Crosswords0 min ago
Should The Blinkered Religious Be Allowed To Teach Kids?
48 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Grasscarp, It seems that you don't have the least comprehension of how evolution works. Lamarkism was discredited some time ago. If you kept a population of gorillas in a zoo long enough they would adapt to their new environment and become a new creature, but only after a sufficient number of generations to breed out useless genes and muliply useful genes. Zoos just haven't been in existence that long. It may have escaped your notice that all of the modern animals such as the mammals are absent from the fossil record beyond 250 million years ago. According to your reasoning they could not have existed as their fossil remains would have been found by now. Does that mean that god has been beavering away steadily knocking out new species since the disappearance of the dinosaurs and that the bible is wrong about creation? I think you need to adjust your argument.
Jim360 – absolutely.
The use of the word ‘theory’ in science circles is different to how most of us use the word.
Gravity is a theory.
So rather than trotting out the hackneyed ‘evolution is just a theory’ line they always fall back on, what they (and for ‘they’ read the deluded) should actually be trotting out is ‘evolution is just an hypothesis’.
Its good that the headteacher states they teach the national curriculum...but given her strongly held beliefs, it is inevitable they will influence how the national curriculum is taught in her school. I find it concerning that an otherwise intelligent woman believes the ramblings in an old book as though they are facts.
I’ve always found it slightly odd that we accept religious people and their beliefs as ‘normal’, when there is not one single jot of proof in the existence of god. There is an equal amount of proof in the existence of leprachauns, but if I were to swear blind faith in their existence, people would, rightly, think I was completely bananas.
State funded faith schools should not exist; a school is not a place for teaching nonsense as though it were fact – if schools want to do so they should be funded by the church not the taxpayer.
I would love to know what the ‘more truth’ in the bible this lady refers to is!
The use of the word ‘theory’ in science circles is different to how most of us use the word.
Gravity is a theory.
So rather than trotting out the hackneyed ‘evolution is just a theory’ line they always fall back on, what they (and for ‘they’ read the deluded) should actually be trotting out is ‘evolution is just an hypothesis’.
Its good that the headteacher states they teach the national curriculum...but given her strongly held beliefs, it is inevitable they will influence how the national curriculum is taught in her school. I find it concerning that an otherwise intelligent woman believes the ramblings in an old book as though they are facts.
I’ve always found it slightly odd that we accept religious people and their beliefs as ‘normal’, when there is not one single jot of proof in the existence of god. There is an equal amount of proof in the existence of leprachauns, but if I were to swear blind faith in their existence, people would, rightly, think I was completely bananas.
State funded faith schools should not exist; a school is not a place for teaching nonsense as though it were fact – if schools want to do so they should be funded by the church not the taxpayer.
I would love to know what the ‘more truth’ in the bible this lady refers to is!
The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.
If you want to read the whole article it is here:
http://
If you want to read the whole article it is here:
http://
Grasscarp, That website can't be taken seriously. It thrives on nonsensical conspiracy theories.
http://
Religion has no place in schools.
http://
Religion has no place in schools.
Well it's nice to see you come up with an original argument rather than something just copied/ pasted from some random site -- oh wait never mind.
But seriously, though, I read through that link for some reason and it's all awful misinterpretation. Every bit of it. I'll start with the first one: "...a new species has never been developed by science."
I don't see why anyone can think this is a legitimate counterargument, as the whole point of speciation in particular is that it takes place on characteristic timescales of (at least) tens of thousands of years (at least in large creatures), and that's almost certainly an underestimate. Scientific study of evolution has been going on for a little over a century, ie two-three orders of magnitude below the typical timescale. This also amounts to a possible misreporting anyway, as speciation has (arguably) been observed in certain experiments involving bacteria anyway (I'll try to find a citation for this as it is quite a grandiose claim to make for sure).
"If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't."
Err... no. No they wouldn't. Or, rather, you are managing to ignore the central point of natural selection, that creatures will end up adapting to the environment they live in but that this can happen in various ways. For Eskimos, the answer was to rely instead on fur coats taken from the carcasses of animals they have killed. This keeps them plenty warm enough, taking away the environmental pressure to develop fur coats themselves.
I'll stop there. That entire article is complete and utter nonsense, and if you couldn't see that when you first read it I doubt you will after reading the above refutation. Suffice it to say that you are seriously misinformed, grasscarp.
But seriously, though, I read through that link for some reason and it's all awful misinterpretation. Every bit of it. I'll start with the first one: "...a new species has never been developed by science."
I don't see why anyone can think this is a legitimate counterargument, as the whole point of speciation in particular is that it takes place on characteristic timescales of (at least) tens of thousands of years (at least in large creatures), and that's almost certainly an underestimate. Scientific study of evolution has been going on for a little over a century, ie two-three orders of magnitude below the typical timescale. This also amounts to a possible misreporting anyway, as speciation has (arguably) been observed in certain experiments involving bacteria anyway (I'll try to find a citation for this as it is quite a grandiose claim to make for sure).
"If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't."
Err... no. No they wouldn't. Or, rather, you are managing to ignore the central point of natural selection, that creatures will end up adapting to the environment they live in but that this can happen in various ways. For Eskimos, the answer was to rely instead on fur coats taken from the carcasses of animals they have killed. This keeps them plenty warm enough, taking away the environmental pressure to develop fur coats themselves.
I'll stop there. That entire article is complete and utter nonsense, and if you couldn't see that when you first read it I doubt you will after reading the above refutation. Suffice it to say that you are seriously misinformed, grasscarp.
Naomi - //Religion has no place in schools. //
I would imagine that the church is intrinsically linked with education since it was the first institution to start an education system.
As time goes on, the link becomes ever more tenuous, in line with the reduction of the church's relevance in modern life, so I am sure the end of religious teaching is in sight.
I would imagine that the church is intrinsically linked with education since it was the first institution to start an education system.
As time goes on, the link becomes ever more tenuous, in line with the reduction of the church's relevance in modern life, so I am sure the end of religious teaching is in sight.
Here's the study I had in mind:
http://
In brief, it describes one of the more remarkable aspects of an "evolution experiment". 12 samples of E Coli are allowed to develop over tens of thousands of generations and observed fairly regularly along the process. One, and only one, sample seemed to suddenly develop the ability to eat a new source of food, citrate, that is normally completely inedible for E Coli. No other example of the species can eat this.
Whether it is evidence of speciation or not is probably open to interpretation rather than definitive, but it remains one of the most profound examples of how a population can adapt to its environment in new and wonderful ways, by developing an ability to exploit an entirely new food source. As normal examples of the same species couldn't use that food source, it can be argued that the adaptation demonstrates the emergence of a new species.
http://
In brief, it describes one of the more remarkable aspects of an "evolution experiment". 12 samples of E Coli are allowed to develop over tens of thousands of generations and observed fairly regularly along the process. One, and only one, sample seemed to suddenly develop the ability to eat a new source of food, citrate, that is normally completely inedible for E Coli. No other example of the species can eat this.
Whether it is evidence of speciation or not is probably open to interpretation rather than definitive, but it remains one of the most profound examples of how a population can adapt to its environment in new and wonderful ways, by developing an ability to exploit an entirely new food source. As normal examples of the same species couldn't use that food source, it can be argued that the adaptation demonstrates the emergence of a new species.
Grasscarp, please explain why none of the species that left all those fossils are still alive and none of the species that are now alive have left any fossils contemporary with the dinosaurs. If you are going to try to use logic to justify your belief then you have to go with it and admit it when you are proven wrong.
In terms of the original question, I was at a faith school myself and it didn't necessarily do me any harm (that I know of). So long as religion is kept separate from the educational aspect (ie so long as Science is taught without reference to religion) then there is no need for any practical problems. In theory, though, I'd agree that faith schools should not exist and hopefully things will start to move that way.
Jim, //so long as Science is taught without reference to religion//
In a faith school that can be done and evolution can be included as long as speculation concerning the origin of the universe is off the syllabus. However, religion can’t be taught without reference to ‘creation’ – and therein remains the contradictory stumbling block for students. You say that the faith school you attended did you no harm, but I recall when you first came to AB you were in a quandary about your beliefs so your education certainly created confusion for you.
In a faith school that can be done and evolution can be included as long as speculation concerning the origin of the universe is off the syllabus. However, religion can’t be taught without reference to ‘creation’ – and therein remains the contradictory stumbling block for students. You say that the faith school you attended did you no harm, but I recall when you first came to AB you were in a quandary about your beliefs so your education certainly created confusion for you.
That's true, although to my mind that has far more to do with the religious beliefs of various members of my family than the school I went to. It's hard to disentangle one from the other, although my memory of High School is that, by and large, the religious aspect of the school was mostly incidental. So my suspicion is that I'd have been in the same quandary you report had I gone to any other school.
This is not to defend the existence of faith schools, I just think that my life is more complicated than: went to faith school, ie confusion about religion.
This is not to defend the existence of faith schools, I just think that my life is more complicated than: went to faith school, ie confusion about religion.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
ChatterBank29 mins ago
News32 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.