Are we a Christian nation

[FarmerChick]

I love reading some of the African and Native American creation stories. Every culture and religion has its own creation stories. I believe mine, no matter how foolish it may seem to someone else. But, that doesn't mean I believe it belongs in the public sphere. It's not a matter of being ashamed of my beliefs, but it's a belief system, a religion, not part of public education like reading, writing and arithmetic.

yes I so agree. We have to draw the line on what certain venues are for. education is for the basics. if you want theology...take classes later in those areas.

hard to draw lines but it must happen or we bleed too many beliefs etc. into one area and can't control it.

 

[Wifezilla]

The question is do you think these different tribes believed these stories?

I wonder. Maybe it is the same for all cultures....some take it as literal truth, other see it as allegory, and some think the story teller got in to the fire water (or the mead) once too often

 

[FarmerChick]

hence people being hung or sacrificed or all those nasty things for their different beliefs inside of the same religions etc.

nah, people are no different back then --- our independent thoughts can help or hinder our lives based on what "others think of us"

 

[patandchickens]

The reason IMHO it is appropriate to teach scientific theories of origin in science classes, but NOT other creation stories (not in science classes, that is -- in comparative religion, anthro, world cultures and history, etc it is WHOLLY appropriate!) is that the other types are not SCIENTIFIC explanations -- that is to say, they are not constructed by means of following the scientific method and they are almost entirely made up of inherently-untestable hypotheses. (Yes, not everything in scientific origin scenarios is testable, certainly not at a practical level, but that is unavoidable, and the point is to *minimize* that sort of thing when constructing a science-type explanation for something)

"Creation science" is basically just BAD science, in the extremely vast majority of cases. It does NOT look levelly at the evidence and say 'what are the reasonable possible explanations based on testable physical forces etc, and then once we list them, let's test them or their implications and choose whatever explanation best fits the data", which is how science works. Instead, it ignores vast swaths of data, and focuses on a few particular points which it interprets *one way only* without considering the actual merits of alternative hypotheses. "Creation science" is basically carried out as a trial lawyer amassing evidential points to try to exonerate their client or convict the accused -- an entirely one-sided look at things -- NOT an evenhanded weighing of the merits of all viewpoints, with a commitment to accept as a working theory WHATEVER seems likeliest even if it's not what you initially believed.

Thus, evolution and big bang theories DO belong in science class, but biblical explanations of where we all came from belong in OTHER classes but not science classes. This has nothign to do with anything like "who is right and who is wrong", it has to do with what is SCIENCE and what isn't. (And again, I am not saying that scientific explanations are in some way 'better than' or 'more correct than' other types -- they are just *different*, and science is about science.)

Pat

 

[me&thegals]

Please don't take my post the wrong way. I was to say that those on the outside wrongly accuse others of being foolish when they have their own beliefs that others don't understand.

Sorry, quite a bit of people have a hardtime getting my meaning. I am working on improving.

I'm not sure if this was directed at me--I missed it the first time through--but I wasn't feeling offended at all. It's just true that other's belief systems can seem foolish to those who don't hold them to be true.

I was just trying to make the point that the reason I don't want my beliefs as part of education is NOT to do with shame or feeling foolish. It has everything to do with realizing they are just that: Beliefs. I may be absolutely SURE they are right, but so is everybody else with their own unprovable beliefs.

Plus, as has been mentioned twice (talking to everybody now), we are talking about science class, where science is taught, not religion.

 

[Wifezilla]

The whole point of scientific thinking is to use evidence to propose a theory and then do your best to tear it apart and see if it holds up. After you do that, you publish it so other people can try and tear it to pieces.

Religious thinking is that things happened one way and to question it historically invites excommunication, stoning or a front row seat on a pile of burning sticks.

 

[DianeB]

==============

 

[Wifezilla]

Parents should also not be concerned that learning evolution is going to turn them against God. That is ridiculous

In my case this is true. I already had serious doubts about the whole religion thing before kindergarten.

 

[me&thegals]

Parents should also not be concerned that learning evolution is going to turn them against God. That is ridiculous. If you regularly practice and discuss your religon/beliefs, you have nothing to worry about.

Now, that is for *those* parents to decide. Not you or I.

 

[farmerlor]

Parents should also not be concerned that learning evolution is going to turn them against God. That is ridiculous. If you regularly practice and discuss your religon/beliefs, you have nothing to worry about.

Now, that is for *those* parents to decide. Not you or I.

In the end it's for the child to decide. Regardless of how the parents treat the topics of religion or evolution or any other thing they might want the child to believe or disbelieve, the child WILL eventually be presented with someone who believes the other side and they may or may not decide that it makes more sense to them.