Schools and religions of all kinds.

[Des]

Ideally, how would the school you send you child to handle the topic of religion, in any form, including the teaching of creationism? How would the same school ideally handle the topic of evolution?

[Yurt]

good question. i struggle with this, but since i don't have kids i don't spend too much time on it, but the wife has asked me. i grew up in public schools and private schools with a half a year in boarding school.

i like public because you meet others who are not exactly of your same beliefs and in my opinion it gives one a broader world view. after going to public schools and then returning to private schools and then finally attending a private college, the difference never ceased to amaze me. i'm referring to a religious private school.

with that said, public school is not an neutral educational ground. you are taught whatever the current state dogma is. evolution for instance. ok, if you are going to teach evolution, then you at least ought to tell the students that evolution is ONLY a theory, not proven, but is accepted by the majority of the scientific community. the 3 major religions of the world do not believe in evolution theory.

private school is nice because you can pick a school that probably more mirrors your beliefs, especially if a religious school. the drawback, IMO, is the clickishness of that smaller world.

neither is perfect and no one should ever expect any school to raise their kids.

[Kathianne]

Ideally, how would the school you send you child to handle the topic of religion, in any form, including the teaching of creationism? How would the same school ideally handle the topic of evolution?

I've written about Catholic schools. Evolution is mandated in science. Comparative religions are dealt with in both social studies and religion. The 'creationism' story in religion is dealt with as a preliterate society oral tradition, to explain natural history to the people. In our school the other creationism stories, both monotheistic and polytheistic are addressed in religion classes. Then again, Catholicism has never been a literal religion.

From what I've read regardless of the Church's stand on birth control, Catholics have pretty much used and self-reported the use of such since the advent of the pill. Same with premarital sex.

As for abortions for 'rape, incest, and life of the woman', same results as general population. For the most part though they tend away from abortion, the idea of the fetus as a human seems to have been sold. I personally believe this has more to do with the science aspect of life. The more that ultrasound has been perfected, the earlier we now recognize just how 'human' from very early on the fetus is.

I wonder how many non-Catholics realize that the catholic schools have taught evolution in schools for at least 60 years that I'm aware of; while explaining, in religion classes, not science, that the 'creationism story' in the bible is a 'story', that was used by people in preliterate societies to explain 'the world' to people as an oral tradition? That there are at least 3 different versions of the creation story, crossing both monotheistic and polytheistic societies?

While the church did treat Copernicus badly, it wasn't because of his theory, rather that he refused multiple requests to keep it within academia at the time, to avoid undermining the hierarchy of both church and feudal traditions? Of course the Magna Carta had already begun that slippery slope, but one does need to keep 'time and place' into account.

[Yurt]

kathy,

no idea. very interesting. does the church talk about this on their website?

[Des]

good question. i struggle with this, but since i don't have kids i don't spend too much time on it, but the wife has asked me. i grew up in public schools and private schools with a half a year in boarding school.

i like public because you meet others who are not exactly of your same beliefs and in my opinion it gives one a broader world view. after going to public schools and then returning to private schools and then finally attending a private college, the difference never ceased to amaze me. i'm referring to a religious private school.

with that said, public school is not an neutral educational ground. you are taught whatever the current state dogma is. evolution for instance. ok, if you are going to teach evolution, then you at least ought to tell the students that evolution is ONLY a theory, not proven, but is accepted by the majority of the scientific community. the 3 major religions of the world do not believe in evolution theory.

private school is nice because you can pick a school that probably more mirrors your beliefs, especially if a religious school. the drawback, IMO, is the clickishness of that smaller world.

neither is perfect and no one should ever expect any school to raise their kids.

I definetly agree with you on public schools, I think it can be a good oppourtinity to learn how to deal with the "world" and the way it works. I also agree with you about evolution. It IS a theory, too flawed to be a sound one, and schools either don't touch on it or don't teach that important aspect. Personally, if my children were in an area where creationism was taught as scientific fact, I would be looking into private schools.

Too many people expect the school system to raise their kids and instill values in them of all kinds. I meet a lot of people who do not realize that they elect and pay the people responsible for their kids cirriculum...so does tha fault partially lie in the parents who forgot this?

[5stringJeff]

In high school, science class should stick to what scientists know. And evolution, as a theory of the origin of life, has too many holes in it to be considered established scientific fact. Science classes in high school should not deal with the issue of the origin of life at all.

[Kathianne]

kathy,

no idea. very interesting. does the church talk about this on their website?

I don't know, though I doubt it. Not much for curriculum at least in our diocese. I just know what I was mandated to teach in religion, science, and social studies.

[Des]

I don't know, though I doubt it. Not much for curriculum at least in our diocese. I just know what I was mandated to teach in religion, science, and social studies.

Everything you wrote was really interesting. Thanks :).

[Des]

In high school, science class should stick to what scientists know. And evolution, as a theory of the origin of life, has too many holes in it to be considered established scientific fact. Science classes in high school should not deal with the issue of the origin of life at all.

It's not suppose to be an established scientific fact, it's suppose to be a theory. Unfortunately, it's taught as scientific fact. Agendas should be kept out of the classroom...

[Yurt]

I definetly agree with you on public schools, I think it can be a good oppourtinity to learn how to deal with the "world" and the way it works. I also agree with you about evolution. It IS a theory, too flawed to be a sound one, and schools either don't touch on it or don't teach that important aspect. Personally, if my children were in an area where creationism was taught as scientific fact, I would be looking into private schools.

Too many people expect the school system to raise their kids and instill values in them of all kinds. I meet a lot of people who do not realize that they elect and pay the people responsible for their kids cirriculum...so does tha fault partially lie in the parents who forgot this?

i think you are right, you can blame the parents who, not only forgot, but who support the schools raising their children. it is much easier to point the finger at some faceless bureaucratic government entity/offical than it is to point the finger at that strange person in the mirror. however, it is not always easy to change the morass that has become our government, one voice is almost never enough. another reason why i think the federal government should get out of education.

i don't have a problem with states having some uniform educational guideline, but the feds should not at all be involved in education. the federal government of the United States of America was never intended to be the "borg" that it is today. unfortunately, too many people crave power and job security, they get that by running for office or the like and then once there, create new laws, new powers that give their "boss" more power. IMO, they have entirely forgotten that WE THE PEOPLE are their boss. but when you are in the borg or bureaucracy it is hard to remember who you actually work for....you get job reviews, promotions, etc....all from the borg and the borg looks at certain things and of course the worker is looking at those things as well. those "things" are more laws, which create job security etc...

[Yurt]

In high school, science class should stick to what scientists know. And evolution, as a theory of the origin of life, has too many holes in it to be considered established scientific fact. Science classes in high school should not deal with the issue of the origin of life at all.

are there not many theories in science? can we really discount all scientific theories when instructing our children about --- science? there is not a scientist out there that does not know about evolution. i disagree that HS classes should not deal with the origin of life. that is when, at least for me and my friends, we really began to question things. who we are, where we came from etc....

today, i didn't have the net in HS, if we don't teach our kids about evolution, with the caveat that it is ONLY a theory, they will get a hold of it on the net and it could be some counter revolutionary "thought". you can't hide stuff anymore, you can only educate.

[Des]

i think you are right, you can blame the parents who, not only forgot, but who support the schools raising their children. it is much easier to point the finger at some faceless bureaucratic government entity/offical than it is to point the finger at that strange person in the mirror. however, it is not always easy to change the morass that has become our government, one voice is almost never enough. another reason why i think the federal government should get out of education.

i don't have a problem with states having some uniform educational guideline, but the feds should not at all be involved in education. the federal government of the United States of America was never intended to be the "borg" that it is today. unfortunately, too many people crave power and job security, they get that by running for office or the like and then once there, create new laws, new powers that give their "boss" more power. IMO, they have entirely forgotten that WE THE PEOPLE are their boss. but when you are in the borg or bureaucracy it is hard to remember who you actually work for....you get job reviews, promotions, etc....all from the borg and the borg looks at certain things and of course the worker is looking at those things as well. those "things" are more laws, which create job security etc...

Competely accurate description of the machine we live in...I wonder if human nature forces us to repeat the same cycles over and over, or if teaching history and what it means for the future, as well as making civics THE important class, might change some things. ?

[Des]

are there not many theories in science? can we really discount all scientific theories when instructing our children about --- science? there is not a scientist out there that does not know about evolution. i disagree that HS classes should not deal with the origin of life. that is when, at least for me and my friends, we really began to question things. who we are, where we came from etc....

today, i didn't have the net in HS, if we don't teach our kids about evolution, with the caveat that it is ONLY a theory, they will get a hold of it on the net and it could be some counter revolutionary "thought". you can't hide stuff anymore, you can only educate.

Seeing as cosmology is a relevant scientific field, I'd like my kids to be taught a little about the ideas surrounding the origins of life.

I don't like the attitude that science is infallible, though.

I agree, though. If we were honest instead of offering up all the answers, kids might be more tolerant and motivated to seek out those answers themselves. Visionary wouldn't always have to be equated with rebel. It's so funny how we teach our kids to be polite, tolerate one another, share, be themselves, etc...then when they grow up and try to apply those principles to life, we call them idealistic.

[hjmick]

In scientific terms, a theory means that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

[Said1]

If you pay extra tuition or taxes for your children to receive a religious education, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect certain things be taught and other thing be presented a certain way. After having nuns, religious fanatics and a wide assortment of teachers while attending Catholic school I think it depends a lot on the teacher, too. And to be honest, I vaguely remember evolution being taught in geography, but I honestly wasn't paying attention. Go figure. :cheers2:

Presently, my daughter goes to public school. As it stands right now, I have no problem with her learning about all religions, creationism and evolution whatsoever. Those topics aren't presented as anything other than theories or beliefs, although middle/high school might be a different story.

[Yurt]

Competely accurate description of the machine we live in...I wonder if human nature forces us to repeat the same cycles over and over, or if teaching history and what it means for the future, as well as making civics THE important class, might change some things. ?

another good question.

IMO, no. why?

i believe in god. and i believe his "story", so there is my bias, if you will. imo, human nature is a very real part of this world. look at PETA, they will tell you, look at GORE, he will tell you....about this human nature.

your choices are limited:

you believe in evolution, we came from apes

you believe on god who created us

you believe in a third option

[Kathianne]

Everything you wrote was really interesting. Thanks :).

You're welcome. I found it interesting that most of the professors I know were educated in private schools, whether or not secular. Most of them are against vouchers, while screaming they are for the poor and better education.

[Des]

another good question.

IMO, no. why?

i believe in god. and i believe his "story", so there is my bias, if you will. imo, human nature is a very real part of this world. look at PETA, they will tell you, look at GORE, he will tell you....about this human nature.

your choices are limited:

you believe in evolution, we came from apes

you believe on god who created us

you believe in a third option

...or you can choose not to believe in anything, but to have ideas instead, and realize that maybe humans aren't equipped to understand some things.

[crin63]

Our Christian school teaches only creation. Which is one reason we won't accept any government funding including vouchers should they ever be approved by the state. Because of that the U.C. system is trying to discriminate against our students.

On Saturday nights we show videos that state the evolution position and the creation position. It shows how both are belief systems and the flawed so-called science behind evolution.

[Des]

Our Christian school teaches only creation. Which is one reason we won't accept any government funding including vouchers should they ever be approved by the state. Because of that the U.C. system is trying to discriminate against our students.

On Saturday nights we show videos that state the evolution position and the creation position. It shows how both are belief systems and the flawed so-called science behind evolution.

There is flawed so-called science behind both, simply because faith is not a science. I imagine the parents at your childs school are more involved than in most public schools, no?

[crin63]

There is flawed so-called science behind both, simply because faith is not a science. I imagine the parents at your childs school are more involved than in most public schools, no?

What flaws do you think there are in the Bible?

Some of the parents are much more involved and others feel so safe they are almost hands off. Our school is cultivating a large Armenian population which I am quite pleased about. I like the Armenian culture that I have been exposed to.

[LiberalNation]

ur kids going to private bible college too I assume. If not you're scewing them in the sciences when it comes time to test and learn them.

[Des]

What flaws do you think there are in the Bible?

Some of the parents are much more involved and others feel so safe they are almost hands off. Our school is cultivating a large Armenian population which I am quite pleased about. I like the Armenian culture that I have been exposed to.

Believing the Bible is the word of god or the truth requires faith. Faith isn't a science. There are some things you just cannot measure, observe, weigh, chart, ect...

I think it's a positive thing to have private schools with involved parents that focus on specific things, but I do not think faith should be what drives a lesson plan. This includes the leap of faith that is somehow made between the definition of the theory of evolution as a theory (vs. fact) and how it is presented in a classroom.

[crin63]

ur kids going to private bible college too I assume. If not you're scewing them in the sciences when it comes time to test and learn them.

My sons don't seem to be having in problems in college. 1 finished his 3rd year and the other is on his 2nd year.

[LiberalNation]

maybe not, it's not the only part, but they missed out on basic theories tought in high school that are later tought on a more advanced level in college. Like it or not it's part of standard curicullum in the education system.

[crin63]

Believing the Bible is the word of god or the truth requires faith. Faith isn't a science. There are some things you just cannot measure, observe, weigh, chart, ect...

I think it's a positive thing to have private schools with involved parents that focus on specific things, but I do not think faith should be what drives a lesson plan. This includes the leap of faith that is somehow made between the definition of the theory of evolution as a theory (vs. fact) and how it is presented in a classroom.

Evolution is all faith also. There was no one there to see what supposedly happened.

[LiberalNation]

you can't see gravity either.......

[crin63]

maybe not, it's not the only part, but they missed out on basic theories tought in high school that are later tought on a more advanced level in college. Like it or not it's part of standard curicullum in the education system.

Considering you have no idea what is in our curriculum, you really have no basis for your conclusions.

[LiberalNation]

you said you tought creationism and argued against evalution as you presented it's side. Ty arguing against evalution in a college biology report and get poor marks from most public college professors.

[crin63]

you said you tought creationism and argued against evalution as you presented it's side. Ty arguing against evalution in a college biology report and get poor marks from most public college professors.

We understand that in order to get a degree from the liberal Humanist religious institutions know as universities that the kids will have to play the evolution game, its unfortunate but it is what it is. My younger son is going through it right now in college. With all the scientific information he has he is able to see the fallacy of evolution but knows he has to play the game to get his degree. He just mentioned it to me earlier in the week.

[5stringJeff]

you can't see gravity either.......

But you can conduct scientific experiments to confirm the existence of gravity. You cannot do the same for evolution.

[crin63]

The Evolutionists and the Creationists share the same evidence, no side has an exclusive. Both sides have their starting points for interpretation of the evidence. One side starts with a Biblical view, the other side starts with a non-Biblical view. The dispute is over interpretation of the evidence found.

[manu1959]

Ideally, how would the school you send you child to handle the topic of religion, in any form, including the teaching of creationism? How would the same school ideally handle the topic of evolution?

i would like to see a social studies ciriculum that is intertwined with world history, culture and religion and simple facts about each taught.....no why's just whats......

[manu1959]

But you can conduct scientific experiments to confirm the existence of gravity. You cannot do the same for evolution.

doesn't or hasn't nature conduted those experiments over time......have not scientist made observations of such......

[LiberalNation]

evolution is just adaptation in longer terms.

[bullypulpit]

Ideally, how would the school you send you child to handle the topic of religion, in any form, including the teaching of creationism? How would the same school ideally handle the topic of evolution?

The fundamental flaw of your premise is that creationism and evolution are equally valid.

Evolution is based on both fossil evidence and objective, independently verifiable evidence rigourously evaluated through the scientific method.

Creationism is rooted in a wholly subjective and unprovable assumption of faith rooted in the metaphysical, rather than the physical, world.

There is no equivalency between the two.

[Des]

Evolution is all faith also. There was no one there to see what supposedly happened.

Believing that evolution is the answer to everything without knowing what it means and that it's a working theory is faith, yes. The theory of evolution isn't faith. It's a scientific theory. There is a difference.

[Des]

The Evolutionists and the Creationists share the same evidence, no side has an exclusive. Both sides have their starting points for interpretation of the evidence. One side starts with a Biblical view, the other side starts with a non-Biblical view. The dispute is over interpretation of the evidence found.

Wrong.

There are some "evolutionists" who have made their belief in the theory the opposite of any religious belief and a religious belief unto itself. Don't mistake those people who lack a basic understanding of science for the people who are objective enough to understand that the theory of evolution isn't called the Law of evolution for a reason, and that reason has HUGE implications for how it should be taught and approached.

Creationism is about faith. You have to take giant leaps of faith to believe certain things happened as creationists do. The end result is always the same because the beginning is the same...it's about using science to prove that the Bible is accurate. Theres nothing wrong with faith, but there is something wrong with calling such leaps scientific discoveries the rest of the scientific community has to acknowledge. Creationism is a religious belief. Evolution is a scientific theory. They are completely different things.

[manu1959]

Wrong.

There are some "evolutionists" who have made their belief in the theory the opposite of any religious belief and a religious belief unto itself. Don't mistake those people who lack a basic understanding of science for the people who are objective enough to understand that the theory of evolution isn't called the Law of evolution for a reason, and that reason has HUGE implications for how it should be taught and approached.

Creationism is about faith. You have to take giant leaps of faith to believe certain things happened as creationists do. The end result is always the same because the beginning is the same...it's about using science to prove that the Bible is accurate. Theres nothing wrong with faith, but there is something wrong with calling such leaps scientific discoveries the rest of the scientific community has to acknowledge. Creationism is a religious belief. Evolution is a scientific theory. They are completely different things.

in order for something to evolve it needs to be created first....

[Kathianne]

in order for something to evolve it needs to be created first....

Indeed, where faith and science meet imho. ;)

[Des]

in order for something to evolve it needs to be created first....

That's thinking within the limits of human mentality, though. We might not be able to understand what actually happened, there aren't just two possibe answers.

[manu1959]

That's thinking within the limits of human mentality, though. We might not be able to understand what actually happened, there aren't just two possibe answers.

well...at one point there was nothing then there was something.....that is creation.....where it goes from there is evolution.....

[Kathianne]

well...at one point there was nothing then there was something.....that is creation.....where it goes from there is evolution.....

Yep, the where, when, how to be determined down the road. Personally I like the idea of a big bang...

[manu1959]

Yep, the where, when, how to be determined down the road. Personally I like the idea of a big bang...

light some candles to set the mood ....i will be right over.....:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

light some candles to set the mood ....i will be right over.....:laugh2:

:laugh2: Knew that was coming. See you in 2500 miles or so!

[Des]

well...at one point there was nothing then there was something.....that is creation.....where it goes from there is evolution.....

Not neccesarily...time is just a dimension, and our interpretation of it isn't always how things work. There could have always been something, and instead of being created, it was simply changed.