[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mania 

The 'problem' with that is it can't be tested or proved. You can always say an all powerful being 'did something' to make us this way and it can never be proven or disproven. it really doesn't belong in the science class.

The belief that a supernatural entity created the world as we know it can be testing by tested the supernatural.

If the supernatural exists, the ability for such a thing to happen can also exist.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Yes, but your statement was making a broad generalization about an idea that seemed to me, and others on here, to be not as general as you claimed it to be. Hence, the reason asking for justification for your claim. What it turns out is that your claim was based on your personal experience, and that of a friend's daughter, at your school. So, now it would seem we have one school teaching these ideas as one conflated subject. Would you still like to make the claim that is a general practice among schools across the "states"? If so, what evidence do you have to support that claim?

dc my point is, this has no relevance to my response. This is a straw-man.

You basically asked my WHY I put the two together. I told you. You then went on to attack my reason. Even though it was perfectly valid as to why I gave you said answer.

AKA you are going off in tangents.

Lets say it was taught ONCE in this country, and it was MY classroom that day it was taught. My answer would still be a valid reason as to why I connected the two.

But this forum is a perfect example of me showing that yes, a good bit of school systems DO teach this.

That is why you see tons of people equating Evolution with the big bang theory.

There is no denying it doesn't happen.

Teachers usually teach it as "First there was a big bag blah blah.. primordial ooooze.. .blah blah.. tadpols, apes.. and so on.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

But this forum is a perfect example of me showing that yes, a good bit of school systems DO teach this.

That is why you see tons of people equating Evolution with the big bang theory.

Not necessarily. School is not the only place where Evolution is discussed. I've attended Church sermons where Big Bang and Evolution are equated. So, it's possible that "tons of people equating Evolution with the big bang theory" as a result of something they heard in Church as opposed to school.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

UM dc there are many people that aren't even religious that believe in a greater power that created everything. You realize this right?

They thumb their noses up at the Bible, but are theists.

Believing a greater being created us does not = Christianity.

Studying that theory in a non-religious atmosphere would indeed be science. Like it or not, admit it or not.

Man's search for God is a science in its own.

I think you are just being a tad closed minded because it doesn't fit YOUR beliefs.

The studying of the supernatural is indeed a science.

You are correct when you say "Believing a greater being created us does not = Christianity." But you advocated teaching "creationism" in school and "creationism" IS a Christian-specific conception for the creation of the world. There ARE numerous creation stories/ideas/beliefs for how the world came into existence but only one of them is referred to as "creationism" and that is a term associated with the Christian ideas regarding the creation of the world. You could talk about creation studies or creation-ideas and have it be pan-theistic, but if you are going to talk about "creationism" you can only be talking about the Christian ideas associated with the formation of the world.

Yes, I do realize that "there are many people that aren't even religious that believe in a greater power that created everything." That doesn't mean the particular ideas about how these greater powers formed the world are appropriate subject matter for a science class. A science class, sorta by definition, needs to use scientific principles to teach the subject of science. Kinda like how English class needs to use literary principles--things like the concepts of narrative, point-of-view, and text-based sources--to teach literature. It is not wrong at all to teach different theories of world formation in a school or in a class, but it needs to be in an appropriate class. If the ideas of world-formation being taught cannot be subject to the scientific method they they should not be taught in a science class. You could easily teach them in a philosophy class or even an advanced literature class--if you focused on the source texts themselves as the primary teaching tool--but it would be grossly inappropriate to teach non-scientific ideas/concepts in a science class as if they were valid scientifically.

Finally, as for your claim that studying creation "theory in a non-religious atmosphere would indeed be science" would you care to explain how the scientific method would apply to the study of just one particular creation idea. I am having a hard time trying to grasp how the practice of science--based on observable, verifiable, testable-by-experiment evidence--can be applied to topics that are usually not "observable, verifiable, testable-by-experiment evidence". I am MORE than willing to be proven wrong on this but you would need to show me when/where/how the scientific method can be used to observe/verify/test the creation stories of any religion. You would need to show that the scientific method of proving something has been applied to a religion's story of creation.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Not necessarily. School is not the only place where Evolution is discussed. I've attended Church sermons where Big Bang and Evolution are equated. So, it's possible that "tons of people equating Evolution with the big bang theory" as a result of something they heard in Church as opposed to school.

Indeed it could be. While I've never heard a sermon that went into that depth of discussion... it could be possible.

But teachers do still teach the "evolutionary timeline" that starts with the big bang.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

snip overly wordy post

Go do a search for John Keel. He made his living studying the supernatural using scientific method. Furthermore dc, It seems to me that you just want to type what I refer to as "verbal masturbation"

You take 3 paragraphs to say what could be said in one. Why you do this is beyond me.

[tie]

I agree that alternatives to evolution/big bang/global warming/whatever else Kevin doesn't want to believe in, should be taught. But these really belong in either a history of religion class, or a philosophy class, since they aren't related to science.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

But teachers do still teach the "evolutionary timeline" that starts with the big bang.

I'm sure you're right that some do. But, personally, I've never attended a science class that covered both Big Bang and Evolution.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

dc my point is, this has no relevance to my response. This is a straw-man.

You basically asked my WHY I put the two together. I told you. You then went on to attack my reason. Even though it was perfectly valid as to why I gave you said answer.

AKA you are going off in tangents.

Lets say it was taught ONCE in this country, and it was MY classroom that day it was taught. My answer would still be a valid reason as to why I connected the two.

But this forum is a perfect example of me showing that yes, a good bit of school systems DO teach this.

That is why you see tons of people equating Evolution with the big bang theory.

There is no denying it doesn't happen.

Teachers usually teach it as "First there was a big bag blah blah.. primordial ooooze.. .blah blah.. tadpols, apes.. and so on.

Yes, you could put together the experiences you had learning about the Big Bang and evolution at the same time--even if you were the only person in the whole world who had those experiences-- and they would be the reason why you gave your answer. But, you never said your point was based on personal experience. You made a general claim about the conflation of teaching the Big Bang with evolution as being a general practice, "they are usually taught together as one. Atleast in the states". So, I was asking you for evidence to support this general claim. But, it turns out you have no general evidence that the teaching of the Big Bang and evolution occur "as one". You have some personal and anecdotal evidence that this is the case but nothing to suggest it is the general practice you claimed it to be.

As for how "this forum is a perfect example of me showing that yes, a good bit of school systems DO teach this" [the conflation of Big Bang theory and evolution theory], I am forced to ask yet again, what evidence do you have that this general claim "this forum is a perfect example of me showing that yes, a good bit of school systems DO teach this" is true. I have yet to see anyone else on this forum, certainly not in this thread, claim to have been taught Big Bang theory and evolution theory concurrently as related topics. So, again I am forced to ask you for supporting evidence to back this claim. Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "this forum is a perfect example of me showing that yes, a good bit of school systems DO teach this"?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The belief that a supernatural entity created the world as we know it can be testing by tested the supernatural.

If the supernatural exists, the ability for such a thing to happen can also exist.

This is an EXCELLENT philosophical explanation for your point and completely valid in the context of philosophical thought. Do you have a similar explanation, using the context of scientific thought (i.e.: testability and provability), that can justify your claim regarding the existence of the supernatural?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

I agree that alternatives to evolution/big bang/global warming/whatever else Kevin doesn't want to believe in, should be taught. But these really belong in either a history of religion class, or a philosophy class, since they aren't related to science.

Hey, this thread is not an attack on Kevin's beliefs--It is a discussion of ideas about how to teach certain subjects in a school. So, layoff the personal attacks.

Otherwise, I give your post a .

Let schools teach all the creation stories they want to teach, just place them in the appropriate academic context. Any creation stories that can be subject to the scientific method and still obtain as true could and should be taught in a science class. But, as far as I know, there has never been a creation story that has been subject to this type of testing and been able to be proven true.

[dcmacdaddy]

How appropriate for what we have been discussing in this thread. Something similar has happened recently in New Jersey.
But teacher did the opposite, talking blatantly about God and religion, and proselytizing, in a class on the US Constitution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 18, 2006
Talk in Class Turns to God, Setting Off Public Debate on Rights

By TINA KELLEY
KEARNY, N.J. — Before David Paszkiewicz got to teach his accelerated 11th-grade history class about the United States Constitution this fall, he was accused of violating it.

Shortly after school began in September, the teacher told his sixth-period students at Kearny High School that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark, and that only Christians had a place in heaven, according to audio recordings made by a student whose family is now considering a lawsuit claiming Mr. Paszkiewicz broke the church-state boundary.

“If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong,” Mr. Paszkiewicz was recorded saying of Jesus. “He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he’s saying, ‘Please, accept me, believe.’ If you reject that, you belong in hell.”

The student, Matthew LaClair, said that he felt uncomfortable with Mr. Paszkiewicz’s statements in the first week, and taped eight classes starting Sept. 13 out of fear that officials would not believe the teacher had made the comments.

Since Matthew’s complaint, administrators have said they have taken “corrective action” against Mr. Paszkiewicz, 38, who has taught in the district for 14 years and is also a youth pastor at Kearny Baptist Church. However, they declined to say what the action was, saying it was a personnel matter.

“I think he’s an excellent teacher,” said the school principal, Al Somma. “As far as I know, there have never been any problems in the past.”

Staci Snider, the president of the local teacher’s union, said Mr. Paszkiewicz (pronounced pass-KEV-ich) had been assigned a lawyer from the union, the New Jersey Education Association. Two calls to Mr. Paszkiewicz at school and one to his home were not returned.

In this tale of the teacher who preached in class and the pupil he offended, students and the larger community have mostly lined up with Mr. Paszkiewicz, not with Matthew, who has received a death threat handled by the police, as well as critical comments from classmates.

Greice Coelho, who took Mr. Paszkiewicz’s class and is a member of his youth group, said in a letter to The Observer, the local weekly newspaper, that Matthew was “ignoring the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives every citizen the freedom of religion.” Some anonymous posters on the town’s electronic bulletin board, Kearnyontheweb.com, called for Matthew’s suspension.

On the sidewalks outside the high school, which has 1,750 students, many agreed with 15-year-old Kyle Durkin, who said, “I’m on the teacher’s side all the way.”

While science teachers, particularly in the Bible Belt, have been known to refuse to teach evolution, the controversy here, 10 miles west of Manhattan, hinges on assertions Mr. Paszkiewicz made in class, including how a specific Muslim girl would go to hell.

“This is extremely rare for a teacher to get this blatantly evangelical,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit educational association. “He’s really out there proselytizing, trying to convert students to his faith, and I think that that’s more than just saying I have some academic freedom right to talk about the Bible’s view of creation as well as evolution.”

Even some legal organizations that often champion the expression of religious beliefs are hesitant to support Mr. Paszkiewicz.

“It’s proselytizing, and the courts have been pretty clear you can’t do that,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a group that provides legal services in religious freedom cases. “You can’t step across line and proselytize, and that’s what he’s done here.”

The class started on Sept. 11, and Matthew quickly grew concerned. “The first couple of days I had him, he had already begun discussing his religious point of view,” Matthew, a thin, articulate 16-year-old with braces and a passion for politics and the theater, recalled in an interview. “It wasn’t even just his point of view, it went beyond that to say this is the right way, this is the only way. The way he said it, I wasn’t sure how far he was going to go.”

On the second day of taping, after the discussion veered from Moses’s education to free will, Matthew asked why a loving God would consign humans to hell, according to the recording.

Some of Matthew’s detractors say he set up his teacher by baiting him with religious questions. But Matthew, who was raised in the Ethical Culture Society, a humanist religious and educational group, said all of his comments were in response to something the teacher said.

“I didn’t start any of the topics that were discussed,” he said.

In a Sept. 25 letter to the principal, Matthew wrote: “I care about the future generation and I do not want Mr. Paszkiewicz to continue preaching to and poisoning students.” He met with school officials and handed over the recordings.

Matthew’s family wrote four letters to the district asking for an apology and for the teacher to correct any false statements he had made in class, particularly those related to science. Matthew’s father, Paul LaClair, a lawyer, said he was now considering legal action against the district, claiming that Mr. Paszkiewicz’s teachings violated their son’s First Amendment and civil rights, and that his words misled the class and went against the curriculum.

Kenneth J. Lindenfelser, the lawyer for the Kearny school board, said he could not discuss Mr. Paszkiewicz specifically, but that when a complaint comes in about a teacher, it is investigated, and then the department leader works with the teacher to correct any inappropriate behavior.

The teacher is monitored, and his or her evaluation could be noted, Mr. Lindenfelser said, adding that if these steps did not work, the teacher could be reprimanded, suspended or, eventually, fired.

As for the request that Mr. Paszkiewicz correct his statements that conflict with the district’s science curriculum, “Sometimes, the more you dwell on the issue, the more you continue the issue,” Mr. Lindenfelser said. “Sometimes, it’s better to stop any inappropriate behavior and move on.”

The district’s actions have succeeded, he said, as the family has not reported any continued violations.

Bloggers around the world have called Matthew courageous. In contrast, the LaClairs said they had been surprised by the vehemence of the opposition that local residents had expressed against Matthew.

Frank Viscuso, a Kearny resident, wrote in a letter to The Observer that “when a student is advised by his ‘attorney’ father to bait a teacher with questions about religion, and then records his answers and takes the story to 300 newspapers, that family isn’t ‘offended’ by what was said in the classroom — they’re simply looking for a payout and to make a name for themselves.” He called the teacher one of the town’s best.

However, Andrew Lewczuk, a former student of Mr. Paszkiewicz, praised his abilities as a history teacher but said he regretted that he had not protested the religious discussions. “In the end, the manner in which Mr. Paszkiewicz spoke with his students was careless, inconsiderate and inappropriate,” he wrote to The Observer. “It was an abuse of power and influence, and it’s my own fault that I didn’t do anything about this.”

One teacher, who did not give his name, said he thought both Matthew and his teacher had done the right thing. “The student had the right to do what he did,” the man said. As for Mr. Paszkiewicz, “He had the right to say what he said, he was not preaching, and that’s something I’m very much against.”

Matthew said he missed the friends he had lost over his role in the debate, and said he could “feel the glares” when he walked into school.

Instead of mulling Supreme Court precedents, he said with half a smile, “I should be worrying about who I’m going to take to the prom.”


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

[- - e r i k - -]

Awesome courage of a boy who has the courage to stand up for what's right, only to feel the misguided wrath of a community who just won't see the wrongness in the power-misuse by the teacher.

Who will get the rights for the TV-movie?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Lets take some time out and lets say hypothetically speaking it could be proven that God did indeed created this planet.

Studying biology would be simply studying his work.

Replace God with Big Bang.

Same thing.

I'm not sure you "get" biology. Biology is the study of evolution, the study of organisms changing over time.

I went to a Catholic University for a few years, and every biology major I knew there had to get over "god created the Earth", and learn Evolution. Without evolution, biology makes no sense. The biology majors had to accept evolution for their major. On a Catholic campus. And it wasn't forced. It was just something they all did as part of their major.

What this Russian student is saying is they want to take a class on evolution without any of that messy evolution stuff. It has to be the most moronic thing I've ever heard.

[vmarks]

GoMac:

I'm not sure you read the article.

I'm similarly not sure you understand Biology.

The article says that this particular textbook was the problem, not any 'desire to study biology without evolution' -- you made that part up.

"The biology textbook generally refers to religion and the existence of God in a negative way. It infringes on believers' rights," she said in comments carried by Russian television stations.
-- from the article.

Now why is there any need to be negative in a textbook? I do not know.

Biology is the study of life. It is the study of organisms, molecular, developmental, biochemical. You can talk about continuity, diversity, and interactions without really needing to confront the belief that all life originates from a single common origin.

You can even talk about the belief that all life originates from a single common origin without offending this particular student who filed the suit- you just don't need a textbook that mocks people who happen to believe in religion.

[- - e r i k - -]

I agree with vmarks on this one, there is no need for a textbook on biology to take a derogatory view on religion. However we don't know this for a fact, only through a throwaway comment in an interview.

How do we know that she didn't just interpret perfectly benign passages as hostile because they were incompatible with her beliefs?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Biology is the study of life. It is the study of organisms, molecular, developmental, biochemical. You can talk about continuity, diversity, and interactions without really needing to confront the belief that all life originates from a single common origin.

You can even talk about the belief that all life originates from a single common origin without offending this particular student who filed the suit- you just don't need a textbook that mocks people who happen to believe in religion.

You're right, you can study biology without discussing the initial source of life. However, you can't study biology without studying evolution. Whether or not you believe life was started by the big bang, that's up to you. You're not going to get far in biology without believing in evolution.

You want to talk about continuity, diversity, and interactions without talking about evolution? How exactly? God touches things with his magic finger and they change? Gosh that's going to be an easy final. No genetics or anything. Just god with his magic finger.

I honestly don't even know why a biology textbook would mention god. My bet is the textbook simply didn't, and the girl is mad the inteligent design theory isn't getting any play time. The problem is nothing in biology supports intelligent design.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tie 

I agree that alternatives to evolution/big bang/global warming/whatever else Kevin doesn't want to believe in,

Wait a second there. That I don't want to believe in? I don't think these things and creationism are exclusive.

should be taught. But these really belong in either a history of religion class, or a philosophy class, since they aren't related to science.

I disagree.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I'm sure you're right that some do. But, personally, I've never attended a science class that covered both Big Bang and Evolution.

Do you live in the States?

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm not sure you "get" biology. Biology is the study of evolution, the study of organisms changing over time.

I didn't single out biology.

What this Russian student is saying is they want to take a class on evolution without any of that messy evolution stuff. It has to be the most moronic thing I've ever heard.

No, that isn't what they are saying at all. Go re-read the article.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I honestly don't even know why a biology textbook would mention god. My bet is the textbook simply didn't, and the girl is mad the inteligent design theory isn't getting any play time. The problem is nothing in biology supports intelligent design.

AGAIN. No one is singling out "biology" but you.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

The article says that this particular textbook was the problem, not any 'desire to study biology without evolution' -- you made that part up.

"The biology textbook generally refers to religion and the existence of God in a negative way. It infringes on believers' rights," she said in comments carried by Russian television stations.
-- from the article.

Now why is there any need to be negative in a textbook? I do not know.

Exactly. Why people are diverting this topic to something else is beyond me. I don't think half of them even read the story.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mania 

Let me guess. Genesis. being raised up Christian it took me A LONG TIME to realize that Genesis is wrong. I am a bit angry about the whole thing although I am still a Christian. She needs to learn the truth - it will set her free.

Not to derail this thread any worse, but I'm sorry to hear you're angry about an aspect of Christian doctrine. Genesis is not scientific text so I'm curious what of it is "wrong"? Considering writing styles, culture, and the oral tradition behind what you're reading; there are many things people have tried to cite as "contradictory" that are debatable.

*on topic, I believe you're correct. I think it is impossible to teach anything other than that which science has determined the most likely scenario in a science class.

Besides, I really wouldn't want a public school teacher to have to go into aspects of these alternatives, they'd likely do more harm than good if it was required curriculum. i.e. they have enough to cover without opening that can of worms.

[Troll]

At school, we were taught evolution in Biology class and the Big Bang Theory in Physics class. However, I don't think it makes a difference if you teach them in one class. Any student with half a brain can see that they are two entirely separate theories that address entirely different things. And if they can't see that, then the teachers really aren't that good. I find it astounding that anyone in the United States could confuse the two theories.

I also find it astounding that any religious person could have a problem with these theories. The Big Bang Theory does not explain where anything came from. I remember the first question I asked when my Dad told me about the Big Bang Theory was, "Who made the stuff that exploded?" And when we were taught, in religious instruction, that God made the earth, the first question asked was, "Who made God?" Neither religion nor science can convincingly explain where it all started. The Big Bang is as far back as science is capable of going without getting esoteric but it's not all the way to the beginning. Christians can only go as far back as God before they have to get similarly esoteric. Conceivably, God created the matter that exploded with the Big Bang.

The point I haven't seen addressed by religious people is that if we are going to teach alternative theories of how the world was created, where do we draw the line? The Bushmen have some wonderful tales about the beginning of the earth, the Incas had some ideas on this, the animist religions have stories of their own, Hinduism and Buddhism have stories. Do we teach them all? Are they all to be equally weighted or do we apply some critical thought to certain theories to exclude them?

Most kids only have 12 years at school. I just don't think it's feasible to go through all of the possibilities. The idea of school is to give you the benefit of thousands of years of academia in a short space of time. Don't make the kids reinvent the wheel. After thousands of years of academia, the best theories we have for how the universe was formed and how life diversified are the Big Bang and Evolution. If students want to look into esoteric studies like creationism, that is something they should look at that in their own time.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

AGAIN. No one is singling out "biology" but you.

Umm, Kev, from your original post where YOU quoted the Yahoo article you specifically featured a passage singling out a "biology" textbook. Are you saying your own quoting is in-accurate.

Originally Posted by Kevin

"The biology textbook generally refers to religion and the existence of God in a negative way. It infringes on believers' rights," she said in comments carried by Russian television stations.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Exactly. Why people are diverting this topic to something else is beyond me. I don't think half of them even read the story.

Umm, Kev, goMac was responding to things mentioned specifically mentioned in YOUR post that started this thread. Why are you suggesting people are "diverting this topic to something else"? This is the topic of the thread per YOUR post that started the thread.

[RIRedinPA]

My problem is, why don't they teach the other origins as well? Esp since a good percentage of the world does indeed grasp that belief.

Maybe because it's biology class and not world religious belief class.

Though in defense of the Christianist and other religionist, I don't think any biology text should have references, affirmative or derogatory, to any religious theory on how we all got here. Two seperate areas of study.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

AGAIN. No one is singling out "biology" but you.


Exactly. Why people are diverting this topic to something else is beyond me. I don't think half of them even read the story.

Alright, lemme put it to you this way. There is nothing in biology that supports intelligent design. Nothing. Not a shred of evidence. Why should a biology textbook attempt to justify something that biology doesn't support?

This is the way the intelligent design people respond to criticism. They just start suing anytime someone has something that doesn't fit with intelligent design, trying to make it fit.

[G Barnett]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I agree with vmarks on this one, there is no need for a textbook on biology to take a derogatory view on religion. However we don't know this for a fact, only through a throwaway comment in an interview.

How do we know that she didn't just interpret perfectly benign passages as hostile because they were incompatible with her beliefs?

Well, best guess as to why it would be derogatory (if, indeed it is) would be that the text itself is probably a holdover from the Soviet era, in which atheism was, shall we say, "heavily encouraged." I would actually expect that quite a few Russian textbooks from across the spectrum of subjects may very well have similar anti-religion slants in them. Considering the political weirdness over there since the Wall fell, I doubt there's been much work done in updating/de-Sovietizing the pre-college texts.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

"The biology textbook generally refers to religion and the existence of God in a negative way. It infringes on believers' rights," she said in comments carried by Russian television stations.
-- from the article.

Now why is there any need to be negative in a textbook? I do not know.

Does the book actually infringe on people's rights or is she oversensitive? I don't know. If the book is venturing into theology, that's a problem, but thus far we don't have any specific claim about what it says — we just know that this girl feels something is offensive.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by G Barnett 

Well, best guess as to why it would be derogatory (if, indeed it is) would be that the text itself is probably a holdover from the Soviet era, in which atheism was, shall we say, "heavily encouraged." I would actually expect that quite a few Russian textbooks from across the spectrum of subjects may very well have similar anti-religion slants in them. Considering the political weirdness over there since the Wall fell, I doubt there's been much work done in updating/de-Sovietizing the pre-college texts.

Biology is the opium of the masses...

[Kevin]

Just want to mention one more time that I not once mentioned the words "biology class" in my post.

[analogika]

That's kind of why I asked:

Originally Posted by analogika 

Mentioned or taught?

In science or religious classes? (i.e. what kind of school?)

That's rather relevant. A religion class hell-bent on pushing literalist agenda will OF COURSE teach everything that contradicts Biblical teachings together. It is irrelevant to them that one has nothing to do with the other.

In any relevant curriculum, evolution and big bang theory are NOT TAUGHT TOGETHER. NB: They are both taught, but not together, and any "lumping" of them happens only by people with an agenda.

Just like you're not taught about Revelations in classes about the Sermon on the Mountain.

FWIW, the only mention the Big Bang ever got in biology class was when we were talking about the primordial soup collecting X billion years after the formation of Earth, which coalesced from the clouds of matter left over from the Big Bang.

Mentioned in passing, but certainly not taught, or "lumped".

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Just want to mention one more time that I not once mentioned the words "biology class" in my post.

So, which class were the Big Bang and Evolution taught together in? Art?

[tie]

Originally Posted by Troll 

At school, we were taught evolution in Biology class and the Big Bang Theory in Physics class. However, I don't think it makes a difference if you teach them in one class. Any student with half a brain can see that they are two entirely separate theories that address entirely different things. And if they can't see that, then the teachers really aren't that good. I find it astounding that anyone in the United States could confuse the two theories.

I also find it astounding that any religious person could have a problem with these theories. The Big Bang Theory does not explain where anything came from. I remember the first question I asked when my Dad told me about the Big Bang Theory was, "Who made the stuff that exploded?" And when we were taught, in religious instruction, that God made the earth, the first question asked was, "Who made God?" Neither religion nor science can convincingly explain where it all started. The Big Bang is as far back as science is capable of going without getting esoteric but it's not all the way to the beginning. Christians can only go as far back as God before they have to get similarly esoteric. Conceivably, God created the matter that exploded with the Big Bang.

The point I haven't seen addressed by religious people is that if we are going to teach alternative theories of how the world was created, where do we draw the line? The Bushmen have some wonderful tales about the beginning of the earth, the Incas had some ideas on this, the animist religions have stories of their own, Hinduism and Buddhism have stories. Do we teach them all? Are they all to be equally weighted or do we apply some critical thought to certain theories to exclude them?

Most kids only have 12 years at school. I just don't think it's feasible to go through all of the possibilities. The idea of school is to give you the benefit of thousands of years of academia in a short space of time. Don't make the kids reinvent the wheel. After thousands of years of academia, the best theories we have for how the universe was formed and how life diversified are the Big Bang and Evolution. If students want to look into esoteric studies like creationism, that is something they should look at that in their own time.

I don't think I was ever taught the big bang theory. It doesn't really fit in a standard mechanics & special relativity/electricity & magnetism format. We never had time for cosmology, although perhaps that's changing these days. In high-school cosmology, what kinds of questions do students solve, or experiments do they run?

At the elementary level, there isn't much more to be taught than what is covered in popular accounts, anyway. But now that I understand it a bit more, I think most popular accounts are poor. Until recently, I never understood what the universe is, or how there could be superluminal inflation. But maybe the accounts described this very well and I just didn't understand at the time.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Studying that theory in a non-religious atmosphere would indeed be science. Like it or not, admit it or not.

Except that it's not a theory. You can't test it or observe it. Therefore, it has no business being in a science class.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The studying of the supernatural is indeed a science.

What you just said is completely contradictory.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, which class were the Big Bang and Evolution taught together in? Art?

There is a class taught simply called "Science" in the states. I remember being in the 6th grade when I was indoctrinated.

[analogika]

My Science textbooks, which were pretty rigorously adhered to, does NOT "lump" physics and biology into the same chapter. I don't know about sixth grade, but certainly not in 7th and 8th grade (we used Houghton & Mifflin textbooks).

Both the origins of the universe and evolution were taught, but so were erosion, sex ed, and chemistry basics - all in separate chapters, over the course of two years.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by analogika 

My Science textbooks, which were pretty rigorously adhered to, does NOT "lump" physics and biology into the same chapter. I don't know about sixth grade, but certainly not in 7th and 8th grade (we used Houghton & Mifflin textbooks).

Both the origins of the universe and evolution were taught, but so were erosion, sex ed, and chemistry basics - all in separate chapters, over the course of two years.

Lsiten up, foreigner, we don't care what YOUR textbooks said. Americasn textbooks teach ALL the sciences in one class ALL at the same time. Don't ever questions what Americans do. Got it!

[mania]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Not to derail this thread any worse, but I'm sorry to hear you're angry about an aspect of Christian doctrine. Genesis is not scientific text so I'm curious what of it is "wrong"? Considering writing styles, culture, and the oral tradition behind what you're reading; there are many things people have tried to cite as "contradictory" that are debatable.

Well thank you ebuddy for your concern. I am angry that it was taught to me as literal and it is not. I feel like the kid who thought Santa was real only to learn the cold hard truth - but the worst part is the people who taught me this REALLY believe it! Its like your parents really believe in Santa and you just say WHA?! When I go to church I realize that 97% of the people there think the earth is only 6000 years old and I feel like screaming at them. Perhaps I need a new church.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

There is a class taught simply called "Science" in the states. I remember being in the 6th grade when I was indoctrinated.

Gotcha. I thought we were talking high school level. If I remember correctly, that is the same in Canada, up until high school, at which point Chemistry, Physics, and Biology are split out. I don't recall getting into Big Bang and Evolutionary theories until high school. Those two topics seem a little heavy for anything under high school.

[Kevin]

[analogika]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Lsiten up, foreigner, we don't care what YOUR textbooks said. Americasn textbooks teach ALL the sciences in one class ALL at the same time. Don't ever questions what Americans do. Got it!

You fecking moron. Why exactly do you think I mentioned Houghton & Mifflin specifically?

AMERICAN textbook. AMERICAN Science class in 7th and 8th grade. AMERICAN biology classes from 9th through twelfth.

Don't ever assume you have a ****ing clue.

Got it!


(Edit: I'll leave this psot standing as testament to my stupidity and the fact that Germans' sense of humor depends entirely upon consumption of coffee in the mornings.)

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by analogika 

You fecking moron. Why exactly do you think I mentioned Houghton & Mifflin specifically?

AMERICAN textbook. AMERICAN Science class in 7th and 8th grade. AMERICAN biology classes from 9th through twelfth.

Don't ever assume you have a ****ing clue.

Got it!

Was that the sound of a joke passing over analogikas head or was he simply continuing the joke? hmmm :/


Anyway, before you all bust Kevin's nuts about the tiny niggle that biology and physics (big bang) might have been taught in the same class, he may very well have been right in that. We had a similar sort of general science in Norwegian primary school. To teach them together in some sort of relation is just daft.

That they are not related is plainly obvious to anyone, yes. In fact the only relation they have is that they a) describe some part of the universe's history (which is so broad that it could be said of any scientific theory) and b) may be in conflict with the religion person had been brought up with.

This whole story is a non-story where a russian teenager rightly sets her self up for ridicule unless there is put forward proof that the textbook did in fact have passages that was directly derogatory towards religion other than being in conflict with an individual's personal beliefs on how the universe was created and works.

There study of religion and religious history can be science, religious doctrine itself is not.

[Snow-i]

It seems alot of people feel that science as it is today is proven fact or even proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is not the case. "Science" today and "science" tomorrow are completely different things. You can't prove evolution. You can't disprove Creationism. It should be taught side by side since both are widely held views. The school system shouldn't decide whats right and whats not right to teach. Thats the student's decision. It should be taught in an equal manner and the students themselves should decide based on unbiased presentation of the theories and evidence gathered.

This close-minded my way's the only way your view is wrong **** that people push to be taught will be the death of this world. Close minded teachings produce close minded people...which will produce racism, sexism, hatred, oppression, etc.

Lsiten up, foreigner, we don't care what YOUR textbooks said. Americasn textbooks teach ALL the sciences in one class ALL at the same time. Don't ever questions what Americans do. Got it!

I will question you right now....what makes your opinion any more valid than his?

By the way, I'm an American.....and one of the things "i do" is question close-minded individuals as yourself. I don't do what you do.

Not to mention, where i went to school that was not the case.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You can't prove evolution.

Can you prove gravity? Evolution can be observed just as gravity can be observed. The fact that I can observe organisms evolving is proof to me that evolution is happening. Evolution can be proved as much as virtually any scientific theory we have can be proved.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

You can't disprove Creationism.

That depends on what kind of creationism you're talking about. I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Young Earth Creationism is bulldust because I can prove that the earth is not 6,000 years old.

Most brands of Old Earth Creationism can also be disproved because we have geological proof that the earth was not created in a week and genetic proof that earth's creatures did not all come into being at the same time. We also have genetic proof that we do not descend from 2 humans.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It should be taught side by side since both are widely held views.

IMHO, that's a ridiculous assertion to make for two reasons. One, science should be taught by scientists and in the scientific community, it is not a widely held view that the earth was created by God in a week 6,000 years ago. If the idea of education was to repeat to scholars what the community at large believes, we'd be stuck in the stone age. Second, if we teach widely-held views alongside scientific theories, where do we draw the line? Dharmic faiths have their own version of creationism. Do we teach those widely-held beliefs?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The school system shouldn't decide whats right and whats not right to teach. Thats the student's decision. It should be taught in an equal manner and the students themselves should decide based on unbiased presentation of the theories and evidence gathered.

In my opinion, that's exactly what the school system is there to do. Decide what to teach! How long do you want kids to go to school for? Because if you're going to present to them every possible explanation for everything and let them decide, they are going to have to spend a hell of a lot of time in class. You're also relying on them to have some rather advanced powers to separate crap from the truth. A lot of people believe the world is flat, that man has never been to the moon, that atoms are minute versions of galaxies, that wind is caused by trees shaking their leaves, that waves are caused by ocean currents - do we teach all of those as alternatives? Knowing how many kids believe in Santa Clause, do you not think it would be hard for them to distinguish between a theory saying that the earth is round and one saying that the earth is flat?

I say we teach kids the best and most accepted theory in each subject they take. The big bang and evolution are the best scientific theories we have at the moment for how the earth and life developed. We also teach them that theories develop over time, that some theories have lasted longer than others, that some have stood up to testing and others haven't. We show them for example that the theories about the atom have changed and go through some of the prior accepted theories. In so doing, we teach them that science often changes tack. That assures them that in a few years time, what we are teaching them may no longer be valid. Then, in religious studies, you can teach them religion's explanation.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Was that the sound of a joke passing over analogikas head or was he simply continuing the joke? hmmm :/

Oh ****.

dcmacdaddy - I'm sorry. no more posting before my morning coffee... Geez.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

My Science textbooks, which were pretty rigorously adhered to, does NOT "lump" physics and biology into the same chapter. I don't know about sixth grade, but certainly not in 7th and 8th grade (we used Houghton & Mifflin textbooks).

Both the origins of the universe and evolution were taught, but so were erosion, sex ed, and chemistry basics - all in separate chapters, over the course of two years.

And you live in.... Germany. Not the US. How does it pertain to me in ANY WAY?

This is just getting obnoxious, and it doesn't even begin to address my post from which I made such a statement.

I'd start a thread saying Osama fell into a hole and you guys would argue if the hole was actually round or square, and if it's a square, should we really be calling it a hole!?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Lsiten up, foreigner, we don't care what YOUR textbooks said. Americasn textbooks teach ALL the sciences in one class ALL at the same time. Don't ever questions what Americans do. Got it!

I know you are being a condescending silly person here.. but this fits anyhow

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It seems alot of people feel that science as it is today is proven fact or even proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is not the case. "Science" today and "science" tomorrow are completely different things. You can't prove evolution. You can't disprove Creationism. It should be taught side by side since both are widely held views.

 
"These are widely held views" has jack **** to do with science. What's next, we teach intelligent falling in physics classes?

Guess what? Science has given us all the modern wonders we see today. Pretending that we don't know what we know just so some fuzzy feel-goods can avoid any conflict isn't the answer.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Can you prove gravity? Evolution can be observed just as gravity can be observed. The fact that I can observe organisms evolving is proof to me that evolution is happening. Evolution can be proved as much as virtually any scientific theory we have can be proved.

Evolution is not as easily observable as gravitation. Macroevolution has even been never observed but only extrapolated.

But regardless of what is observable or not, both, gravity and evolution, are enabled, forced and controlled by God, at least imho.

Originally Posted by Troll 

That depends on what kind of creationism you're talking about. I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that Young Earth Creationism is bulldust because I can prove that the earth is not 6,000 years old.



Most brands of Old Earth Creationism can also be disproved because we have geological proof that the earth was not created in a week

In how many years was the earth created?

Replace the word "day" with the word "phase" in Genesis, and you can come to the interpretation that the earth was created in six phases, whose length of time can vary greatly.

Originally Posted by Troll 

..and genetic proof that earth's creatures did not all come into being at the same time.

So you have established the fact that God is constantly acting and creating and not just in a single far-away-time?

Originally Posted by Troll 

We also have genetic proof that we do not descend from 2 humans.

From how many humans do we descend?

Originally Posted by Troll 

I say we teach kids the best and most accepted theory in each subject they take. The big bang and evolution are the best scientific theories we have at the moment for how the earth and life developed. We also teach them that theories develop over time, that some theories have lasted longer than others, that some have stood up to testing and others haven't. We show them for example that the theories about the atom have changed and go through some of the prior accepted theories. In so doing, we teach them that science often changes tack. That assures them that in a few years time, what we are teaching them may no longer be valid. Then, in religious studies, you can teach them religion's explanation.

I agree, but unfortunately only a minority of teachers teach the children the concept of theory-development and instead propagate the idea that the current theories are the be all-end-all-truths.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

 
Guess what? Science has given us all the modern wonders we see today. Pretending that we don't know what we know just so some fuzzy feel-goods can avoid any conflict isn't the answer.

This is like saying a painting is good without giving credit to the painter.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll 

I can prove that the earth is not 6,000 years old.

Bible doesn't teach such a thing.