Atheism

[Disco08]

lol, that's some fine heckling.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Willing to let other sides be acknowledged is not fence sitting.

I am a big advocate for David Irving coming to Australia. The reason is because with him banned, all the freaks think the Govt is trying to hide "the Truth" about the holocaust. Its a crock, his views are rubbish, and any basic analysis of his views shows how stupid they are. Yet we put the wall up to protect us all, and as a result give the joker credibility.

Creation theory discussion has been hijacked by the Intelligent Design agenda unfortunately. I have absolutely no issue acknowledging that science has some theories on how the universe was created, but in terms of what caused that instance from nothingness to somethingness (sorry for poor wording) no one has a concrete explanation yet. Saying some say "....." and some say "...." and some say "a faith based explanation" I have no issue with. Science explains the rest, but it cannot yet explain that bit.

Unfortunately the Intelligent Design mob have jumped on the bans, and instead of just having to acknowledge the possibility of a creationist start to the universe, we now get people wanting to get into science agendas the world being made in 6 days and so on. For this stuff we do have science which clearly says we are not 5000 years old, and it took longer than 6 days to create the world, but the bans on this stuff opened the fundamentist floodgates. I don't even mind this stuff being raised by students in class, because they are curious, and they may actually learn something. Right now its illegal for some teachers to even respond to the question "how can dinosaurs be millions of years old when the world is only 5000 years old".

There is nothing wrong with free flow of info, and the more of it that occurs with students, the more likely they are to learn something themselves, than have a dogma implanted in them.

I get this impression that you think people on here advocate the stifling of open discussion on these matters. I for one certainly do not. I just don't want children being taught non-science in a science classroom. I have no problem with a teacher answering questions in the classroom, but to suggest that creation science (oxymoron) is a competing theory to evolution, which is the barrow that has been pushed in the U.S. is ridiculous and damaging.

Like I also said, I would like to see all religions, their core beliefs and their histories taught to children. I personally think that would help stem the 'fundamentalist floodgates' that you refer to.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Point is these are opinions that atheists generally hold, but are promulgated by latching them onto the credibility of science. I think they are in reality religious opinions. Science doesn't directly refute them so it is seen to support them. I reckon they are post-modern societies opinions, but they are often justified by 'science'.

You don't seriously think I hold these positions do you? If you want to know what I think:
There is a Creator to whom we are all accountable
We have some apelike features, but we are fundamentally NOT apes. We were created in the image of God.
Life only has objective meaning when lived in harmony with the Truth, revealed in the Bible. All other meanings are purely imaginary.
Morality is objective - God is it's origin.
Religions are man's way of getting to God. Jesus is God's way. They are not equivalent in any way.
Faith is how the knowledge and understanding of ourselves, God and our purpose is communicated to us.
Evolution is a group scientific theories and hypothesis with nothing to say about faith or God.

Mostly blind assertion. Unusual for you.

 

[Tiger74]

Fine.

In philosophy classes.

Where did you go to school? I can tell you right now the closest my school came to a philosophy class was when we got to watch Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure at end of year.

Most schools don't have a philosophy class, and mine was even fighting to keep science on the agenda (was done to only 2 semesters required between years 8 and 10, and of course all bets are off once you hit VCE - and I understand its even less now). Most of these issues, if the students even bothered to raise them, were raised in geography or biology.

To ban discussing it even as a possibility in these classes would have killed any chance for students to discuss and debate these issues.

I get this impression that you think people on here advocate the stifling of open discussion on these matters. I for one certainly do not. I just don't want children being taught non-science in a science classroom. I have no problem with a teacher answering questions in the classroom, but to suggest that creation science (oxymoron) is a competing theory to evolution, which is the barrow that has been pushed in the U.S. is ridiculous and damaging.

Like I also said, I would like to see all religions, their core beliefs and their histories taught to children. I personally think that would help stem the 'fundamentalist floodgates' that you refer to.

You missed one major issue for me. creation science and intelligent design are two very different things. Creationism not restricted to the strict fundamentalist agenda of 6 days to make and bake and then Adam and Eve. Its just acknowledging the start may be beyond an our world explanation. Intelligent Design on the otherhand has been doctored to prove God created the world in six days, explain Adam and Eve, and so on. Much of this is rubbish easily disproved, but banned for discussion in your science room.

As mentioned to Evo above, not everyone has a philosophy class to discuss this stuff in.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I definitely think you don't want questions. If a kid asks his teacher a religion based question in science class, you are telling him go to Christian Ed for your answer on that one as it doesn't belong in science class. You don't advocating banning discussion, you just want it in the right places, and for you this is religious ed. And my problem with that is Brother Ignatius is likely to give a very unscientific answer to the question of the crocoduck.

Nope. I would (and do) explain why the question doesn't fall within the realm of scientific enquiry when students ask.

Also, don't confuse my suggestion of religious education as Christian education. I want religion taught so students can see the diversity of beliefs and the history of those beliefs....I don't want the teacher taking sides in these matters....that is for the church and its ministers/priests IMO. The students can then make an informed decision.

 

[Tiger74]

Nope. I would (and do) explain why the question doesn't fall within the realm of scientific enquiry when students ask.

Also, don't confuse my suggestion of religious education as Christian education. I want religion taught so students can see the diversity of beliefs and the history of those beliefs....I don't want the teacher taking sides in these matters....that is for the church and its ministers/priests IMO. The students can then make an informed decision.

Your not discussing it though. You are saying "you are wrong, and this doesn't belong in this class because....".

Thats the kind of approach that shuts down debate because the christians feel vilified, and why raise a question if its not discussed by dismissed.

 

[evo]

Where did you go to school? I can tell you right now the closest my school came to a philosophy class was when we got to watch Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure at end of year.

Most schools don't have a philosophy class, and mine was even fighting to keep science on the agenda (was done to only 2 semesters required between years 8 and 10, and of course all bets are off once you hit VCE - and I understand its even less now). Most of these issues, if the students even bothered to raise them, were raised in geography or biology.

To ban discussing it even as a possibility in these classes would have killed any chance for students to discuss and debate these issues.
You missed one major issue for me. creation science and intelligent design are two very different things. Creationism not restricted to the strict fundamentalist agenda of 6 days to make and bake and then Adam and Eve. Its just acknowledging the start may be beyond an our world explanation. Intelligent Design on the otherhand has been doctored to prove God created the world in six days, explain Adam and Eve, and so on. Much of this is rubbish easily disproved, but banned for discussion in your science room.

As mentioned to Evo above, not everyone has a philosophy class to discuss this stuff in.

Social studies,media studies,legal studies,hell even English lit.

What do you imagine science has to say on intelligent design? I don't get it.

Science is for scientific theory and ppractise. When theres a falsifiable theory of intelligent design then science classes will start teaching it.

At the moment it's bronze age mythology.What would you like the science teachers to teach?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Where did you go to school? I can tell you right now the closest my school came to a philosophy class was when we got to watch Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure at end of year.

:hihi

Most schools don't have a philosophy class, and mine was even fighting to keep science on the agenda (was done to only 2 semesters required between years 8 and 10, and of course all bets are off once you hit VCE - and I understand its even less now). Most of these issues, if the students even bothered to raise them, were raised in geography or biology.

To ban discussing it even as a possibility in these classes would have killed any chance for students to discuss and debate these issues.

As I said, I have no problem with students raising the questions. In our society it is a natural thing to do. What we need are teachers who know how to respond appropriately in the science classroom.

You missed one major issue for me. creation science and intelligent design are two very different things. Creationism not restricted to the strict fundamentalist agenda of 6 days to make and bake and then Adam and Eve. Its just acknowledging the start may be beyond an our world explanation. Intelligent Design on the otherhand has been doctored to prove God created the world in six days, explain Adam and Eve, and so on. Much of this is rubbish easily disproved, but banned for discussion in your science room.

There is the broad explanation of divine creation that is held by many religions in many different 'flavors'. The non-scientific nature of this explanation (and the question itself) can be explained to students if the question arises. I have no problem with that.

As for ID, I think you need to look into it more, it is far more insidious than you realise. What you refer to is the fundy Christian belief. ID actually has removed any reference to religion in a covert effort to get creationism into the science classroom. The Establishment Clause in the US prevents any teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution to explain the diversity of life. ID is a concerted effort to get around that. So far all legal challenges have continued to supprot the ban on teaching of ID in the science classroom (the Dover trial is a good example).

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Your not discussing it though. You are saying "you are wrong, and this doesn't belong in this class because....".

Thats the kind of approach that shuts down debate because the christians feel vilified, and why raise a question if its not discussed by dismissed.

I certainly do not say "you are wrong". I do point out why such a question is not scientific in nature.

 

[Tiger74]

I certainly do not say "you are wrong". I do point out why such a question is not scientific in nature.

Thats "you are wrong" ;D

 

[Tiger74]

Social studies,media studies,legal studies,hell even English lit.

What do you imagine science has to say on intelligent design? I don't get it.

Science is for scientific theory and ppractise. When theres a falsifiable theory of intelligent design then science classes will start teaching it.

At the moment it's bronze age mythology.What would you like the science teachers to teach?

Social studies - nearest we came to it was one semester of sex ed

Media studies - see earlier reference to Bill and Ted's

Legal Studies - how does "how the world was made" fall into discussions on contract law and the constitution

English Lit - we did have this, but it was a one semester elective only English majors did (which was less than 10 people in a year level of 150)

Our school was pretty much the basics. English, maths, PE, geography, science, history, computer science, legal, eco, accounting, and then the home eco, music, and arts bits and pieces. Even politics was only offered in year 12.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Thats "you are wrong" ;D

No it is not. "You are wrong" is dismissive. Discussion around the types of questions that science can address is appropriate for a science classroom and can be initiated in response to such questions. Dismissing someones beliefs as "wrong" or discussion of the validity of such beliefs when they don't relate to science is inappropriate in a science classroom.

 

[Tiger74]

No it is not. "You are wrong" is dismissive. Discussion around the types of questions that science can address is appropriate for a science classroom and can be initiated in response to such questions. Dismissing someones beliefs as "wrong" or discussion of the validity of such beliefs when they don't relate to science is inappropriate in a science classroom.

So when you are talking about how the universe was created, a kid says "I think God created the universe" you will say "that answer is irrelevant to this room, that answer belongs in your church, so please answer the question properly"?

To a kid that is "you are wrong"

 

[Disco08]

Do schools even teach anything to do with the creation of the universe? I wouldn't think so.

 

[Tiger74]

Do schools even teach anything to do with the creation of the universe? I wouldn't think so.

probably gets asked by curious kids when covering astronomy. Evolution in biology, and some would get raised in geography.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

So when you are talking about how the universe was created, a kid says "I think God created the universe" you will say "that answer is irrelevant to this room, that answer belongs in your church, so please answer the question properly"?

To a kid that is "you are wrong"

No. It is easy enough to explain what the scientific evidence suggests in this area and that science has no evidence of the actual cause (or if there was an actual cause, or 'creation' as you put it). You could discuss the scientific speculation in the area and explain why the 'God hypothesis' falls outside the scope of science in this matter. If they continue to insist on the explanation, then they are wrong in the context of a science classroom, however they will at least know why.

 

[Tiger74]

No. It is easy enough to explain what the scientific evidence suggests in this area and that science has no evidence of the actual cause (or if there was an actual cause, or 'creation' as you put it). You could discuss the scientific speculation in the area and explain why the 'God hypothesis' falls outside the scope of science in this matter. If they continue to insist on the explanation, then they are wrong in the context of a science classroom, however they will at least know why.

I don't think you get it. Telling a kid "nice theory, but fairy tales belong elsewhere and this is why because you have no evidence. Take this up with your priest or the philospohy teacher, because until you have something tangible it has no place in this roon" is not engaging in a discussion, its shutting it down. I'm not saying agree with the kid, or put it on the curriculum, but bans on the discussion are what create the fiasco we have in US schools.

 

[Djevv]

Mostly blind assertion. Unusual for you.

I can have a go at justifying these Biblically if you like.

Otherwise I am just making up my own rules for life like you (athiests) all do. Your assertions are just as 'blind'. In fact more blind because you lack objective reference their correctness.

 

[Djevv]

Being a teacher of science as far as I know there are no restrictions about what you can and can't say in the science class like there are in the US. However, given the tone of Panther and others on this thread it looks like their might be in the near future. T74 is correct in what he is saying, there will always be students wanting to ask questions along these lines, and so there should be. These are the most important questions in life. All Panther et al's repeonse does is confirm in the students minds the disconnect between the science classroom and real life. Bring on the questions I say! .

Having said that I think the teacher should attempt to be as unbiased as possible in their reponses.

 

[Disco08]

I'd just tell the child that science doesn't know exactly how the universe began but various possibilities have been suggested and that various religions have various theories, all of which are not scietifically testable at this point.

I can have a go at justifying these Biblically if you like.

Otherwise I am just making up my own rules for life like you (athiests) all do. Your assertions are just as 'blind'. In fact more blind because you lack objective reference their correctness.

There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest we are pattern seeking creatures and that we are descended from apes, isn't there. That's one assertion that's not at all blind.