When science and religion collide who sets curriculum?

[Diogenes]

Have you forgotten the Gallup poll showing that 47% of americans DO believe in YEC?

A far more serious problem is that 52% of US Voters are suffering from the delusion that Barack Obama is something other than a complete fool.


Why are you talking about people's kooky beliefs which don't have serious consequences instead of their kooky beliefs that will likely result in real world catastrophe and death?


Jimmy Carter helped topple the Shah of Iran, and thereby is substantially responsible for setting the stage for the Iran/Iraq war. Million dead in that one. If Iran gets the bomb, then probably many million more people will die, if not billions.

Idiot Barack is doing his Neville Chamberlin impersonation with Iran, and you yahoos want to talk about people's silly theological beliefs?

You people really OUGHT to get your priorities straight.

[Stubby]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup

You want someone to blame for Iran/iraq? The roots go deeper than Jimmy C.

Imagine if the US actually fostered relationships within democracies instead of tyrants despised by the populace.

i guess it is easier to demand cheap oil from a dictator in exchange for some military toys.

[hanelyp]

A far more serious problem is that 52% of US Voters are suffering from the delusion that Barack Obama is something other than a complete fool.

Fool doesn't cover it. He's also an unrepentant liar and thief.

[Diogenes]

So where does the leave science education?

Two or more teachers in school, the parents and student pick which course best suits them and their beliefs.

There are good religious people and bad religious people. Plenty of room for science in religion, despite what the atheists cry--only place that that doesn't work is like with the fundamental Muslims, who believe that the Koran contains all knowledge and truth and thus nothing else can exist(there are nuts on the Christian side too, they're on slightly more perilous ground). Most of the greatest thinkers in history were religious, if not Christian.

Militant atheists are the stupidest people on the planet. They have this irrational belief that they can convert a society made up of humans to be non-religious. This is the same fallacy that the communists have about converting a society into being non-greedy, it is completely contrary to the nature of humans.


Evolution theory teaches us that superior organisms eventually push out competing inferior organisms.

A-Theism is so old it has a Greek Name, ( ἄθεος) yet where are Atheist Societal success stories? Why aren't these things flowering everywhere? Why do experimental attempts collapse?



A simple explanation is that at heart man is a primitive creature who wants to believe in mystical things, and you are fighting human nature to convince them otherwise.

For whatever reason, it appears to be an integral aspect of humans to want to believe in some higher power. Those who think they can make broad inroads on this instinct are trying to bail the Ocean with a teacup. Sure, you can convince a few here or there, but any significant numbers?

You're out of your mind. People wear charms, gaze at crystals, make averting gestures, practice all sorts of other tricks to ward away bad luck, and are in general very superstitious.

You might as well try getting people to give up sugar by telling them it's bad for them.



The REALLY funny thing about Militant Atheists is that if they manage to succeed at temporarily pushing back the ubiquity of Christian beliefs, they will then get hit with the Sledgehammer of Muslim religious beliefs. Among Islamists, Unbelief is hated worse than Christianity.

The Islam meme is a powerful "survival of the fittest creature", and it has been highly successful in expanding it's influence from the ground in which it was originally planted.

The Atheists are working to replace a sheep with a lion.

It Will be funny to watch.


Idiot Atheist depicted below.

[Schneibster]

The students won't be fit for a technical career if they don't learn reality. You'll be creating a permanent underclass, just like we have today.

Unless you're going into a field like paleontology, evolution is such a small aspect of technical biology it doesn't matter if you learn it or creationism. Vet techs and molecular biologists will still be able to do their jobs.

I wouldn't let my daughter marry one. And actually, the most important stuff going right now on in biology is stem cell research and you know the problem there. Furthermore you can't work in molecular biology if you don't believe in evolution. The DNA is what keeps track of the characteristics that evolve.

Ultimately, it can't be our choice if they want to be an underclass. Forcing beliefs is wrong, no matter what it is.

Yet we have no hesitation in confining and drugging other people who have psychotic delusions, hear imaginary voices, and claim they're telling them to kill gays. These people aren't benign; they're responsible for most of the wars that have ever happened in the history of the human race, and they always claim their imaginary sky friends told them to do it.

The most we can do is do our best to make sure they are aware of the other view, and if you hold to a model of public education no matter what, each class would touch on the others enough for the students to know of the other viewpoint and be able to ask reasonable, if probably uneducated, questions about the topic.

I really object to lying to children. I can't help but note that most right-thinking people do.

Finally, there's this: you want to spend my tax money to teach children Santa Claus lies in the school room like they're the truth? Sorry, no. Just no. Not a plugged nickel.

[Schneibster]

A far more serious problem is that 52% of US Voters are suffering from the delusion that Barack Obama is something other than a complete fool.

Fool doesn't cover it. He's also an unrepentant liar and thief.

This is just something you say to be insulting and shocking. What I really find shocking is that you're so much of a racist as to lie about the President of the United States.

[ladajo]

Methodology?

[GIThruster]

Actually you are were previously informed, and previously amazed...

Yes, that is an amazing finding. I can only offer my experience in the public school system as anecdotal evidence, but truly, there was no support for a young Earth model ever seen. There wasn't even permitted any critique of the proposed biogenesis. The students were never told about the racemic production of amino acids. They were told about polypeptide bonding and told that this could happen by accident and that therefore science says it does happen by accident.

I guess given the careful indoctrination toward evolution and the 47% disinclined, education is not the issue. Has anyone looked at what percentage of people have actually taken biology? It is after all college prep and some students don't bother.

In any event, the students can manage better access to the facts. If all the ID folks want is the students be made aware of things like the racemic production of amino acids and the mystery mechanism that atheists must propose to meet that need, there is no reason in the world to protect people from that information.

Contrary to what the troll would have you believe, the ID folk are not going to press for people to believe the world is 10,000 years old because THEY don't believe that either.

[Skipjack]

Science class is there to teach science. Religion is not science. Therefore it has no place in that class. If you want to teach religion then teach that in religion class or philosophy class. Also, we do NOT need another religion. We have plenty as it is and most of their followers dont even understand their original teachings anymore or where they came from and why they were created.
So no, we dont need any more religions. We need more science.

[GIThruster]

Agreed but you miss the point.

Again, just saying this was my experience in biology class, which is entirely anecdotal, but. . .we were not taught about the problems with the proposed biogenesis. We were not taught about stereoisotopes and racemic (mixed) production of amino acids. We were not taught that science has no idea how this mixture could have been separated out into left and right handed isomers. We were taught "science says this is what happened" and that was not true. I remember, because I tutored micro-bio and it wasn't until years later I learned much of what I had taught was bullshit.

Now if the system is designed such that kids don't learn about stereoisomers, racemic production and the missing polarization mechanism required for the atheist story to be true, then they ought to be taught that--whether the atheists like it or not.

[Schneibster]

Science class is there to teach science. Religion is not science. Therefore it has no place in that class. If you want to teach religion then teach that in religion class or philosophy class.

I agree.

Also, we do NOT need another religion. We have plenty as it is and most of their followers dont even understand their original teachings anymore or where they came from and why they were created.

I disagree. I think the fact that at least a plurality, and most would argue a majority, of humans have a religion, shows that most of them feel they need one.

I think the problem is that all the ones that are available are based on fairy tales. What we need is a real religion; that is, one that is not based on mystical Santa Claus-like stories by bored, drunk or insane sheep herders who have been out there alone so long they're talking to the sheep, and to their imaginary friends in the sky. It used to be that there were no mental doctors, you went to a priest or a minister or whatnot. There were some really good reasons that when Herbert wrote Destination: Void he made Raja lon Flattery a Chaplain/Psychiatrist. I thought it was an astute observation on Herbert's part that the two are related. I think ultimately it will turn out that they are inseparable.

Science gives us ethics; religion gives us morals. Adults use ethics, but children and animals- and we deal a lot with both- can only use morals. It takes an adult to use ethics. This is a place the scientists have eschewed, refusing to involve themselves. But we know enough now to make real ethics, to assign values and compare them, and choose the highest value. Scientists need to speak out on ethics. There need to be scientists who are recognized as authorities on ethics, as Einstein is. But we'll still need morals for children and animals. The childrens' need to be based, of course, on the adult ethics they will be expected to use when they grow up. And the animals, of course, will never "grow up," not in this manner. They are not competent to participate in human society. Also there are mental defectives of various sorts; they need rules too, and when they ask far enough, they need rules that are based on ethics so they can believe them like the rest of us when they question.

I think the philosophers have gone insane with their "deconstruction" and "post-post-modernism" and such like bilgewater. They're the ones who should be doing this inventing of scientific religion; instead they're busy contemplating their navels and pretending it's inherent to the universe that they should have them.

So no, we dont need any more religions. We need more science.

I don't think you have any idea what I mean when I refer to "religion." It won't look anything like any religion you've ever seen with the possible exception of Zen; of course I doubt you know anything of Zen, either. Absence of knowledge is not absence of evidence.

On edit: also, some people would contend Zen is not religion but philosophy. My response: "Mu." That's the answer that unasks the question.

Here's another way to look at it: humans are not merely intellect, they are also emotion. It is this which complicates matters. Religion helps us understand our emotions, and deal with them constructively. Science (intellect) must show the way; religion (emotion) does not deal with reality, but with symbology. Science must make the facts that the symbols are based on clear, so that if the symbology is wrong it can be corrected to fit reality. But religion must make the symbology; it must affect our emotions, as religious beliefs do. That's what they're for.

Emotions are the biases that are built in and that determine our reactions in exigent and fast-developing situations. Most martial arts seek first to allow the individual to gain control of their reactions, control them, and marshal them to their defense if needed. I believe a good religion will do this too. Just as an example of the kind of thing I'd expect a real religion to help its adherents with.

Here's another: being sick, and trying to give yourself every chance by not wasting your strength being unhappy. And another: helping someone whose friend or relative is sick know how they might feel, and why it's OK, and how to behave. These are things a chaplain or a psychologist should know. Do they? Does anyone go to a psychologist to find these things out? Think about it. I would call either a chaplain/minister/priest/whatever or a psychologist/psychiatrist incompetent who could not provide answers to these questions. Not drugs; simple counseling. I don't even think a (supposedly lowly) social worker should be there who does not at least have a stretch toward being able to counsel someone in such a situation. It's just not that hard.

The evil that religion has done is due to letting it grow untended, wild if you will. We must domesticate and tend it. There is no choice; it will kill us all otherwise.

Apropos of killing us all, please to consider the Fermi Paradox: if life evolves so easily where is everyone?

Current answer: they all developed fairy tale religions and killed themselves off.

[Schneibster]

And all of that aside, can you imagine how betrayed the stupids feel when they find out the smarts all think they're "bad" for believing in jebus? Can you justify this pain when you have led them astray? Do they not deserve better of us, do they not deserve the truth?

This is the most disturbing aspect, to me. Those below 100 IQ deserve the truth, they deserve the respect to have it explained in terms they can understand. This "you're too dumb" culture that has them give their own good judgment over to some false authority is pernicious, perverse, and insidious. I have seen people with IQs around room temperature, with Down's Syndrome, discern who their friends were, who loved them, who they could trust. Animals do as well; my cat does. Neither children, nor cats, nor sufferers of genetic defects, nor simply low of normal humans, deserve to be drawn with lies about imaginary sky daddies. All but the children will never go beyond; but they all deserve the consideration the children do, and the children must go on and accept scientific ethics if they are to become adults.

Thus we dare not lie to animals, if we hope to raise our children beyond ourselves.

Think about it. Make an ethics that allows you to eat meat.

I am not a vegan or vegetarian mocking you; I eat Filet Mignon and Rib Eye a couple times a year without guilt. But you can't just do it if you want to have ethics; you have to understand what you're doing and justify it, or abandon it. And since I haven't abandoned it...

And yes I mean to tantalize you and invite a response.

A thoughtful one, please.

[Skipjack]

But there were and are plenty of so called "modern" religions. The ones without gods were ideologies like communism, national socialism and so on.
Then there is all the new age crap.
In the end they are all just religions with a different front end.
There are some things that are common to all religions:
1. They all follow some dogmatic teaching that refuses to adapt to newly discovered fact and new scientific discovery. Usually something written in a (one), also referred to as "the" book.
E.g. genetics are frowned upon by the followers of almost all religions and ideologies (communists hated them and had them sent to siberia or executed, socialists hate them, christians hate them, muslims of course hate them) and there is probably no other science that get slandered as much as genetics, even tough this science is saving lives, constantly.

2. They believe that only their religion is the real one. All the others somehow got it wrong. Things like "mine came first so it is right", "mine has newer prophecies in it, so it is right", "mine is less brutal, so it is the right one", "some minor aspects of mine have been confirmed by (pseudo) science, so mine is right", "mine in harder on its followers, so it gotta be the right one!" are some that I have heard quoted in one variation or the other.

3. They believe that they and only they have the solution to all of mankinds problems. "If every person in the world was a follower of my religion, the world would be a better place". "If everyone was praying as hard as we do, god would make the world a better place". "If everyone was a communist, we would have heaven on earth". "If everyone in the world was German..." well, you get the point.

4. They all teach that their followers are in some way better (chosen or superior, whatever) than those that are not part of the religion.

5. They have their followers go out and spread the religion and by whatever means convince others to follow it or if not possible, kill those that wont follow(evangelize, world revolution, indoctrinate, re- educate, spread with fire and sword, conquer the world, holy war, etc, etc) .

6. They all require some form of sacrifice from their followers. There is lots of rites and beautiful stories, many using easy to understand metaphors and parabels.

7. They usually assume some human ideal that simply does not exist. Common (wrong) assumptions (mix and match depending on religion / ideology) are:
All humans are equal (at birth, in front of god, by nature, by class).
All humans are or want to be good by nature and it is society (or the devil, or the lack of education about morals, or the godlessnes) that makes them evil or forces them to do bad things.
Members of people X are superior to all others.
Aquired abilities become part of nature and species adapt. So that e.g. a couple of generations of teaching of an ideology can make a better class of humans.

There are a few other commonalities, but these are the ones that I can think of from the top of my head.
Point 7 is particularily bad. It is the reason why religions fail and why so many lead to suffering and pain.

[Schneibster]

But there were and are plenty of so called "modern" religions. The ones without gods were ideologies like communism, national socialism and so on.
Then there is all the new age crap.
In the end they are all just religions with a different front end.
There are some things that are common to all religions:
1. They all follow some dogmatic teaching that refuses to adapt to newly discovered fact and new scientific discovery. Usually something written in a (one), also referred to as "the" book.

That's precisely the first thing I'd get rid of.

You're talking with cross purposes with me. You don't understand what I'm proposing but you're against it.

Just sayin'.

Edited to add: I'm an atheist. I don't believe in gods. I'm talking about a religion without gods. I'm just not getting the idea you understand, or for that matter care if you do. That sounds fanatic. Sorry I don't think much of fanatics.

[Skipjack]

But there were and are plenty of so called "modern" religions. The ones without gods were ideologies like communism, national socialism and so on.
Then there is all the new age crap.
In the end they are all just religions with a different front end.
There are some things that are common to all religions:
1. They all follow some dogmatic teaching that refuses to adapt to newly discovered fact and new scientific discovery. Usually something written in a (one), also referred to as "the" book.

That's precisely the first thing I'd get rid of.

You're talking with cross purposes with me. You don't understand what I'm proposing but you're against it.

Just sayin'.

Edited to add: I'm an atheist. I don't believe in gods. I'm talking about a religion without gods. I'm just not getting the idea you understand, or for that matter care if you do. That sounds fanatic. Sorry I don't think much of fanatics.

If you read my post, you would have noticed that I do not distinguish between religions with a god and without a god. The whole new age crap, the whole gaya crap and all that other spritualist nonsense is also a religion and not based on science.