Not a small number…

For all you libs who don’t agree, how about explaining how 65% is kookism, but 50% of the country believing in gay marriage is a nation divided.

Awesome.

But wouldn’t you at least concede that if 65% of the people in the country want it, it should be available?

I mean, that’s a significant number.

Okay, so then let me ask you this…

Knowing that there is a high school for gay kids in NYC, should NYC School Kids in a regular high school be taught about homosexuality?

I guess what these stats suggest is that a lot of people in the US don’t understand the difference between science and faith as systems for processing reality.

RKB is right. The fact that 65% of a population believes something has no bearing on the objective truth of that belief. But of course, a majority has the “right” to demand that their kids be taught anything at all. If a majority of parents want to instruct their school boards to teach kids that there is NO qualitative difference in the evidence for evolution and creationism…that they are both equally valid descriptors of the history of life on our planet…then they have every right to do that.

But what they are really teaching their kids is something a little more dangerous…that there is no qualitative difference between belief and scientific knowledge. And that is a huge error. Both faith and science have their place in human experience: but one cannot, and must not, confuse the two.

That sort of thing has happened before. In the Soviet Union, a “biologist” named Lysenko decided that Darwinian evolution was against the spirit of Marxism, and convinced Stalin that an alternative model – the version proposed by Lamarck – was more politically acceptable. Lysenko experimented happily with Lamarkian evolution, seeking to produce miraculous new strains of wheat. That was one of the reasons millions died of starvation. Faith replaced science.

On a more positive note, one of the reasons Hitler’s atomic research program failed was that he, and many of his scientists, dismissed Einstein’s findings as “Jewish Physics”. Faith replaced science.

The issue isn’t whether people have the “right” to be taught whatever the majority wants. Of course they do. But it’s a lousy idea.

Religious belief and homosexuality in the same topic… isn’t that unusual

Creationism is an article of faith, evolution is a scientific theory with a not insubstantial body of evidence supporting it, and homosexuality is a simple biological fact of life in the animal kingdom – that being the case I see no reason why would not cover “what is homosexuality from a scientific standpoint” in a biology class.

What does that have to do with creationism vs. evolution in the classroom? I still don’t want Christian articles of faith that have no basis in science taught to my children anymore than, I assume, you would want your children taught that in the beginning there was the void, and the void gave itself life by speaking its name thus creating chaos, from whch all things (living and non living) are made.

RKB: I wish I’d said that

Religious belief and homosexuality in the same topic… isn’t that unusual

Creationism is an article of faith, evolution is a scientific theory with a not insubstantial body of evidence supporting it, and homosexuality is a simple biological fact of life in the animal kingdom – that being the case I see no reason why would not cover “what is homosexuality from a scientific standpoint” in a biology class.

First of all, you making a leap that homosexuality is biological is something that scientists will not claim for certain, so unless you’ve been experimenting, you’re really not in a position to make that claim.

Secondly, we’re not talking about homosexuality in biology class. We’re talking homosexual “tolerance” in every class, and homosexual acceptance in Sex Ed classes. Why are those moralities okay to teach, and why do 50% of the country agreeing with that mean enough of a sample to teach it in school, but 65% of the country specificially believing something should be taught in school not enough?

I only used homosexuality because it’s an issue the country is divided on. Try not to read too much into it.

Then you’d be horrified that entire religions are taught in public schools down to play-acting the ceremonies and carrying out jihad. I kid you not.

Oh don’t worry, though. Christianity is still expected to be taught at home. Only Islam, Buddhism, Tao, Zen, and various Polytheistic beliefs are actually taught in public schools.

Darwinian evolution is a “Theory” in the first sense. Many of its basic tenets have been confirmed by findings unavailable to Darwin (principally relating the mechanism by which heridity functions, by Mendel, Watson, Crick and others.) It can be challenged, and other models can be proposed.

It is not taught that way. It’s taught as the way things happened, not open for interpretation. Calling it a theory is a mere formality in the public schools.

Scientific theory isn’t taught until Junior High School. The explanation of hypothesizing, experimenting, etc., are not explained until a child is old enough to do the “work” of applying the scientific method. Science fair projects given early in schools are not what they used to be, and most science projects aren’t even science projects by the old standards (scientific method, experimentation, controls, etc.

Telling a 3rd grader that this is the Theory of Evolution brings no implication that it’s not 100% certain. By the time they reach 7th grade where they really start with the scientific method, they’ve had this “theory” drummed into their head sa fact for so long they have a biased view of it.

It’s a different world out there.

Now maybe I’m just explaining from the perspective I understand; the liberal New York City Public School system, but it’s all I know and I don’t like what I see.

Only Islam, Buddhism, Tao, Zen, and various Polytheistic beliefs are actually taught in public schools.

These belief structures are “taught” or “taught about” – significant difference.

Bob, what can I say, great comment except for the part where you talked about

New Age Feel-Good God Who Approves of Everything so Long as it’s Not Physically Hurting Other People (except unborn babies).

… which appears to be a generalization about Paganism and/or what has been dubbed New Age beliefs – it is incorrect.

Otherwise – bravo

“It is not taught that way. It’s taught as the way things happened, not open for interpretation. Calling it a theory is a mere formality in the public schools.”

Funny. When my parents and Church taught me about Adam and Eve and creation, they also taught me that was the way things happened…not open for interpretation, and certainly no suggestion that this system of knowledge was in any way different from or inferior to science.

Do you think we should insist that scientists be provided in churches and Sunday School classes to present their alternative views of creation, given that most clerics I’ve seen tend to present the Bible as taught as “the way things happened, not open for interpretation.”

Belief in creationism or intelligent design is not kookie – it is however a matter of faith that should be taught and discussed in the home or the church and not the school.

It’s really a tough call, as far as I am concerned the spiritual information that my children receive is up to their parents, and in my case that information contradicts the spiritual information that many would have taught in the schools.

Christians are in the same boat as far as evolution is concerned so what are the options?

I know that I sure as hell fought against my kids being taught that somebody elses god(s) claim responsibility for a whole host of things.

Sure, send them to a religious school, or have it taught in a class where parents buy into that particular religious mythology – just make sure that there is also a classroom with a label on the door for mine.

I wonder what percentage of people also believed that the world was flat. Doesn’t mean that they were necessarily “kooks,” either. But just because lots of people believe something doesn’t make it worth teaching in our schools.

Also see polls over the past several years that have shown upwards of 75% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the attacks on 9/11. Should our history books be written to include this fact, since so many people believe it to be true?

Like every other poll the questions to ask are all concering those polled… How many individuals were polled? How widely geographically varied were they? etc… It’s interesting how we always love the results of polls when they back up what we believe or want to believe but when they don’t, only then do we look at the actual data surrounding the poll.

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 885 adults interviewed by telephone November 18-21, 2004. There were 795 registered voters. The error due to sampling could be plus or minus three percentage points for results based on all adults and all registered voters.
Via CBS News

Hmmm. 885 people are indicative of how the entire country feels?

Yes.

Any statistician will tell you that 1000 people is enough of a sample for the entire country to gauge opinion. Considering that not every adult in this country has children, 885 should be more than enough.

Bal: I’m not saying it should be taught as fact, but as I’ve said before, the “theory” of evolution is not taught as a theory. The problem is that the schools never want to introduce anything else into the curriculum because then it demonstrates their laziness in not identifying the theory of evolution as something that’s not a definite account of what has happened.

I don’t disagree that there is significant difference between a theory like evolution and a belief like creationism or even the theory of intelligent design (which I think is closer to what most likely happened anyway, they’ve just recently put a name to it), but it might go a long way to reinforcing the idea that evolution isn’t necessarily the exact way that it happened; case closed.

It’s not a matter of teaching science over religion. Follow this example:

Kid goes to school. Kid believes God made the sun. Teacher says to the kid that can’t happen because God doesn’t exist. Kid comes from a religious family, parents are upset, blah blah blah. This whole evolution thing comes off the same damn way. Teachers are basically telling their students that based on a theory, what the kid may believe is wrong.

There’s gotta be a balance. I don’t see where teaching something as an alternate theory or account is damaging. Most kids are taught various belief systems in Global Studies classes, including Zen, Tao, Islam, and so on. In some schools, the curriculae are tightly interwoven so that in English you may read Dante’s inferno, and then in Global Studies you’d be talking about Dante’s world and such.

Teaching that creationism is a theory that 65% of the country subscribes to does not turn the class into a bunch of God-fearing bible bangers, contrary to the best efforts of others to paint it them as such.

There may be some dispute in the scientific community as to why homosexual activity in the animal kingdom takes place but I think you’d be really hard pressed to find one that disputes that it does in fact happen.

I can see where Christians have issues with evolution, it does run counter to their beliefs, having said that there is a hair thin line between belief and superstition and if my kids are gonna learn any superstitions it’ll be me doing the teaching.

“Teaching that creationism is a theory that 65% of the country subscribes to does not turn the class into a bunch of God-fearing bible bangers, contrary to the best efforts of others to paint it them as such.”

The problem here is the word “Theory”. It has a scientific meaning, and a common sense English meaning.

Creationism is a “Theory” in the second sense. It wasn’t developed as a hypothesis to explain observable facts: it was developed to align selected evidence with the Bible. It doesn’t assert a hypothesis that is subject to testing, experimentation, prediction, or peer review. It requires that evidence conform to the theory, not the opposite. Put it this way: it is absolutely unacceptable that the basic premise of Creationism can be tested.

Darwinian evolution is a “Theory” in the first sense. Many of its basic tenets have been confirmed by findings unavailable to Darwin (principally relating the mechanism by which heridity functions, by Mendel, Watson, Crick and others.) It can be challenged, and other models can be proposed.

As a Christian and a wanna-be philosopher, I am often at odds with my religious peers. As regards the teaching of creation in school, I will say this: creation should be taught in churches and religious schools, but not in public schools. Why?

1. It is claimed that 65% of our nation favors teaching Creationism. I will append to this that we are speaking of Christian Creationism.

2. Around (this is a loose approximation!) 75% of Americans call themselves Christian (and/or Catholic).

3. Thus a strong majority of Americans want their religious, mainstream belief of Christian Creationism taught in our public schools.

4. Unfortunately, thanks in no small part to (1) parents who create kids and forget to raise them, and (2) MTV & Pop Culture (which wouldn’t exist in present form if not for (1)), there is a good chance that within a few decades, Christianity will not be the mainstream religion of America; two theories might replace it: Atheism and/or the New Age Feel-Good God Who Approves of Everything so Long as it’s Not Physically Hurting Other People (except unborn babies). i.e. Christianity might be reduced from being a majority to a plurality, or worse, a minority.

5. If we allow the prevailing religion of the day to dictate what is taught in our public schools, then conceivably some very anti-Christian theories might eventually become part of the government sanctioned public school canon as our faith in Christ is lost.

6. Thus it is prudent of the current majority religion (us Christians) to set the trend of maintaining a separation between our personal (though perhaps popular) religious beliefs, and the theories taught in our public schools.

7. Therefore Creationism should not be taught in school, except in religious studies courses.

Finally, I feel two short points strengthen my position:

1. Religion is such a deep experience that it cannot be taught in the decidedly impersonal public schools of our nation – very, very few people will pick up the core of Christian faith from a public school class; our youth can now barely pick up algebra and geography:wink::mrgreen:

2. If we look at places like Iran (the extreme case of melding Church and State), we see the power of religion, as it relates to the individual, to be lessened, not strengthened by the close ties of government and religion. When “everyone” is of one, government sanctioned, faith, personal piety suffers because the motives of the so-called righteous are called into question. Is any given individual expressing their religion out of love of God, or because to fail to do so is to endanger one’s self? Given this question as a constant, the result is a massive facade of religious belief which, in Christianity’s case, would degrade people’s love of Christ for it would be assumed, rather than groomed.

-Bob

“It’s taught as the way things happened, not open for interpretation.”

That is because it is supported by scientific evidence, whereas Creationism can provide zero scientific evidence. Creationism has only one thing in it’s favor; belief. Evolution is based on logic and fact. Creationism is based on faith in one ancient religious teaching. Should we also teach the possibility that the earth rests on a turtle’s back? I’m in favor of teaching about christianity from a historical standpoint and draw the line there.
Teaching children about something based entirely on faith is just wrong, IMO.