Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Strider33 -> Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/4/2008 1:59:01 PM)

I'm starting this discussion to debate a different proposition than the Creationists Science proposition in the other discussion.

Here's my proposition:

Teach the Bible account of creation in schools, including (some) taxpayer funded public schools, but keep it out of the science curriculum. Establish a new grade school curriculum if needed to accomodate this study.

After all, we have courses like Civics or Social studies that teach things we claim to be truths, but we don't try to include them in the science curriculum. We shouldn't elevate science to the point where we discard all truth as mere conjecture unless it's validated by science.

I conjecture that Benjamin Rush would have taken a view similar to mine.

What do you say?



gluadys -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/4/2008 2:31:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

I'm starting this discussion to debate a different proposition than the Creationists Science proposition in the other discussion.

Here's my proposition:

Teach the Bible account of creation in schools, including (some) taxpayer funded public schools, but keep it out of the science curriculum. Establish a new grade school curriculum if needed to accomodate this study.

After all, we have courses like Civics or Social studies that teach things we claim to be truths, but we don't try to include them in the science curriculum. We shouldn't elevate science to the point where we discard all truth as mere conjecture unless it's validated by science.

I conjecture that Benjamin Rush would have taken a view similar to mine.

What do you say?



I fully support Religious Studies in the public school curriculum at both elementary and high school levels (probably as an elective, not a compulsory subject). One does have to recognize, however, that in a public school, one could not teach only the biblical creation story. One would have to teach at least a representative sample of other creation stories from other religious traditions.

I strongly agree with your opposition to the elevation of science to the point that we only hold true what is validated by science. This has been the Achilles heel of creationism. It has accepted that only what is scientific is "real", so the bible has to be real in this sense or it is not true.

Since the biblical story, understood as a description of how and when creation occurred is patently not in accord with science, one is thrown into cognitive dissonance in which two "truths" both ostensibly "scientific" collide with one another.

Understanding that there is real truth beyond science allows us to appreciate that such truth is real while not throwing us against science.



essentialsaltes -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/4/2008 3:00:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

I'm starting this discussion to debate a different proposition than the Creationists Science proposition in the other discussion.

Here's my proposition:

Teach the Bible account of creation in schools, including (some) taxpayer funded public schools, but keep it out of the science curriculum. Establish a new grade school curriculum if needed to accomodate this study.

After all, we have courses like Civics or Social studies that teach things we claim to be truths, but we don't try to include them in the science curriculum. We shouldn't elevate science to the point where we discard all truth as mere conjecture unless it's validated by science.

I conjecture that Benjamin Rush would have taken a view similar to mine.

What do you say?


"Teaching the Bible" (as truth) is unconstitutional in public schools, but "teaching about the Bible" is allowable, say in the context of comparative religion, or history, or English. The boundary is pretty fuzzy, and a few teachers try to squeeze a little proselytization in, but I read Genesis in my English class; the teacher explained it as a source of common metaphors and imagery and allegory that appear in literature.



Strider33 -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/4/2008 5:51:23 PM)

quote:

"Teaching the Bible" (as truth) is unconstitutional in public schools,


If necessary, change the constitution. If possible, change the courts.
Teaching the Bible as truth was clearly constitutional in 1790, in 1890, and even in 1940. When did the constitution change?



evry1needsgod -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/5/2008 9:04:04 PM)

In my humble opinion, you can not force a student to learn evolution with out an opposing scientific opinion, such as creation. It is both unfair to the students and disingenuous to science. By all means, teach a science class, but I think evolution should stay out of the discussion unless a clear alternative is presented fairly. Evolution is no less dogmatic than evolutions claim creation is, except the only difference between the 2 is that the evolutionism circle refuses to accept that their "science" is mere speculation and belief. I say keep evolution AND creation out of mandatory classes, and make them BOTH electives that a naive defenseless child can choose to take on his own time, making himself accountable.



zoebob -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/5/2008 9:14:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

I'm starting this discussion to debate a different proposition than the Creationists Science proposition in the other discussion.

Here's my proposition:

Teach the Bible account of creation in schools, including (some) taxpayer funded public schools, but keep it out of the science curriculum. Establish a new grade school curriculum if needed to accomodate this study.

After all, we have courses like Civics or Social studies that teach things we claim to be truths, but we don't try to include them in the science curriculum. We shouldn't elevate science to the point where we discard all truth as mere conjecture unless it's validated by science.

I conjecture that Benjamin Rush would have taken a view similar to mine.

What do you say?


"Teaching the Bible" (as truth) is unconstitutional in public schools, but "teaching about the Bible" is allowable, say in the context of comparative religion, or history, or English. The boundary is pretty fuzzy, and a few teachers try to squeeze a little proselytization in, but I read Genesis in my English class; the teacher explained it as a source of common metaphors and imagery and allegory that appear in literature.

Was it also explained that not all people view it as metaphors, imgery, and allegory.

I would say that any time the holy book of any "religion" is discussed and read it should be done in a way that is acceptable to that religion. To read Genesis and say that it is only metaphors, imagery, and allegory is offensive just as it would be to read the Qua-aran and say that to Muslims it is only mataphors, etc. When these books are read it should be presented as "these groups believe this about this piece of 'literature'"

ETA: If you want to study those literary elements in the Bible or other religious book then pick a passage that the people who follow that book believe contain those elements not ones that they believe are historically true



evry1needsgod -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/5/2008 9:24:46 PM)

quote:

the teacher explained it as a source of common metaphors and imagery and allegory that appear in literature.


Well, your teacher was wrong, and I apologize that you had to listen to such lies in your English class. God's Word is not a mere piece of literature that can be used as firewood when one becomes sick and tired of it. It is the most unique and powerful book this world has ever seen. It by far surpasses Shakespeare and puts it to shame!



drj11 -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/5/2008 9:48:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: zoebob

quote:

ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

I'm starting this discussion to debate a different proposition than the Creationists Science proposition in the other discussion.

Here's my proposition:

Teach the Bible account of creation in schools, including (some) taxpayer funded public schools, but keep it out of the science curriculum. Establish a new grade school curriculum if needed to accomodate this study.

After all, we have courses like Civics or Social studies that teach things we claim to be truths, but we don't try to include them in the science curriculum. We shouldn't elevate science to the point where we discard all truth as mere conjecture unless it's validated by science.

I conjecture that Benjamin Rush would have taken a view similar to mine.

What do you say?


"Teaching the Bible" (as truth) is unconstitutional in public schools, but "teaching about the Bible" is allowable, say in the context of comparative religion, or history, or English. The boundary is pretty fuzzy, and a few teachers try to squeeze a little proselytization in, but I read Genesis in my English class; the teacher explained it as a source of common metaphors and imagery and allegory that appear in literature.

Was it also explained that not all people view it as metaphors, imgery, and allegory.

I would say that any time the holy book of any "religion" is discussed and read it should be done in a way that is acceptable to that religion. To read Genesis and say that it is only metaphors, imagery, and allegory is offensive just as it would be to read the Qua-aran and say that to Muslims it is only mataphors, etc. When these books are read it should be presented as "these groups believe this about this piece of 'literature'"

ETA: If you want to study those literary elements in the Bible or other religious book then pick a passage that the people who follow that book believe contain those elements not ones that they believe are historically true


Genesis as allegory is perfectly acceptable to many Christians. I find it funny that so many literalists seem to think all Christians share their view. Newsflash: you are the minority.

During my time as a student in academia, in our western studies classes (which was required) we read several exegesis of genesis, (and several other ancient texts), some of which argued for the historical perspective, and others which argued for some allegorical interpretation, and some that argued for both. We also read many other pre-christian texts of ancient philosophy. At the college level, if the public state university I went to is any indication of what gets taught at other universities, then students are actually required to learn about this stuff.



Carico -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/5/2008 10:08:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

I'm starting this discussion to debate a different proposition than the Creationists Science proposition in the other discussion.

Here's my proposition:

Teach the Bible account of creation in schools, including (some) taxpayer funded public schools, but keep it out of the science curriculum. Establish a new grade school curriculum if needed to accomodate this study.

After all, we have courses like Civics or Social studies that teach things we claim to be truths, but we don't try to include them in the science curriculum. We shouldn't elevate science to the point where we discard all truth as mere conjecture unless it's validated by science.

I conjecture that Benjamin Rush would have taken a view similar to mine.

What do you say?


Sorry, but since science is supposed to be about truth, then creationism needs to be taught in the science curriculum and in fact, replace the ludicrous and impossible claim that apes can breed human descendants. Genesis describes the way th sun, the moon, the stars, and the way animals and humans reproduce perfectly. Unfortunately, evolutionary science has no grasp of the simple birds and bees so they have no clue what the difference between humans and animals is, much less what each animal and human can breed. [8|]



essentialsaltes -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/5/2008 10:08:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod

quote:

the teacher explained it as a source of common metaphors and imagery and allegory that appear in literature.


Well, your teacher was wrong, and I apologize that you had to listen to such lies in your English class. God's Word is not a mere piece of literature that can be used as firewood when one becomes sick and tired of it. It is the most unique and powerful book this world has ever seen. It by far surpasses Shakespeare and puts it to shame!


I think you and zoebob are getting a little too excited over something that shouldn't be threatening. I don't recall how it was introduced, but it's hard to imagine that my teacher didn't mention that the Bible was the holy book of Christianity. But when I say it was taught as a source of literary snippets that appear elsewhere in literature, that's all I mean. If a fictional character says, "Am I my brother's keeper?" a reader will not understand the full import of the statement unless he or she had read the bible and recognizes the allusion.



evry1needsgod -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/5/2008 10:17:59 PM)

quote:

I think you and zoebob are getting a little too excited over something that shouldn't be threatening.


Well, thanks for the compliment! I tend to get a bit excited about God's Word.

btw, I have NO idea who zoebob is...LOL



zoebob -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/5/2008 11:04:28 PM)

I posted right above your last post and was quoted right after it.



evry1needsgod -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/5/2008 11:41:03 PM)

quote:

I posted right above your last post and was quoted right after it.


Oh hi! I looked but never saw your name. Must have slipped right past me, and I apologize.



zoebob -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/6/2008 3:01:33 AM)

np



Method -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/7/2008 5:54:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

I'm starting this discussion to debate a different proposition than the Creationists Science proposition in the other discussion.

Here's my proposition:

Teach the Bible account of creation in schools, including (some) taxpayer funded public schools, but keep it out of the science curriculum. Establish a new grade school curriculum if needed to accomodate this study.

After all, we have courses like Civics or Social studies that teach things we claim to be truths, but we don't try to include them in the science curriculum. We shouldn't elevate science to the point where we discard all truth as mere conjecture unless it's validated by science.

I conjecture that Benjamin Rush would have taken a view similar to mine.

What do you say?


I concur. A comparative religions course would be a great addition to the public school curriculum. Religion is a force in world politics and the better students understand the religious motivations of others the better they will be able to understand world politics. What are the differences between Shia and Sunni? What are the differences between the different sects of Hinduism, and how does this shape Indian politics?

However, I wonder if christian parents want their kids to be taught the tenets of other religions.



zoebob -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/7/2008 5:59:22 PM)

I would not have a problem with a comparative religion class..as long as it is done without endorsing any particular one or making any particular one look stupid. Ideally each religion would at least have a guest speaker from that religion to present a balanced view of it without trying to convert.



Strider33 -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/8/2008 1:53:54 AM)

What I was proposing was not a comparative religion class. It would be a class where Bible truths could be taught as truths. We would have to make some sort of accmodation for the children of people who believe in a different scripture, or no scripture at all.

But most of us would be able to get a better education for our children than we do today.

Comparative religion sounds like something that might be a good study at the college level.



swan42 -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/8/2008 1:55:38 AM)

quote:

What I was proposing was not a comparative religion class. It would be a class where Bible truths could be taught as truths.


I would object to that curriculum in a public school.



ianz -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/8/2008 6:08:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

What I was proposing was not a comparative religion class. It would be a class where Bible truths could be taught as truths. We would have to make some sort of accmodation for the children of people who believe in a different scripture, or no scripture at all.

It's difficult to present something as 'truth', only to follow it up with a discussion about an alternative faith (or lack thereof) which contradicts that truth.

To my mind you have two choices:
* Pitch the Bible as truth and pitch it exclusively
* Pitch the Bible as accepted as truth by Christians, and Qua'ran as accepted as truth by Muslims, pitch the acceptance that there is no God as what atheists believe, etc.

You can't have it both ways. I support the latter option, since it educates people on what makes people different and enables them to make an informed choice about which path they'd like to follow.

Regards, Ian



Strider33 -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/8/2008 8:20:55 AM)

I think there is another choice:

Have some schools where the Bible is presented a truth.
Have some schools where the Q'uran is presented as truth.
and so on.
And have some schools where nothing other than reason is presented as truth.

Let the parents choose where to send their kids.



Strider33 -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Science curriculum (7/8/2008 8:22:57 AM)

Why would you object to that curriculum in a public school.

Why don't you object to the teaching of science in a public school?

Do you also object to the teaching of history in a public school?



hellohellohi -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Science curriculum (7/8/2008 8:25:51 AM)

At least one part of the idea of separation of church and state was to protect the church I believe.

Does anyone think this is a worthy idea?



ianz -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/8/2008 8:34:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

I think there is another choice:

Have some schools where the Bible is presented a truth.
Have some schools where the Q'uran is presented as truth.
and so on.
And have some schools where nothing other than reason is presented as truth.

Let the parents choose where to send their kids.

Sure but not in state-paid schools.

Edit: to expand - this would be a really bad idea in state-paid schools. Many parents can't choose which school their child will attend. Plus the benefit of school is to educate children beyond their parents' knowledge and perhaps even comfort zone. Furthermore we promote segregation along religious lines if we take this approach. Very bad idea.



gluadys -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/8/2008 9:14:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

What I was proposing was not a comparative religion class. It would be a class where Bible truths could be taught as truths. We would have to make some sort of accomodation for the children of people who believe in a different scripture, or no scripture at all.


This is what "religious education" consisted of in Ontario for many years. Eventually non-Christians, (and some Christians) objected as no suitable accommodation for non-Christians was really viable. Any exclusion of a child from the class really shows disrespect for the child and that child's faith.

In 1990, the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled a Christian-only form of religious education contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course, much the same has taken place in the US.

Religious education in a public school cannot favour one faith over another.



gluadys -> RE: Teach Creation outside the Scinece curriculum (7/8/2008 9:22:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strider33

I think there is another choice:

Have some schools where the Bible is presented a truth.
Have some schools where the Q'uran is presented as truth.
and so on.
And have some schools where nothing other than reason is presented as truth.

Let the parents choose where to send their kids.



That is the path to religious conflict. When Christians and Muslims and Wiccans never get to know one another because they are kept apart, they develop negative stereotypes about each other.

We have seen this in the past when different Christians were kept in separate schools. How much strife in Ireland would have been avoided if Protestant and Catholic kids could have been friends in the schoolyard instead of learning about each other in separate school systems?

In Newfoundland, there used to be six different school systems, one for Catholics, one for Methodists, one for Presbyterians, one for Seventh-Day Adventists, etc. And, of course, some people still had to choose a school that did not teach their own faith, because there was no school system for Jewish students or atheist students or pagan students.

Setting up separate schools is expensive for the taxpayer and socially divisive.

Scriptures can be presented as truth in the home and in the place of worship. The public school should remain neutral as to which, if any, are true.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI