Obama hostilie towards christians?

Originally posted by sh76
So, when teaching evolution, which does not exclude the possibility of deism or God existing, what would be so terrible about telling the children one theory exists that God created the Universe and caused evolution? Don't we present alternative interpretations of historical events in school curricula all the time?

But why does non-science HAVE to be taught in time allocated for teaching science?

tell me you're playing Devil's Advocate here. please.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Why? Because from Obamas statements i can figure out he does not like this country or christianity?

It's completely hollow criticism. Should organizations really get special treatment just because they are christian? Many christians are against discrimination and for secularism. If I make a party and call it christian, should I get some of your tax dollars too?

Originally posted by FMF
But why does non-science HAVE to be taught in time allopcated for teaching science?

Because no theory can give a truly comprehensive answer to the question of the beginning of time and origin of the Universe. So, why not present both possibilities when both are consistent with evolution when addressing a question that neither side can really answer?

Originally posted by sh76
Because no theory can give a truly comprehensive answer to the question of the beginning of time and origin of the Universe. So, why not present both possibilities that both are consistent with evolution when addressing a question that neither side can really answer.

Because time in schools is limited, so teaching nonsense will cost time which could be used for teaching science.

Do you want, for example, schools to teach children about alternative theories about the shape of the Earth (e.g. flat)?

Originally posted by sh76
Okay; well I was going to say a,c and d and not sure about b; but fine, let's say all of them.

So, when teaching evolution, which does not exclude the possibility of deism or God existing, what would be so terrible about telling the children one theory exists that God created the Universe and caused evolution? Don't we present alternative interpretations of historical events in school curricula all the time?

You teach science in science class. If you have an alternate scientific explanation (like Lamarckism), then it could be mentioned. God is not science and has no more place in a science class than does the tooth fairy.

Originally posted by sh76
Because no theory can give a truly comprehensive answer to the question of the beginning of time and origin of the Universe. So, why not present both possibilities when both are consistent with evolution when addressing a question that neither side can really answer?

Because creationism is all about interpersonal manipulation by making people subscribe to absurdities and the power that this gives people over each other. Portraying it as "scientific" dissent is legitimizing the kind of cultism that is actually being promoted. For a school to be flirting with this kind wretched nonsense is utterly unacceptable.

Originally posted by sh76
Because no theory can give a truly comprehensive answer to the question of the beginning of time and origin of the Universe. So, why not present both possibilities when both are consistent with evolution when addressing a question that neither side can really answer?

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of time and the origin of the universe.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Because time in schools is limited, so teaching nonsense will cost time which could be used for teaching science.

Do you want, for example, schools to teach children about alternative theories about the shape of the Earth (e.g. flat)?

First of all, time in schools is not so limited. Taking 3 minutes out to discuss one alternative theory that most of the World still believes in is really not going to hamper the students' learning.

If most of the people on Earth believed the World is flat, including most of the parents of these same children, then the schools would teach it.

Originally posted by sh76
First of all, time in schools is not so limited. Taking 3 minutes out to discuss one alternative theory that most of the World still believes in is really not going to hamper the students' learning.

If most of the people on Earth believed the World is flat, including most of the parents of these same children, then the schools would teach it.

A lot of people believe in astrology. Should astrology be taught at schools? How about homeopathy or acupuncture as an alternative to medicine?

Originally posted by sh76
First of all, time in schools is not so limited. Taking 3 minutes out to discuss one alternative theory that most of the World still believes in is really not going to hamper the students' learning.

If most of the people on Earth believed the World is flat, including most of the parents of these same children, then the schools would teach it.

What about kids who speak in tongues? Should they be allowed to answer questions in class, and complete test papers, in tongues?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
A lot of people believe in astrology. Should astrology be taught at schools? How about homeopathy or acupuncture as an alternative to medicine?

It's not a fair comparison to compare belief in God, which most people in the World have, to marginal ideas such as homeopathy and astrology.

There's an enormous difference between "many" and "most."

Acupuncture is taught in colleges in many cases, of course. In high schools, they don't really teach medicine.

In any case, I don't see anything wrong with teaching students that those things exist.

Originally posted by sh76
It's not a fair comparison to compare belief in God, which most people in the World have, to marginal ideas such as homeopathy and astrology.

There's an enormous difference between "many" and "most."

Acupuncture is taught in colleges in many cases, of course. In high schools, they don't really teach medicine.

In any case, I don't see anything wrong with teaching students that those things exist.

I don't see any problem with that either, as long as it's simply stating that it exists and it's not science.

Originally posted by sh76
It's not a fair comparison to compare belief in God, which most people in the World have, to marginal ideas such as homeopathy and astrology.

There's an enormous difference between "many" and "most."

Acupuncture is taught in colleges in many cases, of course. In high schools, they don't really teach medicine.

In any case, I don't see anything wrong with teaching students that those things exist.

You said "public schools are practically required by law to teach atheism to children". Tell us more.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't see any problem with that either, as long as it's simply stating that it exists and it's not science.

I think in the case of creationism, if it is covered for these mysterious "3 minutes" that sh76 mentioned, the psychological role of the denial of science in cultism and the manipulation of people and groups should get "10 minutes". There are more valuable lessons about life in the latter.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't see any problem with that either, as long as it's simply stating that it exists and it's not science.

So, do you have a problem if I, as biology teacher, get up on front of my 10th grade biology class, and say:

"Okay, ladies and gentlemen, today we're going to learn about evolution and the origin of life. We're going to focus on what the investigations conducted on the basis of the scientific method that humans have developed has indicated. We will learn about the evolutionary principles that have stood up to scrutiny and investigation over the last 150 years. The exact origin of the raw materials which were used in the process of evolution is unclear. Many people believe that God or some other form of deity created these raw materials. Others believe that such a deity doesn't exist. Those are questions that science cannot answer with certainty at this time. Either way, we will be focusing on what can be verified by scientific investigation."

?