

  (Source: BBC)




So why all the fuss? 






Sources: BBC, NPR

Comments     Threshold


RE: Woohoo
By lagomorpha on 12/13/2011 1:34:16 PM , Rating: 0
The States truly need the Federal Government out of their hair as it has done little that is positive to help them.

Don't expect the state governments to be any more intelligent. Texas has been trying for years to put creationism in biology textbooks.

RE: Woohoo
By MrBlastman on 12/13/2011 2:00:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and that is very sad, indeed. I've always thought religion should be addressed in schools, but through a philosophy class or world history classes. It can only help broaden a student's perspective on the world. Including it in Biology, though, is ridiculous as it has nothing to do with science.

RE: Woohoo
By lagomorpha on 12/13/2011 2:28:09 PM , Rating: 1

The trouble with religious people is that they actually believe their beliefs correspond with reality and that revelation supersedes reason. From their perspective, the Bible/Quran is science.

RE: Woohoo
By lamerz4391 on 12/13/2011 3:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
Holy crap. Nice generalizations, tool. That post is just FULL of ignorance if you think that all "religious people" think exactly alike.

Grow the hell up and realize that there are different shades of what people choose to believe. Until then, you just look like an idiot.

RE: Woohoo
By KaTaR on 12/13/2011 4:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
Yes there are different shades. There are 2.1bn people who think the Chrisitan god exists. There are 1.5bn who think the 2.1bn are completely wrong and are going to hell for being Christian. There are another 1.5bn people who think the 2.1bn and 1.5bn are wrong and that people get reincarnated. You get the picture.

Although the thinking and belifs are different there are several common traits that bind them together. First, they cannot offer any meaningful evidence that support their core assertions (heaven, hell, god, reincarnation). Second, they have fought, killed, and died by the thousands in the name of their beliefs.

RE: Woohoo
By FITCamaro on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Woohoo
By lagomorpha on 12/13/2011 2:25:07 PM , Rating: 2
Either way, how biology works is still the same.

Explain antibiotic resistance in bacteria in terms of creationism. Teaching it in some sort of philosophy class is one thing, teaching it as actual biology is another.

RE: Woohoo
By KaTaR on 12/13/2011 2:56:46 PM , Rating: 2
Did you spend as much time learning about the Islam version of Creation? How about the Buddhist version? How about Lord of the Rings? If you are going to choose to teach one fairy tale over another, then what is the criteria for selection? With science it's pretty straight forward, it's the amount of evidence or proof. I still dont know what the rational criteria for teaching any religion or fairy tale at school on a regular basis is. Probably because there is none. In some places they teach kids that if you kill Americans you go to heaven. Are you sure there is no danger?

RE: Woohoo
By lamerz4391 on 12/13/2011 3:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ah the old "fairy tale" dismissal. A true sign of brilliance. I don't believe that science should be replaced in school, but damn if I don't laugh every time I see that tactic.

RE: Woohoo
By KaTaR on 12/13/2011 4:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
I dont think anybody suggested that science should be replaced in school. This is about whether it's ok to teach religion along side science even if it has about as much substance as a fairy tale. My point was that under the guise of religion, kids in the some parts of the middle east are being taught it's good to kill Americans. The going to heaven and getting 47 virgin thing has no more or less substance than a old guy with white hair in the sky or dude with horns underground. If you think this is so funny why dont you offer some evidence, any evidence, that any religion is more than a fairy tale?

RE: Woohoo
By SlyNine on 12/15/2011 12:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
I call straw man. He had more points there then calling it a "fairy tale", but You chose to misrepresent his argument and only attack his weakest link.

Let me ask you something, give me a SHRED of evidence that ANY religion is true that DOESN'T involve circular logic.

RE: Woohoo
By FITCamaro on 12/13/2011 11:12:59 PM , Rating: 1
Well when believers in the One Ring form a nation, they can teach about it in schools all they want. In the meantime, America is a nation formed by men of the Christian faith who had absolutely no problem with it being taught in schools. I supposed BS classes like "diversity awareness" are far more educational to students....

Hell these days we have groups who want to get rid of higher math and science courses because they're "unfair" to minorities who tend to do poorly at them.

RE: Woohoo
By ClownPuncher on 12/14/2011 1:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
Public school teachers have the right to teach history of religion in history classes. My senior year we had speakers from several organized religions offering perspective and background on their religions. There was no proselytizing, a fair account of each was given.

The deistic majority of the Founders also wanted a separation of church and state - yet many schools in their time were offered by local churches, not usually the state government.

You also have the right to attend a private school of your chosen religion.

RE: Woohoo
By SlyNine on 12/15/2011 12:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
But what does any of that matter.

The argument is about whether religion should be taught like science, As a fact kind of thing.

How would you teach creationism, because the only way I can think of would be using a lot of circular logic (its true because I say it doesn't make sense any other way)

Religious people use just about every logical fallacy in the book to make their points. How are you going to teach it with out doing so?? Give me an example of evidence supporting creationism that doesn't involve faith or that stands up to the same demands that teaching a science would have to live up to.

RE: Woohoo
By fredgiblet on 12/13/2011 3:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
A. Religion doesn't belong in a science classroom.

B. The goal of the creationism movement is to REPLACE science with creationism. Getting creationism into the textbooks is just step 1.

C. The creationism that is being pushed into textbooks is usually factually incorrect or intentionally deceiving.

RE: Woohoo
By KaTaR on 12/13/2011 4:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
Creationism in itself is a fallacy.
You cant argue that everything was created by god but be unwilling to accept that god was created from something else.
That would be like scientists arguing that man evolved from monkeys, but the monkeys were always here, before the dinosaurs, before the universe, etc.

RE: Woohoo
By FITCamaro on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: Woohoo
By Paj on 12/14/2011 7:20:35 AM , Rating: 2
In what way does it seek to replace science? Creationism doesn't try to disprove the laws of physics, how cells convert food to energy, how the brain works, quantum physics, etc.

Literal creationism does all of these things.


How could a volume of water exist in the atmosphere sufficient to cover the entire surface of the earth to the depth of Mt Everest? Any animal with lungs would have died.

I agree that learning about religion is fascinating, but it should be taught as philosophy, not theology. Personally I am agnostic - I cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god, as a simply do not have the means to do so.

RE: Woohoo



Related Articles
