is evolution not taught as the Theory of Evolution? When I was in school it was presented as a theory, not an absolute. Not everything taught in school has to be an absolute.

Ask alex. In science, theories are facts and hypotheses are theories.

[JustAlex]

So you don't know how it works, but you have an idea how it might work.
Then that turns into teaching kids "This is how this works. It's a fact".

No one is saying "it's a fact".

A REAL science teacher knows how to label things.

It's a scientific theory, and within in it there ARE facts.

No, there's evidence. The earth is here.

NO.

That is not evidence of god or a creator or anything of the sort.

You are making a classic "watchmaker fallacy".

So you say gravity may not even exist, but believing it does requires no faith? You're contradicting yourself so much it looks like you're arguing with no one.

Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

I don't have faith in gravity, I have an Assumption based on reliable evidence that gravity is real.

Assumption: a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted

Ask alex. In science, theories are facts and hypotheses are theories.

I've never said anything like that...ever.

[Wickabee]

Alex, you told me that months ago when I was an idiot for thinking theories were theories and facts are facts.

[JustAlex]

Alex, you told me that months ago when I was an idiot for thinking theories were theories and facts are facts.

I've never called you an idiot...or anyone in here any names, especially when discussing a topic.

That is an ad hominem attack and as you probably can tell, I don't like making logical fallacies in an argument.

I think (if I remember correctly) I was talking about the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory.


I can say...."I have a theory on who really killed JFK!"

^Good for me, but this is nothing more than speculation and/or belief.

However when I say...."Evolution is a theory."

Then this is not being used in the same way.


Anyways, what I was discussing was that a lot (and I mean A LOT) of christians, creationists, and other religious people confuse how the word "theory" is being used to describe evolution.

They think it's the same as a guess....when in reality, it's a lot more than that.

[Wickabee]

I've never called you an idiot...or anyone in here any names, especially when discussing a topic.

That is an ad hominem attack and as you probably can tell, I don't like making logical fallacies in an argument.

I think (if I remember correctly) I was talking about the difference between a regular theory and a scientific theory.


I can say...."I have a theory on who really killed JFK!"

^Good for me, but this is nothing more than speculation and/or belief.

However when I say...."Evolution is a theory."

Then this is not being used in the same way.


Anyways, what I was discussing was that a lot (and I mean A LOT) of christians, creationists, and other religious people confuse how the word "theory" is being used to describe evolution.

They think it's the same as a guess....when in reality, it's a lot more than that.

Exactly. It's considered fact until proven otherwise. Otherwise it's just a hypothesis. You taught me that.