At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Hey Guys!
I was wondering about how yall thought about prayers in school. this topic is very important to me, and i would love some other's opinions on it! please, everyone, reply with your thoughts!
thanks so much!
Not at all. I am not in any way saying that Christians are "incapable" of rational thought. But I am saying that much/most of Christianity is not based on rational thought and even contradictory to it. ?
I guess to a nonbeliver (not saying that is what you are) - something that requires ALOT of FAITH can seem irrational.
Quote:
Evolution is about as established of a fact as any scientific theory gets. A biology teacher that refused to teach evolution should be fired. Period. They certainly have a right to their beliefs, but they have no right to be teaching biology.
But evolution is not a fact, right? It might be "close" - but not an actual fact. It is a theroy.
Why should he be fired? Can a science teacher not be christian? It went against what he believed and what his students believed.
Quote:
That's fine. I'm not arguing that and I'm not sure why you think I am. I'm just saying don't push it on ME or others! I don't care what you're thinking or when you think it. Pray silently to yourself on YOUR time whenever you want.
When you said that Christianity has it place - home/church. I wanted to clarify that. That is where my thought process came from.
I would not push it on you. But you are in my prayers.
You can think, say, or worship whatever you'd like. No one is trying to censor you. But public classrooms are for teaching REAL science and learning about what is definitely TRUE!
Many Christians in this country believe that creationsim is true.
Quote:
If you want to teach unfouded beliefs,
Did I say I wanted to teach unfounded beliefs? Everything I believe I can articulate and present with evidence and explanation.
Quote:
that's what churches are for (most which are tax-exempt by the way). Teach anything you want in your church. You can teach your kids that the earth is only 10,000 years old, that there was a man on earth before a women ever existed, or that Noah brought dinosaurs on the ark, for all I care. But these teachings don't belong in a public classroom! Why? Because they are unfounded by any evidence or real scientific standard and are simply a matter of certain people's religious faith! My kid doesn't have to learn that. Just as your kid shouldn't have to learn scientology.
Again, you have proven you want Christian thought SHUT OUT of the classroom.
Quote:
I don't understand. What do you mean "rape" is permitted up until birth?
Oops. My bad. I meant "abortion".
* United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. [14] Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there is no exact data for the number of abortions performed after viability. [14] In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[15]
Quote:
Did you mean to say abortion? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Catholics do not believe in abortion under any circumstances, EVER..
Correct.
Quote:
If the fetus is doomed to a critical disease, if the mother's life is in jeopardy, or if the child is a product of rape. Do I not understand the Catholic position on this? I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong.
That is correct. But if you want to discuss abortion and the Catholic Church, start another thread.
Quote:
I might take you up on that. The thing is, I don't want to be considered a Christian basher. I'm really not anti-Christian. I'm simply for rational thought process, which too often contradicts Christian thought process.
Rational thought does not contradict faith. Irrational thought frequently does.
Quote:
Well, let me ask you this... Do you believe that home-schooled children should learn whatever their parents decide they should know?
That is why we homeschool.
Quote:
Suppose a parent decides that math just isn't very important, and instead, thinks that study in the pseudo-science of numerology is. Should they be allowed to send this child out into the world as mathematically illiterate adult, but who believes in the powers of numerology?
Your assumption is that the Public Schools are doing a good job teaching anything.
But that isn't true. Results of a 2004 study show: While careers in mathematics, engineering, and technology are exploding around the world, Americas 15 year olds are ranked 24th in math literacy, according to a study the Program for International Student Assessment conducted.
. Increasing Math Literacy through Innovative Programs » Anita Borg Institute for Women and Technology
In fact, students from Christian schools which teach creationism get far better results in science and math and in fact every other subject than students from Public Schools: Education Matters US » National Scores Versus ACSI Scores
Quote:
Would that be fair to the child?
Sounds like it'd be a whole lot better than what Public Schools are currently offering.
Quote:
Yet in a way, this is exactly what you're proposing (albeit in a lesser degree). But the principle is the same. There's a reason why there exists specific standards of learning for every child home-schooled, or not. So that ignorant parents can't unwittingly do harm to their children. If a parent doesn't think math is important, that child still must learn math at a nationally acceptable level. I think this is a good thing. You do not?
When Public Schools meet the national standards, we can talk.
Quote:
Sorry. Are you not implying that you know better than educators what your children should be taught?
No. I am implying nothing. I am making an unqualified statement that I know better what my children should be taught. When the educators feed my children and begin to show the love I have for my children. When they forgo their paycheck to be by my children's side, then I might begin to believe that they give one %$#$ about my child.
As far as I have seen, all that students represent to public school employees, is a paycheck. Here's a test. Ask them how many will teach your children if they didn't get paid to do so. But parents don't get paid to take care of their children do they? And they do it all willingly. At least most still do.
Quote:
I thought this was the very thing we're debating here. That you, the majority, should be allowed to have your children taught what you like, because well, you are the majority! But here's the reality...
Here's the question to which I responded,
People like you want our children taught what YOU think is right.
I want my children taught what I think is right, yes. But this is not what your statement says. Did you leave out a "y"?
Quote:
99% of all biologist agree on evolution and think creationism is nonsense!
Bells and whistles, bong bong bong. Another fallacious argument. This is called, "appeal to authority". The biologists might be wrong: Fallacy: Appeal to Authority
Quote:
Biologists are a minority in the population, but they clearly are in the majority when it comes to creationism. Now who would I want dictating what my kids should learn in a science class? You, or a biology professor?
You already said you don't want me teaching your kids. Although I don't remember offering to teach them.
Quote:
Correct. I don't want it in a public classroom. But that doesn't mean I want to censor Christian thought. Why do you make that assumption?
You are contradicting yourself. Shutting Christian thought from the classroom is a form of censorship.
Will they censor from school or college classroom the works of Michael Denton, Sir Fred Hoyle, Jeremy Rifkin and so on (who cannot be accused of a biblical bias)? No, the flexibility of schoolteachers "to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life," sanctioned by the U.S Supreme Court, is the breach in the evolutionist citadel's wall which they cannot repair. Origins Teaching in the Public Schools.
Quote:
Christian thought can be practiced in your home, or in your church. That's where it belongs.
According to you. But that is also another form of censorship. You want us to confine our Christian thoughts to our homes while you can explain your thoughts where ever you want.
Quote:
If I were to believe in astrology, I wouldn't presume to have your kid have to engage in this practice at a public school.
Nor would I. Isn't that my point?
Quote:
Well your views do seem to be on the conservative side. I certainly wouldn't call yourself a liberal, would you? -lol
Heaven forbid!
Quote:
I'm not suggesting that you want this to happen. Only that if you have your way, there is a very real chance this is what will happen.
In other words, speculation. I could speculate that morals and ethics would go down the proverbial toilet if we don't permit prayer in Public School. Wait, that already happened.
Clive Thompson on Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law
Creationists and intelligent-design boosters have a guerrilla tactic to undermine textbooks that don't jibe with their beliefs. They slap a sticker on the cover that reads, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY, NOT A FACT, REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIVING THINGS.
This is the central argument of evolution deniers: Evolution is an unproven "theory." For science-savvy people, this is an incredibly annoying ploy. While it's true that scientists refer to evolution as a theory, in science the word theory means an explanation of how the world works that has stood up to repeated, rigorous testing. It's hardly a term of disparagement.
But for most people, theory means a haphazard guess you've pulled out of your, uh, hat. It's an insult, really, a glib way to dismiss a point of view: "Ah, well, that's just your theory." Scientists use theory in one specific way, the public another and opponents of evolution have expertly exploited this disconnect.
Turns out, the real culture war in science isn't about science at all it's about language. And to fight this war, we need to change the way we talk about scientific knowledge.
Scientists are already pondering this. Last summer, physicist Helen Quinn sparked a lively debate among her colleagues with an essay for Physics Today arguing that scientists are too tentative when they discuss scientific knowledge. They're an inherently cautious bunch, she points out. Even when they're 99 percent certain of a theory, they know there's always the chance that a new discovery could overturn or modify it.
So when scientists talk about well-established bodies of knowledge particularly in areas like evolution or relativity they hedge their bets. They say they "believe" something to be true, as in, "We believe that the Jurassic period was characterized by humid tropical weather."
This deliberately nuanced language gets horribly misunderstood and often twisted in public discourse. When the average person hears phrases like "scientists believe," they read it as, "Scientists can't really prove this stuff, but they take it on faith." ("That's just what you believe" is another nifty way to dismiss someone out of hand.)
Of course, antievolution crusaders have figured out that language is the ammunition of culture wars. That's why they use those stickers. They take the intellectual strengths of scientific language its precision, its carefulness and wield them as weapons against science itself.
The defense against this: a revamped scientific lexicon. If the antievolutionists insist on exploiting the public's misunderstanding of words like theory and believe, then we shouldn't fight it. "We need to be a bit less cautious in public when we're talking about scientific conclusions that are generally agreed upon," Quinn says.
What does she suggest? For truly solid-gold, well-established science, let's stop using the word theory entirely. Instead, let's revive much more venerable language and refer to such knowledge as "law." As with Newton's law of gravity, people intuitively understand that a law is a rule that holds true and must be obeyed. The word law conveys precisely the same sense of authority with the public as theory does with scientists, but without the linguistic baggage.
Evolution is supersolid. We even base the vaccine industry on it: When we troop into the doctor's office each winter to get a flu shot an inoculation against the latest evolved strains of the disease we're treating evolution as a law. So why not just say "the law of evolution"?
Best of all, it performs a neat bit of linguistic jujitsu. If someone says, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution," they may sound fairly reasonable. But if someone announces, "I don't believe in the law of evolution," they sound insane. It's tantamount to saying, "I don't believe in the law of gravity."
It's time to realize that we're simply never going to school enough of the public in the precise scientific meaning of particular words. We're never going to fully communicate what's beautiful and noble about scientific caution and rigor. Public discourse is inevitably political, so we need to talk about science in a way that wins the political battle in no uncertain terms.
Nothing can be proven. That's the beauty of science! But evolution is every bit as legitimate as the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, or the theory of elliptical curves. This is why I get so incensed with these debates. People don't understand what a scientific theory is...
A "scientific" theory is not a guess... It's not a hunch... It's not a theory in any sense that you're accustomed to using the term. As in: "I have a theory that if I leave my house 5 minutes later for work in the morning, the traffic will be better". It's nothing like that at all.
A scientific theory is based on the logical conjecture of overwhemlingly abundant evidence. A scientific theory must withstand constant, repeated, and rigorous testing which attempts to falsify the very theory that is being proposed! It must make accurate predictions every time. One falsification... One wrong prediction... And the theory is rendered incomplete by scientists.
So far, not a single thing about evolution has been falsified. Every single prediction it makes has been shown true. If anything, the theory is even more brilliant than Darwin himself could've imagined. Darwin didn't know about molecular biology, or DNA, and the many new techniques that have been developed since his time. If anything, this new knowledge has only greatly STRENGTHEND Darwin's theory even more!
You can take the theory of evolution to the bank. And one other thing... Evolution is not in any way an attack on Christianity. It has nothing to say about it. It is only the religious who have a problem with evolution. They insist on denying it, because it renders many of their beliefs as outdated and obsolete. So it's easy to see why they attack evolution so hard.
Many Christians in this country believe that creationsim is true.
I don't for a minute deny this, but it doesn't make it true! Seriously... I am very comfortable in saying that anyone who does not accept evolution is simply ignorant. I'm not saying they're stupid. Just ignorant. There's a difference. Anyone who knew anything about the subject, would immediately stop talking such nonsense. He'd realize the fool he made of himself to anyone who DOES understand what evolution is about and what a scientific theory REALLY is.
Quote:
Did I say I wanted to teach unfounded beliefs? Everything I believe I can articulate and present with evidence and explanation.
If you think creationism should be taught in schools, then you're saying you want to teach unfounded beliefs. Creationism is false. You cannot even begin to provide ANY evidence for it! Evolution on the other hand, has TONS of VERIFIABLE and OBSERVABLE evidence! It's not even close.
Quote:
Again, you have proven you want Christian thought SHUT OUT of the classroom.
Seriously De Maria, what's so hard to understand about this? *Think* whatever you want. Just don't involve me in it. That's all I'm saying. Why am I having such a hard time with you on this?
Quote:
Rational thought does not contradict faith.
It does if you don't want to believe in virgin births, rising from the dead, water turning into wine, etc., etc. The list is simply too long.
Quote:
In fact, students from Christian schools which teach creationism get far better results in science and math and in fact every other subject than students from Public Schools:
Hey, I have no doubt that Christians schools can do a better job of teaching. I attended Catholic school myself for a few years. But let's understand why. The reason is more funding for better teachers, less crowded classrooms, which means more individualized attention. I am not saying Christians are dumb!
Quote:
Bells and whistles, bong bong bong. Another fallacious argument. This is called, "appeal to authority". The biologists might be wrong:
If you are trying to tell me that the majority of people are more knowledgable about evolution, DNA, genes, and genomes, than the majority of professional biologists... I'm not even going to try and convince you otherwise. You're too secluded in a land of propaganda. I hope the weather's nice where you are.
DeMaria, although you already know that I would not like to see organized prayer in public schools, if you would indulge me, I am curious about something. The OP, KellyH, appears to agree with you and feels we should allow prayer, so I am not really going off topic. My question is: If Christians were able to get this overturned in the courts, and organized prayer were now allowed in public schools, how would you propose it be handled? How would it be structured? Who would oversee it, and how do we do this in a way in which all religions and beliefs (or non-beliefs as the case may be) are included?
Wow, Ruby, that is a good question. In it, I think, will be "our" down fall. No one will be able to agree on who or how it should be done.
I remember when the Bible was still taught in school. It was taken out when I reached second grade - but I remember taking our Bibles out and having our teacher read to us. (Beyond that, I am a bit hazy.)
Evolution... Why not call it fact then? If they can PROVE that we evolved from dirt or whatever, then why not call it fact??
Let me just say this before we even get started on the merits of evolution - let's agree to disagree. PLEASE. It's been a long day and I am not equipped for the debate right now.
Thanks Guys.
Let me just say this before we even get started on the merits of evolution - let's agree to disagree. PLEASE. It's been a long day and I am not equipped for the debate right now.
Thanks Guys.
NW, sometimes you are just too cute for words. LOL! Cmon, you can debate among the best of 'em. Don't worry, I am not going to get onto the topic of evolution. Yet. LOL!
I know you are younger than I am and when I was in public school they never taught the bible. Are you sure you didn't go to a private school early in your education? Or maybe due to your age at the time, you are confusing Sunday school with public school?
No, it was elementary school. I lived in North Georgia at the time and I remember 1st grade having to bring my Bible to school, we then moved to another part of Georgia, closer to Atlanta, where I started 2nd grade and there was no Bible taught.
Linear Mode
