Faith vs Science in Schools

Splitting off my reply to form a new topic from the All you gun nuts are stained by this thread

plaidvillain wrote:

CinnamonGirl wrote: First, I was not talking to you directly I was speaking as a group and this is not about specifics. What we all should do to fix the controversy is to teach both as theories or leave them both out. You want your way and you said you think it is based on science. Others don't agree with you but you still want your way on this. That is my point.

"Intelligent design" is not an equal alternative to science. It is Christian dogma and has no place in public schools. This is not about anyone getting "their way", it is about facts and science. This is significantly off-topic from the conversation. If you'd like to discuss faith vs science, perhaps a new topic would be appropriate.

CinnamonGirl wrote: First, I was not talking to you directly I was speaking as a group

Okay, then point out where anyone on this board has made fun of Creationists because earlier you said this "Let's go back through this forum at all the times you made fun of creationists and are forcing them to believe what you believe." - it sure didn't seem like you meant the collective internet with that statement and I was replying to the statement as you wrote it for my own posts because I wasn't going to take responsibility for others' posts here on this subject. Attributing what others out on the internet have said to those of us on this board is flat-out wrong to do - that's making patent generalizations about us here

CinnamonGirl wrote: and this is not about specifics.

I find that this is usually what someone says when they've made a blanket statement that they can't back up with facts. If you meant the collective internet, then why did you say "this forum"?

CinnamonGirl wrote: What we all should do to fix the controversy is to teach both as theories or leave them both out. You want your way and you said you think it is based on science. Others don't agree with you but you still want your way on this. That is my point.

The only "controversy" is the one manufactured by the Creationists in order to push their agenda. Do you think we should teach English in Chemistry class? History in math? Do you think that we should teach that we are held down not by gravity, but by God's will?

There's a reason that attempts to teach Creationism have failed in the courts and it's not just because of "my" [collective] opinion and that I want "my" [collective] way - it's because they are wrong to do so - it's the law to not teach religion in public schools. "Others" can disagree all they want, but until the law is changed, they can't just do whatever they feel like.

Creationism. is. not. a. theory. or. a. science; it. should. not. be. taught. in. a. science. class, feel free to teach it at home or at church as much as you like. Evolution is science, and should be taught in science class. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not theories, they cannot be tested by experiment, there are no observations to make and perform experiments on, they cannot be proved or disproved. This isn't just "my" way, or those on this board who have said something similar, every major science organization stands by this claim, as does the National Center for Science Education.

The dangers of creationism in education Resolution 1580 (2007), by the Council of Europe
In particular, check out Points #1, #7, #10, #11, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17.

1. The aim of this resolution is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.

7. There is a real risk of serious confusion being introduced into our children’s minds between what has to do with convictions, beliefs, ideals of all sorts and what has to do with science. An “all things are equal” attitude may seem appealing and tolerant, but is in fact dangerous.

"All things equal"...like in youth soccer, where it's okay to reward everyone for participating, and no one learns the value of pride in a job well done by placing first and getting recognized for that, or disappointment of losing as motivation to try harder. That leads to kids not learning to take responsibility for their own actions which leads to not understanding that they are held accountable for their own actions and that there is a difference between right or wrong. [sarcasm]No, we must protect the children from disappointment by including everyone[/sarcasm]
No, at some point we must take a stand for what's right.

If evolution, which is a scientifically proven theory, is allowed to be removed under the guise of "teach both or none" then we are compromising our children's science education and giving into a group with an agenda. Our country is lagging behind in rigorous science curriculum and understanding compared to other nations, and you want to dilute it further? We already have a huge lack of understanding the difference between hypothesis and theory, the scientific method, controversy over vaccines, global warming, and mass ignorance about the basics of science in our society. Global warming deniers have managed to delay real progress on solutions to mitigate the pending disasters our children will face by manufacturing fake "controversy" and embedding uncertainty where there should be none, all because of people's ignorance about "consensus" and ability to think critically for themselves. Vaccine conspiracists have convinced the population to reduce rates of protecting their children using unfounded fears based on falsified data, causing an increase in preventable, deadly diseases occurring and children dying for no good reason. We live in a culture that has no fear of drugs and pops them at every turn yet questions vaccine safety, when, in reality, drugs are exponentially more dangerous, and less effective, than vaccines - it's ridiculous.

When something is so patently wrong, then yes, we must say enough is enough. There should absolutely not be any teaching of non-science in science classes. Or else, to be fair and equal, there should be teaching of science in all religions organization's classes. How fast do you think the Creationists would be up in arms if that equal trade were proposed?

15. The teaching of all phenomena concerning evolution as a fundamental scientific theory is therefore crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies. For that reason it must occupy a central position in the curriculums, and especially in the science syllabuses, as long as, like any other theory, it is able to stand up to thorough scientific scrutiny.

Exactly. If you want to honestly teach challenges to evolution, then teach students how to perform rigorous experiments that explain how the universe works in another manner than evolving, how to critically analyze data, and form conclusions based solidly on that data - it should be challenged with scientifically backed data, not with notions that some "higher power" created everything - that's religion and it doesn't belong in a science class. This isn't about pushing my agenda, this is about common sense and the law. Our founding fathers established separation of church and state, religion is to be taught on personal time, not in schools, and certainly not in science class.

CinnamonGirl wrote: [quoteemSC]What they are NOT allowed to do, is to wrap it up in the guise of "alternative theories of science" and use it to push their religion in science education when it's not science. I don't get how that's "picking and choosing what can and can't be allowed".[/quoteem]

Assuming they are pushing religion is your problem. Assumptions always are the problem.

I didn't come up with this claim all on my own you know . What else would they be trying to do? Push religion, or undermine science by contesting only some theories and not others because they see it as a threat - that's the two possibilities. Do you see Creationists asking that gravity or relativity not be taught? No. And why is that? Because it doesn't threaten their agenda like they think evolution does. The cherry-picking is blatantly obvious. If you are going to question evolution, which has as much data proving it true as relativity or gravity (which are also theories) and not relativity or gravity, then your group has an agenda and it must be challenged. Figuring that out requires no assumptions, just looking at the big picture of what that group is asking, and not asking, to do.

What's sadly ironic about all of this is that science is not a threat to religion and spirituality, the two can coincide because they both fill vastly different roles in our society. Science seeks merely to understand and explain how things work, not why we're here or how things got started or what our purpose in life truly is. Science is not philosophy or untestable questions, it is not about analyzing the human spirit, but as I've said before the sacred can be found through the path of science.