-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Teaching evolution to young Christian skeptics
- Thread starter Stoney Mason
- Start date
- Status
Jack Random
Member
MrHicks said:
I believe the current RCC denounces literal biblical interpretation.
Stoney Mason
Banned
MrHicks said:
That stuff is only an issue if you believe in a literal interpretation of most of these holy texts (Which a lot of people say they do to be honest)
It's funny. Even as a kid before I was an atheist I never thought those stories were intended to be taken literally.
This teacher, David Campbell, is an amazing guy. He's doing an extremely hard job but he is doing it with tact, diplomacy and he is able to *communicate* his ideas. This is the kind of thing you need, not yelling at people and implying they are idiots, morons, or irrational god lovers like the Richard Dawkins and PhlegmMasters of the world. The Carl Sagan approach wins.
Crazy thing is that this highly intelligent, highly competent, and committed man of science would be derided and mocked by the Dawkins and the PhlegmMasters and condescended to by the speculawyers because of this one line:
RELIGIONLOL.
Crazy thing is that this highly intelligent, highly competent, and committed man of science would be derided and mocked by the Dawkins and the PhlegmMasters and condescended to by the speculawyers because of this one line:
RELIGIONLOL.
Jack Random
Member
Fjord said:
Have her read that article, then get another girlfriend.
Anerythristic
Member
Listen, I go to mass every Sunday and I love it. I love my faith.
I don't think that it is really appropriate for scripture to be taught in a science class that is filled with people of different beliefs and sensabilities. I firmly believe that if an individual wants to learn more about his/her faith that there are plenty of classes available nationwide for a person to delve into the Bible and it's teachings without it being pushed on people that are not ready or willing to accept Christ/Christianity.
I don't think that it is really appropriate for scripture to be taught in a science class that is filled with people of different beliefs and sensabilities. I firmly believe that if an individual wants to learn more about his/her faith that there are plenty of classes available nationwide for a person to delve into the Bible and it's teachings without it being pushed on people that are not ready or willing to accept Christ/Christianity.
deepbrown said:
Well I agree in part. The teacher quoted in the article above seems to have a good way of going about it, and accepts it's a theory that he wants the kids to understand, but not necessarily believe in. This guy's got the common sense to see a theory as a theory, and not a fool proof scientific fact as most people seem to see it. Even Charles Darwin stated that his theory was not infallible (not that I'm saying that it is or isn't, that's not what I'm arguing here).
On the other hand, I had a evolutionary biology (yes I took it of my own free will) professor in University that did everything in his power to ridicule people's religious beliefs. One of the questions on the test, I joke you not, was to give two examples of evolution that demonstrated that God did not exist. There's an example of evolution being used as a weapon against religion, and I promise you it won't be the first and last time it happens.
TheGrayGhost
Banned
THE BIBLE IS NOT A HISTORICAL TEXT. I don't understand why my fellow Christians understand this.
milanbaros
Member?
TheExodu5 said:
Nope, they are both facts. The proof behind both is a strong as each other.
Well modern Christains like to pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible, failing to see that doing so is incompatible with being Christain - since they then say that their morality comes from the bible, yet they still pick and choose their morals. Ie. Find a Christain who thinks women should be stoned to death for committing adultery, but men should only have a formal warning. None, but they're happy to say that Homosexuals are "sinners".MrHicks said:
Christianity is the pick and choose religion.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
But science is fact. Children should be excused from this class by parents/schools. The teachers should not be told to teach garbage. If you are going to go to science class, you will never guess what they are going to teach.TheExodu5 said:
I'm all for the religious ones being allowed to ignore science and evidence. Take them out of the class.
Because they are told this. Repeatedly. It's how mental conditioning works. repetition repetition repetition.
To me this is absolutely the key. It's a shame that "Bryce" was ultimately unable to separate his personal beliefs with scientific reality but people need to understand that even if they have strong and sincerely held religious beliefs if those beliefs are contradicted by science they shouldn't necessarily throw out their beliefs or ignore what science has established, instead it's more productive to realize that you believe what you believe but science is science. Two separate realms entirely.
Zoe said:
Agnostics obviously are on both sides of the fence, or more likely than not, just don't care.
The reason evolution is an atheistic theory is that belief in any creationist religion (be it sprouted from Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, etc...) more often than not requires belief in intelligent design. Intelligent design is pretty darn opposing to evolution, if you ask me.
Xdrive05
Member
TheExodu5 is a prime example of the consequences of poor science education. I mean, to not even know what the word "theory" means in the context of science is a blood-red flag if there ever was one. Not to mention a total "head-in-the-sand" approach to accepting the authority of science and evidence-based veracity.
Stoney Mason
Banned
TheExodu5 said:
That's why it's science class and not religious studies class or christian studies class. Science has a specific definition and standards. It would be like introducing God into a math class or a history class. He doesn't belong in either.
Sigh, oh well this will be the last century to live in ignorant crutch hood, science will evolve immensely, one can only hope the human race will finally evolve as well. You can kinda see a start to this, at least with actual church attendance. The days of pointing fingers at say gays, Harry Potter, when your own book has just as much proof of fiction or conspiracy devil planting dinosaur theorists should give way to more folks applying logic and rationale thought to their lives. At least one can only hope.
shuri said:
If you'd have read the article, you'd have noted a fairly salient point - it doesn't matter if you believe in scientific theory or not. Science doesn't require belief, just an understanding of the best model available to explain a given phenomenon.
That's perhaps the best way to broach the subject with people who have strong religious beliefs, actually.
Well, I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that evolution is the correct theory - because they should be teaching children how to reason. The difference between Creationism is that there is no reasoning - it's just a belief.. Creationists then go on to look for "gaps" in the theory to somehow prove evolution is wrong.TheExodu5 said:
And the theory of evolution has changed over time, it's not static. But the evidence is so resounding (real evidence - this isn't string theory, where it's just mathematics and scientific reasoning - we have concrete evidence. ) Children should be taught to live in the real world, and not an imaginary world, to take evidence and weigh it up. This is what the teacher should be doing - giving them the theory AND the evidence, and letting them weigh up the positives and negatives - it's not the teachers fault that there are no positives for Creationism.
The talk of representing everyone's belief equally misses the point. Education in this country (for the most part) is career training, particularly math and science education. Students take physics courses and learn about Newton's laws of motion, Kepler's laws of planetary motion, Boyle's Law, the laws of thermodynamics, flow rate calculations, elementary electrical theory (hey, what's that funny word doing there?), friction, and so on and so forth... not because it's promoting society's common beliefs but because that's what employers or university departments expect students to know. They need to apply that knowledge in real life, in the workplace. There are people who still don't believe in the conservation of momentum (quacks with perpetual motion machines) but we don't give them equal time in physics classes: not because they're wrong but because they're not useful to someone trying to get into an engineering program at Local U.
And so, in biology, we can't afford to give equal time to every alternate idea. Students already barely have enough time to learn rudimentary science in high school. If these kids intend to pursue degrees in the biological fields, including medicine, ecological studies and the emerging genetics fields, they need a strong working knowledge of elements of evolutionary theory. The theory meets practice in the real world in those vocations and you are unfairly hamstringing these students by wasting time on subjects that will not advance their careers.
Now, if you think the nation should be concentrating on training students to be pastors or missionaries in lieu of scientists, doctors, nurses, or lab technicians you could argue toward providing courses that teach all the various beliefs our society has about the origins of life and diversity... But it wouldn't be a science class still. Be honest, make it a "History of Cosmology" course or something.
And so, in biology, we can't afford to give equal time to every alternate idea. Students already barely have enough time to learn rudimentary science in high school. If these kids intend to pursue degrees in the biological fields, including medicine, ecological studies and the emerging genetics fields, they need a strong working knowledge of elements of evolutionary theory. The theory meets practice in the real world in those vocations and you are unfairly hamstringing these students by wasting time on subjects that will not advance their careers.
Now, if you think the nation should be concentrating on training students to be pastors or missionaries in lieu of scientists, doctors, nurses, or lab technicians you could argue toward providing courses that teach all the various beliefs our society has about the origins of life and diversity... But it wouldn't be a science class still. Be honest, make it a "History of Cosmology" course or something.
Jack Random said:
Nope. Catholics and pentecostals at least are tought that the Bible is supposed to be interpreted literally. The ones who teach not to interpret it literally are likely more open to evolution, and allow it to co-exist with their religion.
So yeah, sorry, I suppose evolution can co-exist with religion under certain conditions.
Count Dookkake
Member
iapetus said:Although as everyone should know right now there is room for God in physics.
And leprechauns.
Would math class teach "2+2=5" if the bible said so?
The teacher obviously has good intentions in fighting to teach evolution by natural selection honestly. However, He makes a big mistake in ceding questions of morality to religion. It is very well possible that morality could be explained by science, and more importantly, RELIGION HAS NO AUTHORITY ON MORALITY.
A theologian is no more an authority on morality than he is on open-heart surgery.
I cringed when I read "can't test/prove God, therefore it's not a question for science". It's not a question at all. If there was any evidence for God, it would immediately become a question for science. In absence of evidence, the existence of God is an irrelevant question.
The teacher obviously has good intentions in fighting to teach evolution by natural selection honestly. However, He makes a big mistake in ceding questions of morality to religion. It is very well possible that morality could be explained by science, and more importantly, RELIGION HAS NO AUTHORITY ON MORALITY.
A theologian is no more an authority on morality than he is on open-heart surgery.
I cringed when I read "can't test/prove God, therefore it's not a question for science". It's not a question at all. If there was any evidence for God, it would immediately become a question for science. In absence of evidence, the existence of God is an irrelevant question.
TheExodu5 said:
I'm going to say this very carefully because I'm sure it'll be misunderstood by some people, but evolution does not comment on creation as it were. Creationism is essentially a belief on the origins of man. You're confusing abiogenesis (the scientific theories relating to the origins of life) and evolution (the scientific theory that discusses how life has changed overtime). It's possible (not scientific but possible) to accept evolution but believe that God was the mechanism through which life formed and gave life the power to evolve and change (I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS INTERPRETATION, I'M JUST USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE FOR HIM). In that sense it would be entirely possible to accept evolution but also believe in a God that created life. Evolutionary theory is silent on how life is formed, abiogenesis is not.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
Stoney Mason said:
It's completely embarrassing that a lot of Americas politicians and Parents don't seem to understand this. It's utterly absurd to teach intelligent design in a science class, because it's completely impossible to even get any evidence for it whatsoever, because there isn't any.
A much better tack for christians to take in the face of overwhelming and forever mounting evidence would be to very slowly change the story and say that evolution is a process, that was designed intelligently. That way, most people can still learn about the natural order of things and when they go to church on sunday, the pastor can just say 'yes isn't evolution wonderful, a wizard did it'
Xdrive05
Member
TheExodu5 said:
That doesn't even follow.
Not to mention "Intelligent Design" is not science, has no mechanism for the designer to act, has no evidential support, has failed every test of peer-review in science, has even failed in court; the one domain where a non-science may have a shot of getting a win, etc.
Watch THIS VIDEO to learn why you're wrong both on the point of "intelligent design" and on the point of how evolution is an Atheistic belief. That's an actual cell biologist and devout Catholic, and he makes enough relevant points to convince even the most willingly sheltered science critic.
Seriously, just watch it. Take the time. If you're so convinced by your faith in ID then you have nothing to worry about anyway.
This. They don't have the believe it, they have to understand it. Science never says its theory is 100% infallible - that's why they are always looking for more evidence to either add to the theory, or to question the theory. This is how Science differs from religion. The religioun claims its belief as true and tries in no way to prove that it is right. The lazy believer.JayDubya said:
Stoney Mason
Banned
Zoe said:
Sure from the perspective of this is what people believed at that time and how it shaped them ala Greek Gods, or Native American religious beliefs, or whatever.
The distinction is of course between saying this is what those people believed versus this is true or not or there is evidence for this or not.
I know you get that but I'm just clarifying because there seems to be a lot of purposeful ignorance going on in this thread.
TheExodu5 said:
How the hell do you work that one out? Speaking as someone who describes themselves as a fundamentalist agnostic, I'm very much into evolution over creationism. Belief in creationism and agnosticism don't go well together at all (for the simple reason that most rational agnostics are also weak atheists...)
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
TheExodu5 said:
um. believing in evolution doesnt make you an atheist.
Why do people think I'm opposed to evolution? I'm just opposed to the way it's generally taught to the public. I guess I should have started out with the fact that I believe in evolution. :lol
Though, even if I believe in evolution, my agnosticism tells me that there must have been something to start it all.
Though, even if I believe in evolution, my agnosticism tells me that there must have been something to start it all.
Count Dookkake
Member
iapetus said:
Rutherford must have encountered one.
Yes...lots of physicists still think it's reasonable to think that God started the "big bang." The only reason they give it a second thought is that they believe in the principle "something can't come from nothing" and so something had to cause the big bang...why not God? My response would have to be, isn't it a more complex idea to postulate a complex intelligent being to start creation, than just saying it came from nothing, or some other random event. And even...if something can't come from nothing, where the hell did God come from?iapetus said:Although as everyone should know right now there is room for God in physics.
- Status