• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Christian groups sue Kansas schools

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
The thing is if you teach Christianity in schools it would be illegal because of discrimination laws not to teach Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, those religions exist in the US too, see what I mean. When would there be time for math, science or the other subjects that is important to prepare a student for life.

I'm not against religion at all, can be quit religious in my views myself because of my Baptist upbringing but really have to draw a line here and I think that line should be no religion taught in schools. Let religious institutions and family teach religion.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
The thing is if you teach Christianity in schools it would be illegal because of discrimination laws not to teach Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, those religions exist in the US too, see what I mean. When would there be time for math, science or the other subjects that is important to prepare a student for life.

I'm not against religion at all, can be quit religious in my views myself because of my Baptist upbringing but really have to draw a line here and I think that line should be no religion taught in schools. Let religious institutions and family teach religion.
They aren't really asking that religion be taught, they are asking about how the universe was started, for example. That doesn't include the resurrection of Jesus Christ or Noah's Ark, only that, say for example, the big bang theory cannot be proven and there are alternative beliefs. I don't see how that is a bad thing.
 

JesseCuster

Registered Member
Really? We don't get to question? We leave it to "experts" to decide curriculum? So only lawyers should decide what is taught at law schools, even though many of them are state funded?

Just to play devil's advocate here, isn't the whole point of education to freely exchange ideas? Since the big bang theory is, well a theory, and can't be proven, shouldn't we give students ALL possible perspectives and let them decide what they believe and don't believe?

Maybe it's just me, but I like to get as much information as possible and explore different ideas and beliefs about things and I think our educational system, which is dismal, would benefit if it did the same for it's students and encouraged them to do so.
The only people qualified to question, in the way that you're asking, are people who have studied the field in question thoroughly. And why do you put "experts" in quotes? I wonder if you talk to your physician like that when he's making important decisions about your health... No? They why does your opinion change when it's related to your religious beliefs? The most likely answer is that you're too biased to see the irony/hypocrisy.

University is where students get to really freely exchange ideas. Before that, children are just starting to get the basics - no need to confuse them with silly non-scientific ideas. Would you like your child to listen to alternate theories about geography developed by the Flat Earth Society? So, no, we shouldn't give students all possible perspectives! Heck, they'd die of old age before we'd be done with half of the silliness that exists out there. But what you really want is for us to focus on the alternate ideas that interest you, right? The ones that closely align with what you think is already true. You wouldn't really want a Muslim cleric to come into your kid's class and start critiquing modern biology, or would you?

Please, before you start espousing open minds and alternate hypotheses, imagine that the new ideas for your child's civics class are coming from a David Koresh follower or geography from a member of the Flat Earth Society. If you're honestly still itching for your child's brain be molded by such drivel, please understand that you're in a very small minority, and don't voice your opinions in your real life because it's possible you might get your children taken away from you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doc

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
The only people qualified to question, in the way that you're asking, are people who have studied the field in question thoroughly. And why do you put "experts" in quotes? I wonder if you talk to your physician like that when he's making important decisions about your health... No? They why does your opinion change when it's related to your religious beliefs? The most likely answer is that you're too biased to see the irony/hypocrisy.
A physician makes decisions about your health? That's odd, I make decisions about MY health. If YOU want to put all the decisions in someone else's hands go ahead, I don't. I put quotations around the word expert because I don't blindly accept anyone as an expert. God granted me the ability to question and I use that ability, no matter who that person is.

University is where students get to really freely exchange ideas. Before that, children are just starting to get the basics - no need to confuse them with silly non-scientific ideas. Would you like your child to listen to alternate theories about geography developed by the Flat Earth Society? So, no, we shouldn't give students all possible perspectives! Heck, they'd die of old age before we'd be done with half of the silliness that exists out there. But what you really want is for us to focus on the alternate ideas that interest you, right? The ones that closely align with what you think is already true. You wouldn't really want a Muslim cleric to come into your kid's class and start critiquing modern biology, or would you?
There is a major problem with your analogy. There aren't many theories about geography anymore. It can be proven the Earth isn't flat thus any theories the Flat Earth Society has can be disproven. In the example I gave, the big bang theory is a theory only and cannot be proved, and the idea of intelligent design can't be proven or disproven either. See the difference?
 
Last edited:

Crouton

Ninja
V.I.P.
Teach religion and science. Both are important to know and understand in today's world. Both should be taught but both should be kept 100% separate from each other. That's just what I think anyway.
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Please, before you start espousing open minds and alternate hypotheses, imagine that the new ideas for your child's civics class are coming from a David Koresh follower or geography from a member of the Flat Earth Society. If you're honestly still itching for your child's brain be molded by such drivel, please understand that you're in a very small minority, and don't voice your opinions in your real life because it's possible you might get your children taken away from you.
In case you didn't know our schools are already molding our kids with drivel, but again, your analogy fails because you are comparing things that could potentially be taught that can be disproven. What I am talking about CANNOT be proven or disproven, so I think ALL theories should be presented. Since YOU can't disprove the theories I think should be presented I find it odd you would be against their representation.
 

JesseCuster

Registered Member
A physician makes decisions about your health? That's odd, I make decisions about MY health. If YOU want to put all the decisions in someone else's hands go ahead, I don't. I put quotations around the word expert because I don't blindly accept anyone as an expert. God granted me the ability to question and I use that ability, no matter who that person is.
So you always give your doctor the third degree whenever s/he tells you anything? Obviously there are choices to be made but if you go in with, say, a pain in your lower back and your doctor says you have kidney stones after running some tests and gives you a pill to help dissolve them so they don't tear up your insides so much, will you then sign up for a biochemistry course or order a few text books off the 'net to study the possible side-effects? Will you learn how to interpret the urine test the physician gave you?

What would you do? Where is the line for you? How would you do to not "blindly accept" your doctor's expertise, in this situation?

There is a major problem with your analogy. There aren't many theories about geography anymore. It can be proven the Earth isn't flat thus any theories the Flat Earth Society has can be disproven. In the example I gave, the big bang theory is a theory only and cannot be proved, and the idea of intelligent design can't be proven or disproven either. See the difference?
Flat Earthers will tell us that the Earth, while circular in shape, is flat...

Anyway, as much as they can be proven wrong, the ID hypothesis has been. See this video, for example (warning, dissection of a giraffe, don't click if meat icks you out): Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe - YouTube

Also, the notion that something (outside of the pure sciences) can be proven is so unscientific that it's no wonder that you believe that ID is plausible. Everything in science is provisional. Nothing is ever believed to be 100% true, criticizing theories because they're not is like criticizing the ocean for being wet - you'd be missing the point. There's always a possibility that something else comes along that explains everything that, say, the theory of evolution by natural selection explains plus one more thing that it can't.

Scientific theories are the strongest and most supported hypotheses in science (and to qualify as "science" they must be falsifiable - Darwin even included possible problems with his theory in the book introducing it!). They have been used to make predictions, tested versus observable data and tried to be ripped to shreds by jealous scientists who didn't come up with the hypothesis for themselves. In fact, some of the greatest rewards available to scientists (including the Nobel prize) are reserved for people that overturn or supplant dearly held theories.

Intelligent Design can't be disproven because it makes no claims beyond just-so stories. The fact that it can't be disproven takes it out of the realm of science. It may be fit for a religion class but it would be criminal to poison a child's mind with it in a science class.
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
So you always give your doctor the third degree whenever s/he tells you anything? Obviously there are choices to be made but if you go in with, say, a pain in your lower back and your doctor says you have kidney stones after running some tests and gives you a pill to help dissolve them so they don't tear up your insides so much, will you then sign up for a biochemistry course or order a few text books off the 'net to study the possible side-effects? Will you learn how to interpret the urine test the physician gave you?

What would you do? Where is the line for you? How would you do to not "blindly accept" your doctor's expertise, in this situation?
Is every one of your points going to the extreme? Did I say anything about giving anyone the third degree? My point is doctors, as any other experts, CAN be wrong. I've proven doctors on a witness stand testifying as a witness to be wrong.

It's a case by case basis. I can't sit here and tell you with this diagnosis I question and with that one I don't. Mainly because it would be cumbersome but also because that wasn't the point.

Flat Earthers will tell us that the Earth, while circular in shape, is flat...
Yes I know, which is my point.

Anyway, as much as they can be proven wrong, the ID hypothesis has been. See this video, for example (warning, dissection of a giraffe, don't click if meat icks you out): Richard Dawkins demonstrates laryngeal nerve of the giraffe - YouTube

Also, the notion that something (outside of the pure sciences) can be proven is so unscientific that it's no wonder that you believe that ID is plausible. Everything in science is provisional. Nothing is ever believed to be 100% true, criticizing theories because they're not is like criticizing the ocean for being wet - you'd be missing the point. There's always a possibility that something else comes along that explains everything that, say, the theory of evolution by natural selection explains plus one more thing that it can't.

Scientific theories are the strongest and most supported hypotheses in science (and to qualify as "science" they must be falsifiable - Darwin even included possible problems with his theory in the book introducing it!). They have been used to make predictions, tested versus observable data and tried to be ripped to shreds by jealous scientists who didn't come up with the hypothesis for themselves. In fact, some of the greatest rewards available to scientists (including the Nobel prize) are reserved for people that overturn or supplant dearly held theories.

Intelligent Design can't be disproven because it makes no claims beyond just-so stories. The fact that it can't be disproven takes it out of the realm of science. It may be fit for a religion class but it would be criminal to poison a child's mind with it in a science class.
I don't know what your point here is, but I strongly suggest you study Intelligent Design, as it's clear you have no idea what you are talking about. I should add I never opined on whether ID is plausible or not, I just don't think teachers should teach what I believe, but even things I may not necessarily subscribe to.

This is what is wrong with our educational system, so much is picked and chosen on what to teach based on the bias of educators. I take it upon myself as a citizen to read, research and learn to formulate educated opinions. Unfortunately many in our society do not and rely on what is taught to them, which is what I object to.
 

Major

4 legs good 2 legs bad
V.I.P.

JesseCuster

Registered Member
The problem is that ID isn't a theory the way scientists use that term.

I'd like to know what made it clear that I don't know about ID though.
 
Top