Ban religion from schools

Discussion in 'Politics' started by iskander323, Feb 11, 2010.

  1. This is something I feel quite strongly about as from my own experience, a Christian upbringing, and the confusion and conflict brought on when i when compared religion with scientific teachings I'd recieved in school.
    When I learned about Darwin and the theory of evolution I was puzzled and asked my parents who said they didn't know and my grandparents with who I promptly fell out because they were creationists, I even argued with my big sister about it.
    It took years but I won my parents and sisters over but look back at the strain the whole situation put on my family, and what it must do to others, and ask is it worth it. My grandparents never accepted evolutionary theory and it and religion became taboo subjects that we just tried to ignore to save on arguments (something I blame on their religion not them.)

    I'm from the UK and our schools are pretty damn secular (as in morning prayers are banned and you get, I think, 2 hours of multi-faith religious teaching a week) but as the below article shows thats not always the case.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/10/brand-cross-christian-science-teacher

    Quote:
    Dick Hoppe – a former nuclear missile engineer who later helped design the Apollo spacecraft command module, and who was more recently a visiting professor of biology at a local college – has attended almost every day of the hearings.
    "One student, when asked what he had learned about science from Mr Freshwater, testified that what he learned was you can't trust science. That surprised me. I didn't want to believe it was that overt," said the avowed atheist.
    "Freshwater was teaching what the text taught – age of the Earth, fossils – and then would add an overlay of creationist material that cast doubt on what the text said. He would use a handout that described all the adaptations of a woodpecker and at the bottom he added: was intelligent design involved? He was teaching against the curriculum."
    The hearings heard that Freshwater pinned up a poster of President George Bush and the then US secretary of state, Colin Powell, at prayer, and another advertising an evangelical meeting.
    The school also discovered questionnaires in which Freshwater asked students whether religion was important to them.
    Bonnie Schutte, a science teacher in the adjacent high school who received students from Freshwater's class, told the hearing that when she asked new pupils what they had previously learned, some said that science is "a lot of theory and guesswork" and that "evolution follows opinion and it's not fact".
    Freshwater denied responsibility for writing references to God and religion on class notes even though the hearings were told that they matched his handwriting.

    I my opinion that is some scary shit and I wouldn't want my kids in that school but my point is how many of these kids (and others as this isn't an isolated incedent) are being betrayed by the religion they follow and having their education devalued and malable minds twisted in an effort to subvert scientific truth. The family that brought this guy to light after he burnt a cross on their kids arm with a tesla coil have had to move 35miles away because of the religious abuse they recieved (even though they are Christian??)

    Is this acceptable in the 21st century?
     
  2. Say, religion got banned from school.

    Wouldn't your christrian upbringing still create conflict.

    You'd go to school and learn about chemical evolution, etc

    Then come home and be told that a bearded guy created everything in a week.

    Would kids still not be a bit confused?

    Just a thought.
     
  3. I think religion should cease to exist altogether.
     
  4. So what is it you propose to prevent the 'confusion'? Remove all that garble about chemical evolution?
     
  5. Haha I love that last quote from the teacher "evolution follows opinion, not fact".

    If that's the case, then what does Christianity follow? (rhetorical question).

    It could be worse though, at least that crazy bitch Palin isn't in a position to claim power, otherwise Christianity would be core curriculum in schools.
     
  6. #6 Felt, Feb 11, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2010


    I'm not proposing anything.

    I was just asking questions because I'm genuinely interested. It was his topic, others will ask questions also. Especially parents and those whose self-interests are involved.

    I apologize if I came off as aggresive, or rude.
     
  7. More like, we should ban our children from attending the schools lol
     
  8. Ehhem, if I may, you're approaching it from the wrong perspective.

    Remove the government from the schools.
     
  9. #9 chiefton8, Feb 11, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2010
    I'll agree that's not a terrible idea, but how would education be funded? Very few people can afford to pay 10 grand or so each year to educate their kid yet I think we can all agree that education is essential to all growing children. So, if education is not funded by the government and parents can't afford it, then how do you propose all children get educated?

    No no your post wasn't rude or aggressive. I see your point, but confusion isn't a bad thing. Science is incredibly confusing, and the more we learn the more confusing it will become. So my point is simply that confusion or discrepancy is not a valid reason to not teach something. In fact, it promotes critical thinking which is an under appreciated intellectual skill that more people need to embrace. The reason to not teach creationism or intelligent design in public school science classes is (a) fundamentally they are not a science (neither offer a testable hypothesis, and the lack of evidence for one theory, i.e. evolution, is not evidence for another, i.e. creationism), and (b) it promotes teaching religion in public schools, which our laws strictly forbid.
     

  10. Agreed. In the past religion may have acted as a set of principles, morals and rules to which people led their lives; but in the day and age of society and governments dictating moralities religion causes more problems than it solves in my opinion.

    A relevant issue here is also the French banning religions symbols in schools and banning full coverage head scarves in public buildings. Definitely the strongest moves towards a secular society in the western world.
     
  11. I'm a deist. I believe in a god because Darwinism does not have logical answers to the oldest questions. Where others go to science because religion does not have the answers they crave, I have done the exact opposite. Evolution is a fact; Darwinism is not. Please, do not make the mistake of using them interchangeably.

    Banning religion from schools is a ridiculous notion. It's so insanely close-minded, I can't believe anyone would actually make a thread about it, let alone support.

    Ridiculous. With any and all religions ceasing to exist, there will be only Darwinism. You do know that the holocaust was founded on Darwinism, right? What do you think will happen?

    I'm a very big supporter of School Voucher Systems; it's basically in which the government attaches the money to the student, and the student can go to any school that they want to. That's it in a nutshell, but it has been a great success everywhere it's been implemented.

    Do you not realize the principles on which Science is founded? Science's main goal is not to prove anything; only to disprove. A lack of evidence for one theory is exactly how science has progressed to new theories. Are you from the USA? I'm not going to wait for your answer, i'll assume you are. If not, well. Whatever. What laws prohibit teaching religion in public schools? I have a seminary class in which religion is taught; in fact, nearly every school in my area does. Exactly which laws are these breaking?

    On the off-chance that you're referring to the notion Separation of Church and State, despite how liberals like to claim it was not, SCS was outlined to prevent State suppression of Church, not the other way around. Trust me, I've personally read the letter from Jefferson from which SCS was taken. SCS, mixed with the first amendment, is meant to protect Church, not State (although it is a 2-way street, there are 2 lanes on one side, and only 1 on the other).

    Proponents of ID are hunted down more rigorously than Communists were in the McCarthyism Era. Science is so incredibly close-minded on the subject of ID, it's insane. Why are scientists so against it? The reason no research has been done is because the few people that have spoken up about ID are instantly fired from their jobs and their reputations exiled and tarnished by the scientific community. Why? What concept is more alluring than a chance of finding god through science? And yet it is shut down at every turn. Why should a scientist promoting ID be any less able to perform his experiments than a scientist promoting Darwinism? And yet that is exactly what all of you, and the scientific community in general and specifics, are saying.


    You all preach open-mindedness, and yet you are avidly against anything that goes against your idea of how life on earth got started. You need to grow up.
     

  12. No, I'm actually very closed minded when it comes to how life got on earth. Just as you express your beliefs I maintain the right to express mine: there is overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, the big bang and other theories that go against intelligent design. Teaching should be based on fact (or, being pedantic, theories with masses of evidence); how can you teach something (ID) when there is essentially no objective, non-religious, scientific evidence to support it. It can't be justified.
     

  13. No..

    Kids need to be told the truth not some mad fairytales..
     
  14. Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is not. Darwinism is stretching the concept of evolution to explain the creation of life--with dismal results.

    Every heavily-accepted theory that was disproven had overwhelming evidence to support it. And yet, they eventually were disproven. The Big Bang theory is just that: a theory. Do I believe it or do I not? That's irrelevant. ID (note the subtle differences between creationism) is technically possible in the Big Bang theory model. Many heavily-accepted theories that are still around today do not have much evidence to support it (eg String Theory is what comes to mind, although there are many, many more).
     
  15. Okay, here it is: Cognitive Psychology.

    Cognitive psychology cannot be seen, it cannot be observed or experimented in anyway. The only thing that can be observed is biological processes and behavior. And yet, these two principles are not enough to explain psychology. Cognitive psychology theories (a heavily accepted perspective of psychology) are taught in school alongside biological psychology, behaviourism, etc. Why would we dare ban religion from schools if cognitive psychology is allowed?
     
  16. Lots of people follow evolution as blindly as fundamentalist Christians follow the bible, I think schools need to change the way they're approaching evolution, cause they present it like it's the quintessential explanation of how life and humanity originated. You can say it's been proven by science, but if I take the same proof and explain it in a completely different way, you could still say I've proven my theory with science.

    The way it's going, evolution is simply becoming another mass-religion, as many people don't take the trouble to look into it and accept it as fact because "there's proof".

    Individual thought regarding the genesis of the universe/earth/humanity needs to be encouraged. Let people think up their own theories in school and give everyone an A, regardless of how wacky it sounds. Who cares if you believe in evolution and I believe something else even if it has no empirical basis, let people believe what they want. To believe in evolution and denounce every other possible theory because you "have proof" is just as ignorant as following the bible and saying you're right because it's the word of god.
     

  17. Because in my country you do not have to learn psychology. You make that decision at age 16, maybe earlier, but it isn't part of the national curriculum at any time younger than that.

    That is the key; I have no problem with anything religious being taught in classes that a student chose, but if they must sit that class then I have huge problems with it. We must also remember the difference between being taught things that are religious and learning about religion. I am not against objective individuals teaching the structure, belief systems and practices of various religions as no doubt religion is still a strong force in society and should therefore be understood by all. The problem I have is when this is either taught too young (when children are easily influenced) or when the lines between other subjects (not only science) and religion are blurred in the classroom.
     


  18. So.. what's Darwinism? You need to define terms you use, especially when they are as fucking useless as Darwinism.


    lmao. are you fucking trolling me?
     
  19. #19 chiefton8, Feb 11, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2010
    Yes, I'm about 6 months away from a PhD in Biochemistry. I know the principles of science, and more importantly the principles that make research valid or invalid.

    Yes, you are right that science cannot prove anything; it only disproves. BUT, you are very confused in thinking that lack of evidence for one theory is support for another theory. What you mean to say is that a lack of evidence for one theory leads others to hypothesize another theory, for which new evidence must be found to support it. This is how science evolves and changes. But never in the history of science has a theory stood on its own based on a lack of evidence for a competing theory. For example, Einstein's theory of general relatively originated from simple observations that could not be explained by Newton's basic laws of motion. However, he could not prove that his theory of general relativity was in any way correct simply because there were holes in Newton's Laws. Rather, Einstein had to show convincing evidence that stood entirely on it's own. Creationism and ID have, and logically so, originated from the notion that there are gaps and holes in the evidence for evolutionary/Darwinian theories. However, I have never seen any evidence for creationism or ID that doesn't rely on disproving the current evolutionary model. The notion of irreducible complexity, for example, by ID proponents suggest it is supportive of the ID theory simply because current evolutionary/Darwinian biology cannot fully explain how certain enzyme complexes that rely on several different pieces for function could have evolved simultaneously. As a result, ID proponents then make the 'leap of faith' that the only other possible explanation is the involvement of an intelligent being, without any further evidence to support the presence of said being. I've listened to hundreds of these arguments, and every one boils down to the simple notion that certain observations cannot be explained by current evolutionary models. All 'evidence' for ID and creationism hinges entirely on disproving its competing theory. No other theory in the history of science has ever done this. And the reason no further arguments can, or ever have been made is because their hypothesis of an intelligent designer in fundamentally untestable so they have no choice but to rely on the holes of other theories. That is not how science works.


    You are way off base here. You need to understand the difference between supporting one's right to believe as they wish, which I fully do, and what is fundamentally a science and what is not. Scientists are against ID not because they are closed minded or need to grow up. Rather, for reasons I outlined above, ID and creationism are NOT science. Just like I don't teach History classes, scientists don't teach creationism. So next time you tell someone to grow up maybe you should understand what the argument is about.
     
  20. State-run compulsory schools should be eliminated. This is just another form of coercive control which contributes to the degradation and ignorance of the masses.

    Privatize all schools, then if you want to send your kid to a school which does incorporate religion, you can; if you want to send your kid to a school which does not incorporate religion, you can. Problem solved.
     

Share This Page