Red State 'Values' Watch: Banning Books in 'Bama

Remove all ads!

Like how to manage money, how to cook a healthy meal, how maths works, and how to write using standard grammar that other people can understand.

 

Basically, that is what I'm saying. As these students get to higher grades some trades could be taught, like accounting, technical courses, or computer use. I'm sure that educators can fill a student's time with many of these things without having to open up these contentious issues.

 

Yes, but teachers would loose their credibility. Students know, even young ones, when they are being talked down to. To suggest that they be taught "fluff" or something "basic" because they can't handle contentious issues, or draw their own reasonable conclusions from these issues, would be the kiss of death for the student/teacher relationship. Many good teachers would not dream of patronizing their students the way you suggest. Thank God! Of course, we could teach them a nice, safe, subject like "accounting."

 

My president says, "Freedom is on the march!"

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

 

Rightly or wrongly, those in the scientific community have a problem accepting anything that is based on faith. And that is the difference in the two sets of assumptions. Some assumptions are made in the theory of evolution, but most of these assumptions have supporting facts that make the assumptions reasonable. The basic assumption that is made in the Bible is that the Bible is the Word of God. What naturally follows of course, in believing the Bible to be the Word of God, is belief that God himself exists. Believing either of these things to be true is a matter of faith. If you don't have faith that these are true, then the entire creationist arguement falls like a house of cards.

(Note: I'm not trying to open up a debate of creationism vs. evolution. The only thing I'm attempting to do is to answers Gnarf's question about why one set of assumptions are OK to some, but not OK to others.)

 

Ah yes, practical things. Being an engineer, this would have suited me down to the ground. Forget your literature, it's not really of practical use. Religious Studies? No practical use to me. History? nope, Music, ditto. Geography, well a little bit, but it isn't really of practical use to know where something is when it's easy enough to look it up on a map.

Sorry, I'm being overly sarcastic as I'm sure that's not the way it was intended, but education can not be just about the practical, it must include the artistic subjects.

 

Yes, and I agree. But theology goes beyond science, IMO. Science can teach us about fossils and earth formation and all that good stuff. And, to be sure, it is vitally important (only a full-feldged moron would discard the value of science). But theology views man as God's creation, and thus, man has the opportunity to see himself and his fellow man in a different light from that of science. In the context of theology man is not just an accident of nature, but is the continuation of a divine purpose.

If I take off my Jeffersonian cap for just a moment, I would suggest that the discipline of theology be taught in public schools side-by-side with the sciences. Students could see both sides of the Creation/evolution clash, or if they compliment each other in some way. Jefferson himself was the product of William and Mary, a religious school; Adams, of Harvard, another school which was immersed in theoloy. In fact, some of the best minds of the Revolution came out of schools where theology was heavily taught. The Jeffersonian principle of separation of church and state is in oppostition to this notion. And when he established the University of Virginia, he helped to create one of the first schools in America modeled on secular principles. But I think theology could have value in public schools before college. Such an issue would also be a great topic on another thread, since it is already way off the orginal topic of this thread. Anyone else see this as a good topic?

 

Gnarff,

The point is that a deductive view from the bible hasn't much contributed to science. The Lord is almighty and the bible sais this - how can that contribute to battle AIDS or the plague? Shall we pray?

Science uses logic, too. And indeed, the Theory of Evolution has loopholes. So what? That's normal for a theory, it isn't a law.

The fundamental issue is that the creationists are characterised by clearly non-scientific thinking, while science should certainly teach scientific thinking to the pupils.

It's not only about ideology and message - it is about the techniques used, too.

I agree with you that the education system should focus on the skills that we will need to function in society. You refuse to think that good thought to the end:
Shouldn't science classes teach what pupils need to understand science - that is - to think like scientists?

That's why there is no place for a fundamentally non-scientific approach in science.

To teach creationism in science classes is like obliging priests to be to attend to to shamanism classes.

What creationists don't get is that from a scientific point of view they make fools out of themselves for ignoring the basic tools of the trade.
While the scientists play chess, the creationists play malefiz.

Creationism has a place: That's what things like sunday school, or in my case my catholic kindergarten and catechism, are there for. I didn't miss creationism in school one bit.

 

So they assume it's wrong and we have to accept that assumption?

I grant you that one, but if you do have that faith, some of the things Science teaches may be shot full of holes.

This would be the ideal of course, but the Aethiest Community would be up in arms and would get the Court to block one side. That's why I argue against the other side being taught in the Classroom. I think that teachers would do a grave disservice to their students to only present one side of a controversial topic without allowing the opposing view into the classroom.

Don't let me stop you from praying, but I was thinking more along the lines of obedience here. The Bible commands that we should refrain from having sex outside of legal and lawful marriage. There goes promiscuity, adultery and homosexuality. The Bible also teaches us to keep our bodies clean and pure of toxins. This means no tatoos or IV drug use. These guidelines would reduce the odds of contracting AIDS. It may be transmitted accidentally, but Science has taken steps to figure out other ways to reduce that risk as well.

It goes back to what Chandos said about teachig Theology beside science and letting students make up their own mind. The State of Alabama is simply barring homosexuality from the curriculum after the opposition is not allowed in the classroom. I know much of this is off topic, and I agree with Chandos that another thread could handle these tangents better.

 

The thing is, creationism, or "intelligent design," isn't even an opposing view to evolution; what it is is an opposing view to science. By definition, a scientific theory must be testable, or for Karl Popper, "falsifiable." Evolution is tested, studied, and measured everyday, and could be proved wrong in any number of ways. "Intelligent design," however, is completely untestable, unless of course Jesus comes back and throws all evolutionists into the pits of hell, thus granting the oppressed evangelicals all the validation they so desire. So basically, "intelligent design" is really opposing the entire scientific worldview, and has nothing to do with an opposing view to evolution.

Atheism is not defined by evolution, nor does evolution say anything at all about God(s). It's just people who (selectively) read the Bible literally who think the world must have been created in 7 days who have a problem here. Then again these people also have a problem with geology; witness the attempt to plant a book in the Grand Canyon National Park bookstores claiming the Canyon was formed several thousand years ago by Noah's flood: utter poppycock.

Fine by me. Let's see, what religions should we teach? Evangelical Protestantism? Mainline Protestantism? Anglicanism? Lutheranism? Methodism? Presbyterianism? Unitarianism? Catholicism? Eastern Orthodoxy? Judaism? Islam? Hinduism? Buddhism? Shintoism? Zoroastrianism? Polytheism?

A class on comparitive religions sounds very enlightening to me; in fact, I think everyone would benefit! The first week, for example, could begin with early texts of Zoroastrianism and Hinduism, and point out all of the stories, such as the "Great Flood," the Old Testament cribbed out of these earlier traditions. Or wait; this might not have been what you had in mind...

Couldn't this also mean coffee, alcohol, nicotene, refined sugar, saturated fats, all vaccines, penicillin, chemotherapy, radioactive tracers, anti-depressants, earrings, obesity, botox, plastic surgery, liposuction, breast augmentation, and hair plugs? Or is it that your version of Christianity only criticizes those forms of abuse that are safely far enough outside of the mainstream (tattoo enthusiasts, IV drug users, homosexuals) that they become safe minority targets for some holy smiting by the ever-righteous majority?

 

I think you typod here Bion:

At least I hope so. Since I've yet to take the bible literally, or met another Athiest who does. Unless you mean a litterary work wothy of becoming emergency toilet paper.

 

I don't think so. The Laws of Physics would have been part of this "intelligent design". Most of the Chemicals that are on hte planet react in consistent ways. That is part of the "intelligent Design". Physics and Chemistry simply explain how this works. But my point is this: If Evolution can be shot full of holes, then why is it taught as truth? And if a theory that is so fraught with holes is allowed in, why wouldn't "intelligent design" be allowed as well?

You forgot Mormons on your list there. It's that reason that Theology is left out of the Classroom. Since Theology and Creationism aren't allowed in, therefore other points should be kept out as well (like Homosesxuality and Evolution).

Actually, My religeon forbids Coffee, Tea, Alcohol, Tobacco and Illegal Drugs. Tatoos are discouraged and Body Piercing is frowned upon with the exception of one pair of earrings for women. Makeup is allowed in moderation, and medications are allowed according to the directions (reccommended dosage for over the counter meds, perscriptions as the Doctor advises). I don't know what is taught about cosmetic surgery, and we are encouraged to do our best to keep in shape to fight obesity (some are more successful than others).

I wouldn't call these people targets, I just question the wisdom of their life choices that they have made. I also included promiscuity and adultery in that list. Interesting that you omitted those ones when they are considerred "mainstream" in this day and age...

 

Well, if it could be shot full of holes as you suggest, it would be. But it's not. In fact, it's still used as a working assumption on day to day work in biology: not just as a theory explaining where life came from, but as a practical assumption underlying gene therapy, etc. So, working therapies are designed using evolution as a basic assumption, just as chemistry and physics are used, and with all of the practical results you would expect.

And "truth" doesn't enter into the picture as far as any scientific theory goes. Is Newtonian physics "true?" Technically no, but it still works very well (that is, its predictions are very accurate) under certain situations. And so, it's an important part of physics education. Likewise, evolution works very well in explaining the natural world, and many of its predicitions have been borne out even at the level of DNA. Why you draw the line to say that physics is within the Biblical perspective (remember Galileo being forced by the church to recant his observations?), while evolution is outside that perspective, is a mystery to me.

 

Could biology function without the theory of evolution? Hypocrates pre-dates Darwin by about 2000 years, and his theories worked fine. Many of the basic principles of Medicine were discovered long before Darwin published his book. Basically, Biology worked before that assumption. Genetics could also have been a part of "intelligent design".

As for Gallileo, The Church later recanted their treatment of him and accepted his theories. But this is way off topic. It is also touching on things that will be set straight in the afterlife.

 

yeah, well, physics "worked" before relativity and quantum mechanics. what's your point?

 

Slightly off topic:

Ok, I couldn't care less about tea, but the other two??! What religion is this??

Well, if genetics, why not genetic mutation? Why not the selection of beneficial mutations over generations (ie natural selection). In short, why is evolution so in odds with some people's religious beliefs? As far as I am aware, nothing in the theory of evolution denies the existance of god. I know several fervent catholics who do not have a problem accepting the concept of evolution and natural selection.


Anyway, aren't we straying a bit from the original topic - some US state or other wanting to ban books with homosexual characters from schools? Silly idea if you ask me...

 

I'm a Mormon.

There's a difference between Survival of the Fittest (which happens) and evolution (all things came from one cell). The stronger characteristics will allow certain creatures to survive and breed, but they breed after their own kind, not something different.

 

The theory of evolution never claimed that we came from one cell.

 

Eh? They can't? I need to give back my degree in that case. I've been a chemist for about 5 years now, and I can, in fact, explain quite well how this works. Obviously, I do not have either the time or the inclination to write everything that I know about chemical reactivity here, but trust me, ask your average chemist, and most of them to know how this works.

And getting back to the topic of teaching subjects in school, I also fail to see why anything involved in the sciences is opposed to belief in God. There's nothing that says the two are mutually exclusive, although, as I stated earlier, most people involved in science want to see facts, and have measurable observations, and have a problem relying or accepting something simply on faith. I'm not saying it's wrong to think like Gnarf does. He is certainly entitled to this opinion. But rightly or wrongly, most people in the scientific community will not subscribe to this point of view.

I suppose the last thing that needs to be touched on in the issue of education is not necessarily if teaching things like creationism or homosexuality is of practical concern or serves a useful purpose but rather, what can really be taught about it? Creationism runs into the problem that not all religions follow that world view. While homosexuality does not have that going against it, what would you actually "teach" about homosexuality beyond that it exists? While I don't think all books mentioning homosexuality should be banned, I think that any book that describes some homosexual act should be banned, but that's because in the U.S. any book that describes ANY sexual act is banned from being taught in public schools (up until graduation from high school - college or university is an entirely different story).