Forums → WEPR → Is it OK to teach evolution in public schools?
| 364 | 121354 |
Many parents argue about schools teaching evolution. Creationalists do not support or believe in the theory of evolution. It goes against their beliefs. They do not believe it should be taught because it apposes many peoples' beliefs. Do you think that it should be taught?
Notes:
Lets try not point out certain religions. I am saying creationalists for a reason.
- 364 Replies
No, it's not. Religion by nature tells people what to believe. That does not encourage open-mindedness or critical thinking.This quote really encapsulates a recurring theme of this thread. On one side, there are people who say stuff like "Well I don't think evolution is real" like it's some subjective issue you get to have an opinion on. Evolution is a fact. Not believing in it is like not believing in electromagnetism. It's really not up for debate AT ALL.
While it's technically true that it is a scientific theory and acknowledges the possibility of it being incorrect, that's a sort of poisonous idea. People act like that's a meaningful possibility of it being incorrect. There isn't. It's a fact. If that damages your worldview, that's on you, not educators.
On the other hand of the debate, though, we have people with no meaningful understanding whatsoever of religion attempting to belittle it conceptually. You know, people who are like "I don't know man, you say religion has value, but the AmazingAtheist told me it was always horrible and I value critical thinking so I'm going with that."
Look, if you think religion is a horrible, unproductive, archaic and meaningless way of thinking, it means you don't understand it. If your critical thinking leads you to think that religion, as a holistic concept, is bad, it's because you have done a poor job of thinking critically. The rejection of religion seen on AG is not an intellectual movement, it's a bunch of young minds clouded by ignorance and delusion.
The level on which these critiques of religion are operating on are really quite quaint. I don't know how else to put it. If you have no understanding of religion, you have no platform from which to meaningfully criticize it.
To all you diehard creationists, you're wrong. Your views don't hold up under the hard light of facts. Evolution is real.
To you diehard atheists, I have no facts or empirical truths that should be brought against you. So long as you continue to worship a twisted and base view of rationality, you are your own worst enemy.
I can't quite tell if you're meaning to imply that my statement was saying that religion is a, "horrible, unproductive, archaic and meaningless way of thinking" but I'll cover my bases just in case...
I never said that religion has no use or merit. I also didn't say that one can't critically think or be open-minded if they are religious. I simply said that by nature of religion, you are told what to believe and are meant to accept that as truth which does no encourage those qualities.
I also doubt that many of those who you're referencing as "diehard atheists" think this way too. We're not having a discussion about the merits of religion, we're talking about evolution and how religion is basically the only reason people don't accept it.
I'm sorry, to clarify on my post:
In my class in religion a few years ago, a student asked how both the creation stories and scientific theories could be true. (Once again, a long time ago) The teacher responded "Many of the Bible stories, which were once believed to be 100% true, that contradict modern science are mainly symbolic for religious virtues and laws. One should not believe the Bible is 100% accurate in history, science, etc., but should be referred to so one can know what would be a more faithful decision (etc. steal or earn it yourself), as well as general laws for leading a good and happier life."
I simply said that by nature of religion, you are told what to believe and are meant to accept that as truth which does no encourage those qualities.
And yet this statement betrays your ignorance of religion.
Religion, at it's most fundamental level, is about the philosophical hows of life. How do we live a good life? A just life? And, most importantly, Why?. Essentially, religion is subjective, and as such is open to interpretation.
Science, on the other hand, is about the facts of life. Why does heat rise? What is the chemical composition of salt? These questions and their answers are objective (in theory, although the further experimentation might reveal a different answer, but that's not the point). They are also not about that big philosophical Why? because the subsequent philosophical Because is neither objective nor provable.
My point here is that religion and science are, for the most part, not comparable.
By equating religious ideology and mythology to a scientific Theory, you make the false assumption that religious texts are to be accepted as cold, hard fact. But that's not how it works.
Generally, the men and women who question the teachings of their religion and devote themselves to the interpretation of the texts are held In the highest esteem (On a side note, the study and interpretation generally lead to increased critical thinking abilities. Closed-mindedness, on the other hand, in neither unique to religion or any other personal ideals, and cannot be attributed to it). There are many, many interpretations of the same texts simply because religion is not fact, but simply a lesson to be taken subjectively, if you so choose.
Theoretically...
For these reasons, Creationism, on the whole, is rather silly. Creationism attempts to apply the rules of an objective method of thought to a subjective method of thought, which leads to an incoherent and unbelievable ideology. However, Creationism =\\= religion, and is no reason to stop the teaching of evolution. On the flip side, I believe the study of the philosophy of religion (all religions), is important and shouldn't be excluded from our education.
The problem, of course, is dogmatism. But dogmatism, like closed-mindedness, is not unique to religion, and can be found regardless of personal beliefs or practices.
And yet this statement betrays your ignorance of religion.
Religion, at it's most fundamental level, is about the philosophical hows of life. How do we live a good life? A just life? And, most importantly, Why?. Essentially, religion is subjective, and as such is open to interpretation.
That's part of it, but not the whole. Take a look at the definition of religion.
"the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
Merriam Webster
The holding of specific beliefs is integral for something to be defined as a religion. Without that, it would just be a moral code with no reason to follow it. As religion makes claims and asserts that they are the full and only truth (usually) that makes what I said earlier, "I simply said that by nature of religion, you are told what to believe and are meant to accept that as truth which does no encourage those qualities." a true statement.
They are also not about that big philosophical Why? because the subsequent philosophical Because is neither objective nor provable.
You make it sound like there is a why to begin with.
My point here is that religion and science are, for the most part, not comparable.
But religious belief still conflicts with scientific findings in many, many instances.
Closed-mindedness, on the other hand, in neither unique to religion or any other personal ideals, and cannot be attributed to it).
I agree that closed-mindedness is not attributable to religion, but it is often an attribute of it.
However, Creationism =\\\\= religion
In the same way that Finger =/= Hand. It's a part of the whole.
But dogmatism, like closed-mindedness, is not unique to religion, and can be found regardless of personal beliefs or practices.
Not unique to it, but common within it.
The problem here is that you're entire argument is based on a fallacy. Somehow, you make the jump from religion as the "holding of specific beliefs" to meaning "dogmatically accepting the text of "
I fail to see the connection. As I previously said, subjective interpretation of religious text is often encouraged and respected. Just because one accepts God doesn't necessarily mean they have to take the text literally. Again, your incorrectly applying scientific methodology to religion, by making the assumption that belief in God(s) equals belief in a religious text as fact. Belief in God(s) can just as easily mean belief religious text as God(s) teachings on morality, or allegories for the moral situations we are often faced with (or any number of other things).
But religious belief still conflicts with scientific findings in many, many instances.
Only if you assume that religious text is supposed to be a factual account of history. Like I said, belief doesn't necessarily mean that one accepts religious text as a completely factual account.
To use Creationism as an example, sure, one could claim that because the Torah says God created the Universe in 6 days, it must be true. But that's only if you take the text at face value. If you view the teachings of the Torah as teachings, then God's creation of the Universe is simply the setup to the stories and teachings that follow, just as the story of Adam and Eve isn't necessarily the origin of mankind, but a lesson on honesty, willpower and the value of knowledge.
Thus Creationism isn't always equivalent to religion. One can easily be religious without being a creationist.
I agree that closed-mindedness is not attributable to religion, but it is often an attribute of it.
As it is also an attribute of politics, academia, mass-movements and atheism.
You make it sound like there is a why to begin with.
That depends. Is there an objective, universal Why? that applies to all of us? I highly doubt it. But again, religion is subjective. As soon as an individual can ask Why?, it can exist for the individual (if they so choose), and they can search for an answer through whatever means they choose, religious or otherwise.
Just because it's not necessary doesn't mean it's not important.
I fail to see the connection.
The connection is the religion as an institution. I never said all religious people are like that, nor did Kasic. YOU are doing the generalization in our place. But it can't be denied that institutions like the church really don't encourage other mindset than their own, and this is understandable as they want to keep acolytes and spread.
Maybe under that light the whole thing with evolution we were debating isn't as dire as we first assumed. If people can accept facts and follow their own religious philosophy on the same time, great. Sadly there will always be people, and not a minor part, that think that just because one can philosophize about such topics that facts aren't facts anymore (I'm mostly thinking of esotheric people right now).
It's probably just the same feeling of the inquisitors who -so called- judged Galileo. They did not believe in what Galileo said. And, that's not about Christianity, it's all the same with all religions which claim they have a sacred book. It is, naturally, a dilemma; there is science which observes, tests and proves reality, and on the other hand there is a sacred book which claims the enlightment with divine reality, but which isn't as we have seen through centuries.
Anyway, asking to stop teaching evaluation due to religious reservations is not much different than judging Galileo.
@Fenrisle
I do apologize, I do feel I should respond to each of your points that were at least directed at me. But after the events of yesterday I'm just not up to par right now.
Science is prediction, observation, and result. Nothing is certain.
It's not an absolute, as mentioned earlier this is so it can be expanded and corrected allowing it to make predictions. We can however have degrees of certainty.
The invasive properties of HeLa cells, for instance, was disagreed on simply because people didn't like the idea of it; that didn't turn out well.
Then they weren't coming to that conclusion through any sort of scientific process, were they? Scientists can still be bias, they are still people, even when the system they are working with is set up to weed out bias the best it can.
Yes, it does; that doesn't make it directly and fundamentally relevant to the extent of gravity.
Just so you don't keep getting hung up on the gravity thing let's try a different example, let's say a heliocentric solar system. Which was also a subject of scorn by a religious mindset. Then use the same argument with that.
I am not Christian, so I am not going by by the Bible.
Okay, just for clarification purposes so I have a general idea of what I'm dealing with what religion are you going by?
I didn't say it was. Deism was an example.
Deism isn't an example though.
How can you prove this? Also, they were still human; many Christians today do not agree with some or a lot of the previous canonical text.
We can look back on history. Prior to the 19th century the only means by which we had to determine the historicity of the Bible was the Bible itself. As such believers of the Bible would often just accept what was in it as actual events.
In fact this is where Darwinian evolution came at odds with the church. Something we had seen in the past with claims of the Earth being round and the Earth revolving around the sun. This reconciling religion with a scientific fact usually only comes when that science becomes so wide spread that it can't be denied without cost.
[quote]How is it an issue? Are you saying that faith is something that doesn't belong in science? Science is by no means atheism or associated with it.
Many scientists have faith in science and in experimenting; in fact, most discoveries are mistakes.
Faith does and does not belong in science. At our most base principles, yes, there is faith that what occurred in a specific instance can be repeated under the same circumstances. Beyond that, faith is unnecessary.[/quote]
I would disagree. We don't take it on faith that what occurred in a specific instance can be repeated, we actually go out and try to repeat it so be sure. Also I think we might be mincing the definition of faith here. Are we talking about the trust sort of faith like "I have faith that when I sit in my chair it won't collapse." or are we talking about the sort of faith required of virtually all religions, to believe something without evidence, without proof? If we are talking about the latter, than no faith has no place and is in direct opposition to science.
Religion, at it's most fundamental level, is about the philosophical hows of life. How do we live a good life? A just life? And, most importantly, Why?. Essentially, religion is subjective, and as such is open to interpretation.
How many religions claim to be the one absolute truth? How many people even the most moderate of any given religion hold to some aspect of their religion not philosophically, but as a truth, a fact?
A philosophy can become a religion as we can see with Buddhism or Taoism for examples. However religion itself is not a philosophy, even if it contains philosophical aspects.
Religion being subjective and being treated as fact is I would say a fundamental problem, as it can lead to actual facts being treated as subjective. Something we have been seeing a hint of even on this thread.
Let's see if it all goes through...
Somehow, you make the jump from religion as the "holding of specific beliefs" to meaning "dogmatically accepting the text of "
Except, I'm not making that jump. What I'm saying is that religion, because of what it is, does not encourage critical thinking and questioning. It teaches you to accept what you are told, simply.
I'm not saying everyone who believes in a religion can't critically think or question, but not very often do people apply that to their belief and religion is one of the major sources of dogmatism.
The connection is the religion as an institution. I never said all religious people are like that, nor did Kasic. YOU are doing the generalization in our place. But it can't be denied that institutions like the church really don't encourage other mindset than their own, and this is understandable as they want to keep acolytes and spread.
Exactly. While some religions teach you to question things, they almost never mean to question what they are telling you. If you're a Christian, you're supposed to question the Islamic belief, because it is not your belief and your belief has been taught to you to be the truth in that area.
When religion says it likes to be question in order to grow, they aren't critical questions, they're pithy thoughts like, "It says in (verse) that (whatever) happened and it makes me feel this way. I have mixed feelings about this, what should I do?"
Plan#2, post in parts...
As I previously said, subjective interpretation of religious text is often encouraged and respected.
As long as you believe in the overall things, yes. It's not encouraged and respected when you directly question what the religion itself teaches, as anyone can see when an atheist gets into an argument about religion even if it's in a respectable manner. It pisses off or makes uncomfortable 90% (just an estimate, please don't hold me to this as I don't actually keep track...) of people I've ever argued with that their beliefs are being questioned.
Again, your incorrectly applying scientific methodology to religion, by making the assumption that belief in God(s) equals belief in a religious text as fact.
I never said that. What I did say is that belief/faith is an integral part of what religion is. I directly said earlier, and I quote, "Then it comes down to individual interpretation and following of said parts."
Only if you assume that religious text is supposed to be a factual account of history.
The more you believe is literal, the more conflict, yes. If you don't think anything is literal in the bible then there's no conflict because you can just metaphor away everything.
Thus Creationism isn't always equivalent to religion. One can easily be religious without being a creationist.
Yes, but Creationism is a part of a religion.
As it is also an attribute of politics, academia, mass-movements and atheism.
Yes, it is. What's found in religion can be found elsewhere, good and bad. That doesn't mean that it can't happen more in one than another. In my experience and research, people are far more likely to be dogmatic about their religion than any other given topic.
Please, don't assume I'm unaware or making random jumps in regards to religion. I was raised in a religious household. My entire family goes to church. My Aunt just graduated from seminary school and my Grandmother was a pastor. I've been looking into the subject for years and have thought about many parts of it. I've been in many arguments and discussions about the topic.
You can't -really- expect me to cover every part of everything at every point, because then my posts would be thousands of words long to try and convey a simple idea.
Let me say this straight out.
- I don't think that every religious person is dogmatic.
- I don't think that religion doesn't have merits to it (although said merits are entirely possible without religion)
- I don't think that it isn't possible for someone to be both religious and be well versed in scientific knowledge.
- I don't think religious belief and science are mutually exclusive.
- I don't think holding any sort of belief is wrong in of itself.
Maybe under that light the whole thing with evolution we were debating isn't as dire as we first assumed.
It's still dire under the light of that over 50% of America doesn't accept evolution because of own "religious philosophy" and that they think fact is something you can simply choose to believe or not.
We don't take it on faith that what occurred in a specific instance can be repeated, we actually go out and try to repeat it so be sure. Also I think we might be mincing the definition of faith here. Are we talking about the trust sort of faith like "I have faith that when I sit in my chair it won't collapse."
Tis what I meant.
How many religions claim to be the one absolute truth?
If they don't claim to be the one absolute truth, they claim to be the best way to get there or something similar...
Poor me,I need to belive that God created the Universe and that the Universe was created by The Big Bang.I think they should teach evolution in public schools.
I actually took a private class separate from school (Yes, I do these things) that taught evolution and the theory of evolution's effects on society. Now, for those of you who don't rightfully know me well, I am a Christian, so I was a bit hesitant upon taking the class. It was an extremely difficult class, although I received an entire year's worth of science life credit usable for a degree through most colleges. It was worth it.
Anyway, it's not about that. What I'm trying to say is that evolution is an extremely misunderstood concept, and it shouldn't be taught in order to change beliefs (or even influence them), but it should be taught simply because of its prominence in society. It's the same way, but backwards, with atheists; they should learn about religions simply because of their prominence, and more popular religions are so prominent that even the smallest little facts are somewhat of a necessitous piece of common background knowledge.
I'm also aware that most public schools are required to teach, to some extent, evolution in a life science class, like biology. I haven't taken biology in high school because I was exempt of the credit, but I have friends that took it two years ago and said the class focused largely on evolution. As a Christian, I say woo-hoo!
What I'm trying to say is that evolution is an extremely misunderstood concept,
It's often misunderstood because people hear crazy things about it in the media or people talking about it who have no idea what it is they're saying.
it shouldn't be taught in order to change beliefs (or even influence them),
I agree that it has no bearing on faith, as it is an observable fact.
it should be taught simply because of its prominence in society.
It's "rominent" because of it's importance to its field. That's why it should be taught.
they should learn about religions simply because of their prominence, and more popular religions are so prominent that even the smallest little facts are somewhat of a necessitous piece of common background knowledge.
Yes, everyone should be educated on what others believe. Not only does that reduce or eliminate misunderstandings, it makes logical reasoning easier due to being able to look at things from the other side. You can't converse if you're speaking a different language, and when something means one thing to another than yourself, you may as well not even speak.
t I have friends that took it two years ago and said the class focused largely on evolution
It does. That's because evolution is basically the foundation of biology and relates to every living thing.
It's often misunderstood because people hear crazy things about it in the media or people talking about it who have no idea what it is they're saying.
Yes.
I agree that it has no bearing on faith, as it is an observable fact.
Was referring to influence on religious faith.
It's "rominent" because of it's importance to its field. That's why it should be taught.
That and to clear up misunderstandings. You said it yourself.
Yes, everyone should be educated on what others believe. Not only does that reduce or eliminate misunderstandings, it makes logical reasoning easier due to being able to look at things from the other side. You can't converse if you're speaking a different language, and when something means one thing to another than yourself, you may as well not even speak.
Yes.
It does. That's because evolution is basically the foundation of biology and relates to every living thing.
If you look deep enough anyway. Biology can be taught without using evolution's principles, but it wouldn't be very practical.
This has got to be the weakest debate I've ever seen.
You must be logged in to post a reply!