Science and religion in American schools

http://www.alternet.org/belief/crea...nating-students-atheism-teaching-them-science

When you are afraid you start blaming other people for attacking your kids. It is funny how parents pretend to protect their children while in reality the only thing they protect is their religious worldview. If you protect parents' right to tell their kids what is right and what is wrong, why don't you support other people's right to indoctrinate schoolboys and schoolgirls the way they want? The fact that you believe in God - in your own personal way - doesn't mean American schools should embrace your worldview and pass it on to kids.

 

Sorry...what???

Are you in favor of...or opposed to....schools teaching religious morality to children?

 

Same goes for schools presenting theories of our existence. Neither are provable so evolution has no place in classrooms, anymore than creation. The truth is we do not know how we got here.

 

1) Teaching religious morality is not the same as ideologically indoctrinating children with Christian values. Those are two different things.
2) Parents are responsible for moral education of their kids. School is supposed to provide children with knowledge. Religion has nothing to do with scientific knowledge as we know it.

 

At least there are enough proofs our planet is older than most radical Christians believe.
When there is no consensus all popular theories should be mentioned, I believe.

 

There are mounds of empirical objective evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. Creationism has only a 5,000 year old book of Mythology that directly contradicts even basic observations about reality.

 

Actually, evolution is a demonstrable fact.

Those who oppose facts are:
1. Lieing
2. Do not understand facts

 

Well, evolution doesn't try to prove origins. Only changes to species.

 

First off, I do believe that evolution is the best explanation for how life exists today on earth. Second, I taught high school science for 5 years, middle school science for 3 years, I have a B.S. in Biology (not just an education major), and a M.A. in Biology, as well as an M.A. in Secondary Education, Biology.

I basically think that evolution (as a distinct topic, rather than as part of an explanation of other topics) is unnecessary in high school biology classes. There is so much in the high school biology curriculum that it is impossible to teach everything necessary anyway. There is no need for knowledge of evolution to become a doctor, a nurse, or almost any other non-academic job that involves biology. We are wasting a lot of time arguing an issue that is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of what a typical non-biologist needs to know about the origins of life.

 

No, there isn't. Just because theorist say it is older does not provide proof. Carbon dating is not sound science.
If you intend to present theories, all should be presented equally or not at all.

 

There is no link between man and primates. Mans origin is still theories.

 

BS, we have only written history and non-conclusive theories concerning aging. You have zero proof of mans origin or just how old earth is.

 

Only if you ignore the entire fields of genetics and paleontology.

- - - Updated - - -

So you deny the laws of physics?

 

Of course carbon dating is sound science, provided you use it according to it's limitations. Carbon dating matches dendrochronology dates. (Tree ring dates). Carbon dating is not used to find an age for the earth. It's only good to around 50,000 years. I find creationists like you to be very ignorant of basic science, and then you make claims like carbon dating not being sound science based on the word of frauds like Kent Hovind.

Creationism isn't a theory. It's an idea. Scientific theories are based on an explanation of evidence. Creationism is based on shoeholing evidence into reflecting what is in the Bible. IMHO, creationism is a heresy--it makes claims about the Bible that are not true, but that's a different argument.

 

In science, a theory is a hypothesis that fits the current evidence. It is not just a random idea--it is based on examining the current evidence. Creationism is not even up to the standards of theory.

- - - Updated - - -

Multiple methods of dating (and this isn't the place to go into them all) all place the age of the earth at over 4 billion years. These methods involve different evidence, but they all converge around 4.5 billion years. This isn't a coincidence, this is truth.

 

Uh, what?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07

 

Yet, multiple methods of dating the earth, from astronomy and geology, all come out with about the same age 4.5 billion years (give or take a few million).

 

You cannot factually claim carbon dating is accurate to 50k years. Regardless of what you think of creationist, you have no proof off mans origin or how old earth is.

 

Except that carbon dating matches other forms of dating like tree rings and ice core layers.

 

Comparative religion should be taught in schools since kids will not be living their lives free from them. In order to instill in children critical thinking skills, they have to be exposed to other mindsets. Why are you opposed to children learning to be critical thinkers?

 

I find it amusing that so many want to decry evolution as "only a theory", but then forget the various theories that surround them. No one tests the Atomic Theory by walking unprotected into a nuclear dump site, not one calls into question Germ Theory by intentionally ingesting active B. anthracis, no one taunts Gravitational Theory by walking unassisted off of a cliff, and no jams a metal fork into a light socket saying "it's just a theory!"

 

No, but I can claim that it's accurate everytime that it has been matched with known aged things, under it's limitations (can't use it to date things younger than 1945, can't use it accurately for certain types of seashells). There is no evidence that it wouldn't be accurate for that time. The only thing that could make it inaccurate would be nuclear testing in the atmosphere and if for some strange reason the half-life of C-14 changed. Neither of those are reasonable assumptions.

I do know, though, that mankind is older than the 6,000 years claimed by Bishop Ussher. We have enough evidence of that through things dated by tree rings. (unless of course you buy the unbiblical theory that the earth was created looking old).

 

You're confusing creation with evolution. Evolution doesn't explain creation. There are scientific theorys of creation but as far as any scientist knows a miracle is as good a guess as any of their theories.

 

Evolution doesn't tell us how we got here. That would be abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is solid. It's probably the most well supported scientific theory we have. Proof is for mathematics and alcohol, not science.

 

There are no scientific theories of creation. A guess is not a scientific theory. Scientific theories develop from well-tested hypotheses.