seniorcats wrote:
Then we will have religion and sciences coinciding which is definitely not the separation of church and state.
Excuse me but I do not think you understand the meaning of 'the separation of church and state.' It does not mean freedom FROM religion nor does it mean a completely secular education, which would be an impossibility.
Okay, Whoa! are you trying to tell me that religion is going to be FORCED upon me? I'm not free from religion if I so choose to be? Am I not free to choose any religion I would like to practice as long as I do no infringe upon the rights of another individual? Why can't we have a completely secular education? That makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Separation of church and state refers to the limits our Constitution places on the power of the government (both federal and state) to legislate about religion.
The Constitution places religion almost wholly outside the reach of government. In particular, the Constitution delegates no power to government over religious affairs, and the First Amendment explicitly prohibits the government from establishing or controlling religion. The effect of this arrangement is to leave Americans free to worship, believe, and support religion as they see fit. Additionally, we believe that separation deprives government of its ability to coerce adherence to religion, or to compel the support of religion against an individual's will.
Exactly. Why Religion should NOT be in a science classroom. If you have Intelligent Design in the classroom (which isn't even fit for a science theory which if you read what i said and maybe clicked on a link or two would have figured out) that's forcing religion upon students. Additionally, we believe that separation deprives government of its ability to coerce adherence to religion, or to compel the support of religion against an individuals will.
The Theory of Evolution is exactly that,a theory. Some partshave been proven and large parts have not proven. There is a world conference on evolution which meets annually to discuss those portions of the theory which have not been proven and to discuss any advances in proving the theory.
This statement allows me to know that you havenât really read my post, otherwise you would know what a theory is. Itâs not just something simple. It isnât a bunch of assumptions, faith, or false information sandwich together. It is facts. Experiments and observations that have been done and one again. By many scientists, even all over the world. Not just one or two. So which âlarge portionsâ of the Theory of Evolution are you saying are not in fact âprovenâ ? I would like to know. Actually, proven is a word that isnât even used in science. I do know that they are always adding support to the theory of evolution. But they are also always adding support to the law of gravity (which by the way is subject to change). Oh and they are always adding more to the fields such as chemistry where they can even make new elements. Man made elements. Biology is always getting more and more advanced too. Thatâs the amazing part about science, experiments and hypotheses can be made again and again in order to move us further. Once one question is answered, another is asked. The never ending universe of questions. Science has to be built upon in order to climb the ladder.
Sowhy deprive students by teaching them only one exiting theory of the origin of life? Isn't that contrary to the way in which a scientist is supposed to act? Doesn't it behove you to collect all data whether or not you 'belive in' it prior to reaching a conclusion. Excluding some data in an experiment because you do not like it is shoddy science. Isn't it? Having a conclusion, and working backwards from the conclusion to prove thatrather than collecting all evidence is also shoddy science.
Students aren't being deprived. What other theory of the origin of life is out there? Intelligent Design is not a theory. It hasn't had multiple experiments done to get to that status. That's what has to be done simply in order to achieve "theoryhood". The scientific method. I bet you've heard of that. A scientist does take multiple views. That's why if a hypothesis fails, they take another alternative until it does fail. Thus why there is a Theory of Evolution. Mulitple experiments and observations were done and the results agreed with the hypothesis. Other scientists conducted the same experiments and found the same results. I never said I don't like Intelligent Design. Nor have many scientists out there. It can't have an experiment done, thus scientists can't support it. Thus it isn't science and belongs in a whole other realm. That's as simple as I can get it. Do we have souls? Does God exist? Those cannot be proven by science (some people believe they can be dissproven but I personally do not believe science can disprove it) because experiments cannot be conducted in order to do so. I dont' understand your last statement. Are you trying to say Evolution is shoddy science because we can trace back organisms? If that's so, you need to do a little reading on genes and DNA. It's amazing stuff.
I really fail to understand the narrow view that would permit only the teaching of only one theory. When I went to school all theories of the origin of humankind - Darwin's evolution, creationism and what is now called intelligent design. We were allowed exposure to all schools of thought not one narrow view. It seems that the prevalent attitude toward anything other than the theory of evolution is fear due to lack of understanding.
Umm...it's not fear. It's that Creationism and Intelligent Design are simply not science. When you can conduct experiments to support them, then we can start putting it into text books. Otherwise, no. If you want your children taught that, that's what sunday school and church is for. Anyways, in the United States, what religion do you think will be taught? Exactly, just the views of Christianity. To me that's not fair. And if you do try to teach the majority of creationism views of all religions across the globe, do you realize how much classroom time you would lose? When Creationism and Intelligent Design can have experiements conducted and hypotheses made, then it can be allowed into the classroom. It seems to me really, that people are afraid of Evolution because of the lack of understanding. Quite frankly, Evolution isn't a religion and that's almost what it seems like you are making it out to be.
Why not allow students to hear all theories on the origin of life? It certainly would allow for more research and for critical thought rather than blind following the leader or accepting something out of fear of being different or ridiculed.
No you see, that's where you are wrong. I spent all of my high school life being ridiculed for supporting and researching the Theory of Evolution. I was just a curious kid. I had grown up going to sunday school and believing in Genesis. In fact, the Old Testament has always caught my attention more than anything else. That's where the blind are following the blind. Believing everything they are told without asking any questions. (Almost exactly what this whole campaign is turning out to be actually) That's what Intelligent Design does. It says that organisms are too complex to have evolved. They had to have been created. That's it. Kapeesh. Where is the questioning in that? That just says why. Where's the HOW?
There is no way education can be completely secular.Imagine teaching history without mentioning the Crusades or the Holocaust, or Englishor cultural or physical anthropology or any discipline.
I never said religion can't be in school in the way of subjects that aren't FORCING it upon you. In English for example you learn about Greek gods and such. We know that's not true anymore. History is a subject so much different than science as well. So I don't see how this is a valid argument. Science, like I have already said, it has to be able to have experiments done. Observations present. Science studies the material in the world around us. I suppose you can just put Intelligent Design and Creationism as a whole different course. But beware, if they donât have the basis of evolution, donât expect this child to get very far in chemistry, biology, sociology, and even psychology. At least at the college level. I have only been in a college for 3 weeks, and my basic knowledge of Evolution has helped me greatly believe it or not. Kinda weirdâ¦.perhapsâ¦
I am not a fan of abstinence ONLY education.I don't believe it works, although like you, I am not presenting any evidence or studies to support that contention. Apparently sex education doesn't work either as plenty of teens are pregnant and have been pregnant after years of sex education in curriculum. Personally, I advocate a combination of abstinence education, sex education and most importantly, parental responsibility in educating their boys and girls.
Umm..If I am able to remember Bill Clinton did something about only have abstinence education. This put a strict hold on what exactly teachers could talk about in sex education. That's what's holding us back. So really...teachers should be allowed to talk about the diseases and such that you can get. So the sex education would probably work better if stuff could actually be taught. Graphic pictures in health classes always helps. But I suppose maybe some people aren't for that but I know it's turned quite a few people away. I completely agree parents should have a lot of the responsibility. But let's face it, a lot of parents just. don't. care. I've see it. I've gone to school with those people. It's sad really.
Another quote from your post: If I remember correctly, the âDesignerâ is defined usually as unobservable. I suppose a few have been able to observe this âDesignerâ depending on the religion in question. Therefore Intelligent Design cannot be tested (end quote)
So that which is unobservable doesn't exist and cannot be tested?
Let me take your words andmake a substitution: If I remember correctly, thewind is defined usually as unobservable. I suppose a few have been able to observe thiswind depending on the religion in question.
Haha umm...wind can be observed and tested. I suppose you haven't taken a chemistry course. Guess what's in wind doll? Exactly, elements and molecules. All which have weights, atomic mass, atoms, protons, electrons. Yes, wind is observable. There are also little things called dust particles and water vapor that gets into wind. Those two have little elements and molecules.
Ludicrous indeed it isn't.
Alright I'm tired. I need to do some more chemistry and go to bed. I didn't want to sound mean or a big bully in anyway. So if I have, please tell me. I apologize to anyone I might have offended again. I just get carried away sometimes...Hopefully most of it makes sense, I started to get a little eye droopy.
