billygoat Posted December 26, 2004 Report Share Posted December 26, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms Wow, take a couple days off... just like a soap-opera (lol)... It really looks like everyone has some very sound arguements... The bottom line, here, is that, unfortunately, it is the squeeky wheel that gets the greese. The mom or dad (1 in a class of 20), who takes offense to "a book" or "a song", or "a topic", and throws a fit, hence banning all further acts that might offend one. Sask is correct, as an educator, some times it is easier to avoid the confrontation, and truth be told, Sask will have more influence by just teaching... than by offering a biased oppionion (because, in reallity, we are all subject to our own personal beliefs... that's human nature). As far as a child's ability to develop an oppion related to the theory of life and creation/evolution... these are a large responsibility of the parent... unfortunately SOME parents choose not to address it while SOME parents offer the "my way or the highway" belief... A child will naturally develop an "oppinion" regarding the "beginning of age", and that oppionion will change as the child ages and matures. It is the parents responsibility to provide direction... and if the schools so choose to present "theories", they should be willing to prevent both theories equally and without biased... also without the fear of persecution by a parent who is on a vengeful mission... BTW great post Buckee and wonderful debate by Sask and Hunter... sorry I missed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted December 27, 2004 Report Share Posted December 27, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms Yep...billygoat that now brings us back to the other side of the coin....so it seems the needs of the one outwieghs the needs of the many...my-oh-my what a vicious circle we as a society weave. We not only want a piece of the cake, we want the whole cake. This brings us to one of your own sentence's " "and if the schools so choose to present "theories", they should be willing to prevent both theories equally and without biased... also without the fear of persecution by a parent who is on a vengeful mission..." As I stated earlier the educational system or teacher doe's not have this option it is flat out illegal to teach on these subjects wether it be unbias or not. This is not to say I don't agree with you in part. I just think that if done in good taste and unbias why not let the teacher present all sides and let the child experince what other cultures have to offer, this to me seem's to make a child more well rounded and has first hand knowledge instead of speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbonhunter Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms Not the schools place to make up the minds of children as to what they should or should not be allowed to believe! That goes both ways. Removing the rights of Christians for example to pray at the beginning of a day for a moment of silence does not and will not ever force anyone into accepting any religion. Just does not work that way. Removing the rights of Christians to sing songs that have to do with the birth of their saviour does not force anyone to accept any religion. Lawsuits are popping up everywhere to remove Christians rights. What makes the athiests rights more important than the Christians??? I can kind of see where the teaching thing may present a problem for those who are atheists or whatever other religion. Schools do teach in history in the middle school and higher levels about Christianity and things such as the crusades, but to the best of my knowledge those are not taught from a biblical standpoint. Other religions and cultures are also learned about in history courses, at least they were when I was in school. As for the book mentioned, I really do not see what it would hurt for the book to be present in the classroom, but do not think that schools should be a place to neccesarily preach. That said, the rights of Christians are in fact being removed from everywhere, and not allowing a book is just another removal of our rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbonhunter Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms I agree there being removed william, and i agree with what your saying, my point is that when i was in school it was easy to ignore things that you didnt believe in, i have no problem with one nation under god, or if kids want to have a morning prayer session ...more power to ya. I just dont think that creationalism has any place in school, you will just have further problems with kids who are muslims,or whatever. Science is going to teach about the science point of view, just like the local catholic school wont go anywhere near evolution. I never said the rights of an atheist is more important than christians, because they arnt...just looked at the question from a school point of view and the realities of trying to teach a large base of kids a religious view in a public school.......to many variables that no school system is going to deal with. I think everyone has the right to have whatever beliefs they want. It is a parents responsibility to find them the school that will best teach there children, my parents gave up alot to give me a better education than i could have recieved anywhere else in our area. That school recognized the problems gents have brought up, and gave us a CHOICE of what science we felt better suited us,neither taught creationalism but one stayed away from evolution, and allowed the kids to get there fill of science, and allow there sunday school teachings to go un challenged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbonhunter Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms umm what happened to my first post??????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckee Posted December 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms [ QUOTE ] Science is going to teach about the science point of view [/ QUOTE ] That was the whole point of this thread. Science, or should I say, the public school system's choise of science, is not giving our children a complete view of science, as pertaining to the origin of living things or the world. It is completely bias. They only give one side (the evolution side) and the sounder scientific evidence that supports creation is ignored. Not only ignored, but hidden, and said to be non-exsistant. This isn't about pushing a faith on anyone, this is about science. I don't know what happened to your post CH. I just got here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbonhunter Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms buckee.......i guess i disagree, just because i dont see crationalism as science, in my opinion that falls more under history, just an opinion though, i dont think you can really say one or the other is more "sound" as both are ideals and interepitations(sp) i admit i didnt read the link that you started this with, im just giving my opinion on how schools look at the creationalism idea. Personally growing up in a not real religious family i wouldnt have minded learning about it in school, im perfectly capable of making uo my own mind on which i believe. creationalism is more miracle than science IMO and the miracle is something that the bible stands apon?? i may be wrong as though ive read it, im by no way an expert on the bible. If you look at creationalism as science than your right buy all means it is somthing that should be taught in school......but which religious view of science do we then teach, by that how can one justify teaching christianity in school, but not muslim or others??? I just dont see any feasible way for schools to dip into creationalism if we really do live in a free religion society?? a good post Steve as every time i think about it a whole new gate of questions pops up in the mind, and that is the bases of great discussion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckee Posted December 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms Maybe you should have read some CH, before commenting. I respect your opinion, but at the same time, it is an opinion based on what you know, up til now. Here's an example from the book. There is no mention of Christianity in it. Chapter 2: The Anthropic Principle Do scientists think that the universe appears to have been designed? The subject of the creation of the universe has been debated and pondered by people for centuries. Today, scientists continue to move forward in their quest to discover the true origin of mankind. One discovery that has intrigued many for the last few decades is something called the “anthropic principle.” The anthropic principle may be taken to mean that scientists have discovered a very large number of coincidences in the universe that allow life to exist on this planet. In other words, the universe appears to have been created specifically for the existence of life on earth. For a better idea of what this entails, consider the following examples:[1] If the earth was located only slightly farther away from the sun, it would freeze like the planet Mars. If it was only slightly closer, it would burn up in heat like the 860°F temperature on Venus. If the earth did not revolve regularly on its axis, half of the planet would be in permanent darkness without vegetation. Meanwhile, the other side of the planet would be an uninhabitable desert, suffering from the overwhelming heat of permanent exposure to the sun. If the Earth were not tilted at 23°, it would not have the seasonal variation that produces the abundance of crops that feed the planet’s huge population. Without this tilt, less than half of the present land used for cultivation of crops would grow vegetables. If the earth was only a small percentage smaller, the reduced gravity would be incapable of holding the atmosphere that is essential for breathing. If the planet Earth was twice as large, the effect of increased gravity would make everything on the planet’s surface weigh eight times what it weighs today. This increased weight would destroy many forms of animal and human life. A much thinner atmosphere would provide no protection from the 25,000 meteors that burn up over the earth every day. A thinner atmosphere would also be incapable of retaining the higher temperatures required for the existence of human and animal life. If the atmosphere were not 78 percent nitrogen and 22 percent oxygen and other gases, breathing would be impossible. If nuclear forces were decreased by only a few percent, the particles of the universe could not have come together in nuclear reactions to make the ingredients from which life must be constructed (such as carbon atoms). If the combined masses of the proton and electron were a little more rather than a little less than the mass of the neutron, the effect would be devastating. The hydrogen atom would become unstable. Throughout the universe, all the hydrogen atoms would immediately break down to form neutrons and neutrinos. Robbed of its nuclear fuel, the sun would fade and collapse. Across the whole of space, stars like the sun would contract in their billions, releasing a deadly flood of x-rays as they burned out. By that time, life on earth, needless to say, would already have been extinguished. The ultimate conclusion is that if the universe was changed in the slightest way, no life could exist. (Although the possibility remains that other forms of unknown life might be able to exist, even the evolutionary cosmologist Stephen Hawking stresses, “It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values [for these coincidences] that would allow the development of any form of intelligent life.”[2]) Thus, more than a few scientists think that this chain of “coincidences” could at the very least suggest the work of a Creator or “creative force.” Hawking, one of the world’s most respected cosmologists, remarks, “I think there are clearly religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think most scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it.”[3] The book Stephen Hawking’s Universe concludes that the odds against the accidental formation of a universe such as this would be comparable to shaking the parts of a watch in a barrel and having them fall into place as a working timepiece.[4] What implications could these incredible probabilities entail? Well, if one can determine how unlikely it is that a given pattern can arise by chance, one has his or her answer as to how likely it is that the structure is deliberate. Here is a simplified example for illustration: Suppose you find a quarter lying on the street. Without a moment’s thought, you assume that someone dropped it accidentally — that it’s there “by chance.” You assume this because it’s so commonplace an occurrence. After all, consider the alternative: that someone placed it there deliberately. Though it’s theoretically possible, your own personal experience tells you that it’s pretty unlikely. Now, what if you found three quarters, all close to one another? Still, it seems more likely that someone dropped a cluster of coins by accident, than that the person put them there. (Maybe you feel it’s a close call.) Part of this calculation (which is less certain than the prior one) involves something else, too: a reasonable guess about people’s reasons for doing things. It’s hard to think of a good reason for someone putting three quarters on the ground deliberately. Let’s take it one step further. Suppose you again find three quarters, but this time they are all touching one another, forming a triangular arrangement. Was this deliberate, or by chance? Chance certainly can’t be ruled out, but it seems “suspicious.” It’s now likely that you’ll change your mind and think that someone did it “on purpose” — even though the purpose is hard to imagine. Finally, what if you find ten quarters stacked neatly one on top of another? Though once again you can’t prove it didn’t “just happen,” the odds against it will seem so great (It’s so odd, you’ll think) that you’ll be certain the stack was placed there for some unknown reason.[5] And so it is with the properties of the universe. Rather than an enormous accident, the hundreds of “coincidences” observed throughout the universe may constitute a deliberate pattern. Many scientists think that the best explanation is “intelligent design.” The renowned science writers John Gribbin and Martin Rees note, “This combination of coincidences . . . is indeed remarkable. There is no better evidence to support the argument that the universe has been designed for our benefit — tailor-made for man.”[6] Nobel Prize winner Max Planck, whose research revolutionized today’s understanding of atomic and subatomic processes, just as Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity revolutionized today’s understanding of space and time,[7] concluded, “According to everything taught by the exact sciences about the immense realm of nature, a certain order prevails — one independent of the human mind. . . . This order can be formulated in terms of purposeful activity. There is evidence of an intelligent order of the universe to which both man and nature are subservient.”[8] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckee Posted December 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms I could have just copied and pasted the entire book in here (too much), but there is a lot of scientific discussion in there that's worth reading, even for those who don't believe in creation. It is all sound scientific discussion. If it could be shown to you through solid and persuasive evidence that God created the universe and everything in it, and continues to play a significant role in that creation, would you believe it? You would still have to make a personal choice on which religous beliefs to follow. My opinions could change tomorrow, if someone could prove something to me contrary to what I already believe to be true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbonhunter Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms very good point there steve, and now i have another question, what do the other planets in our system have to do with us.....this has been one of questions concerning creationalism with me......why do we have a full solar system if god created all of it??? or did he just create this planit??? like i said this is one subject where i could go on and on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billygoat Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms Regardless, Carbon hunter, of whether you beleive in creationalism... there is no disputing the "organization" instilled in the Solar system... It is the mere organization that challenges the theory of evolution and presents creationalism as a viable scientific option... Once again, though, we come back to the issue... are schools obligated to present both sides of science. I think as an intellectual society, we have an obligation to present both theories and allow for children to make informed decisions... After all... sex ed classes require the teaching of both abstinence and safe sex and encouarges the youth of America to make sound informed decisions... Ok, well maybe that isn't the best example... but I think the point is there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms Without getting into my own beliefs, I think there is no reason a book of this nature should not be allowed to be in the classroom. As for a teacher extending his/her own religious beliefs beyond the science part of it, however I think should not take place. That is where I see that it could turn into a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms Taking out the creation part of the issue, I think when the right of the one out weighs the right of the many we have a problem in society, becuase of the beliefs of one or two parents that have children in a classroom of 30 or more this is what happens by law....NO...Christmas Party's, NO Holloween Party's, NO Valentine's Day Party's...I think we get the picture...and this all boiling down to the majority of the taxpayers that send their kids to school don't have a say period. I ask you all what is wrong with having these party's as long as our children are enjoying thenselves ??? But no because a few parents just can't stand the thought of any other type of religion other than there own....seems to me that there is something wrong with this point of view, but that's just my opinion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckee Posted December 30, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms VH..I sure wish you'd read the post before going off in a different direction. Although I value everyones opinions, the least you could do is read the post and stay on track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted December 30, 2004 Report Share Posted December 30, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms [ QUOTE ] VH..I sure wish you'd read the post before going off in a different direction. Although I value everyones opinions, the least you could do is read the post and stay on track. [/ QUOTE ] Did I miss something ??obviously I must have but just can't seem to bring myself to the post that you are refering to...me bad... But anyhow I went off track in relation to beliefs no particular one..just beliefs in general that pertain to schools today. I understand the point in case of evolution and creation. I brought the issue of the needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many. But if you think that I missed something please bring me back to that point instead of saying I didn't read the post, when I did, maybe it's a case that I interpeted in a way that it wasn't meant to be.. Lighten up man I sense tension....LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckee Posted December 31, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms The original topic has nothing to do with rights of what you want to believe really, it has more to do with sound science in the classroom. This unbiased science may or may not eventually lead someone to a spiritual faith on there own, outside the classroom. [ QUOTE ] But anyhow I went off track in relation to beliefs no particular one..just beliefs in general that pertain to schools today. I understand the point in case of evolution and creation. I brought the issue of the needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many. [/ QUOTE ] I made this post to point out the scientific evidence of creation, verses, the one sided scientific evidence being taught in schools today. Not neccessarily the independant beliefs being taught by some teachers. That's a whole other topic. It's the science curriculum that is setup by the school board systems, that I am trying to bring into question here. I'm trying really hard to keep my own Christian beliefs out of this discussion, for obvious reasons. This is strictly a science discussion. Good science should be the persuit of truth, no matter what the outcome, should it not ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms I agree and apologize for side tracking your post... This intitles you to three good smacks to the backside of my hand...OK... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckee Posted December 31, 2004 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms How about 3 lashes with a wet noodle Sorry I sounded angry ..I wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billygoat Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms [ QUOTE ] How about 3 lashes with a wet noodle Sorry I sounded angry ..I wasn't. [/ QUOTE ] Hey Buckee... Why you always gots to be so angry.... where's the love? Just kiddin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VermontHunter Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms [ QUOTE ] How about 3 lashes with a wet noodle Sorry I sounded angry ..I wasn't. [/ QUOTE ] LOL..alls well...that's why the disclaimer is posted... and I fully accept these terms you bully... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtnhunt Posted December 31, 2004 Report Share Posted December 31, 2004 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms One of the main problems I see is that some do not seem to emphasize the Theory of evolution as what it is. It is nothing more than a theory. A theory that unless I am wrong has not ever been proven by strong enough supporting facts. I for one fail to believe that humans have evolved so far while other living animals have pretty well remained exactly the same. Just too much that does not quite add up for me to fall for the whole evolutiuon thing. I think in some situations a closed minded, and not saying all teachers are that way, but I can surely see where some might teach this as being a fact of science. This can be misleading and somewhat confusing to children. Kind of closes the door on the idea of faith for a teacher to teach that this is the way it is and that is it PERIOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckbuster11 Posted January 3, 2005 Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms Very very good points right here. I dont have a problem with it being taught in the classroom but it is often taken for granted that it is fact instead of theory. As for your original question Buckee, I dont think that religion should be mixed into school especially in this day and age. You would end up having to teach 3 or 4 or maybe more religions to be fair. People get their relgious beliefs from influences outside of the classroom such as the church or your family. But, it's really up to the school to teach the scientific aspect which in this case would be the theory of evolution. The thing they need to improve on is stressing theory over fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckee Posted January 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2005 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms [ QUOTE ] As for your original question Buckee, I dont think that religion should be mixed into school especially in this day and age. You would end up having to teach 3 or 4 or maybe more religions to be fair. [/ QUOTE ] I agree partly. But the fact that scientific evidence points to the validity of the accounts told in the bible, can not just be disgarded for fear of teaching religion and replaced with a theory to please the secular world. Pointing out that scietifific evidence does strongly suggest the validity of events in the bible is not preaching any specific religion, since there a many religions that are based on either parts or the whole of the bible. [ QUOTE ] But, it's really up to the school to teach the scientific aspect which in this case would be the theory of evolution. The thing they need to improve on is stressing theory over fact. [/ QUOTE ] That is my point. The scientific evidence is not being taught in the schools, and teaching evolution is not sound science if you take into account the whole scientific community, instead of only teaching theories that please the itching ears of the secular community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckbuster11 Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Re: Our children\'s Classrooms [ QUOTE ] That is my point. The scientific evidence is not being taught in the schools, and teaching evolution is not sound science if you take into account the whole scientific community, instead of only teaching theories that please the itching ears of the secular community. [/ QUOTE ] I can agree with that. But just to play devils advocate, could you not also argue that mixing in any religion is not anymore accurate? I mean, you and I can believe 100% ever word in the bible but from a scientific persepective the only thing that could prove everything we know about our religion is fact, is if God came down from the heavens himself. There is some scientific evidence that points links to the Bible, but there is also evidence that suggests otherwise. With that said, there is also nothing that could ever prove the theory of evolution to be fact either. So what you have in the end from a scientific standpoint is two theories that can only be satisfied by one individuals opinion. My feeling is, I think religion is best taught from the church, family or any other worthy influences. The school should teach the scientific theory's as long as they make sure everyone understands it is only theory. Then, the individual person can make up their own mind on what to believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.