Not meaning to start a new 'Scientology'!
This is so wrong.
Not meaning to start a new 'Scientology'!
This is so wrong.
It depends on how and where it is taught. There's no problem with teaching it in (say) reglious studies or philosohpy (or even English) - you are showing students that people have a wide range of beliefs and you're showing that you can respect a person even when you disagree with their beliefs.
I don't think it should be ignored in science but I think it should be on the lines of "some people believe that the world was created in 7 days (etc) but most scientists don't believe that and this is the evidence they use ..."
Leave philosophy for the RS classroom - leave science to teach the truth (or abandon science)
Why not just not teach RE at all? If you want ot be religious then goto church/etc, if you want to learn about things which may prove useful in later life thehn goto school.
It should be restricted to RE lessons only. It is *not* a popular idea in scientific circles (it is not even a true 'theory' in the scientific meaning of the word), and as such should not be taught in school level science.
The science classroom is not a place to ask if there is a god. Infact, it isn't about discovering anything new or questionning ANY science - the school classroom is about learning facts (called theories in science) that have been established.
I think it's very important that school children understand that other people think different things and are given space to investigate this but any science teacher that wants to blur truth and fiction by supporting the idea that the world is less than 10,000 years old (undermining other subjects such as geography and history at the same time) needs to be moved into a different department (or institution)
Maybe it was just the way RE was taught at my school but RE wasnt about learning that people think differantly. It was put accross as established facts; jesus DID do this, Mohammed DID do that... and if you didnt agree then you were wrong.
Either way i still disagree. You dont need to be taught the ins and outs about every differant religion just to be able to get along with them, and then who decides which religions are worthy of being taught and to what extent, does scientoloigy make the grade? Besides i didnt say it was about converting people, i was simply questioning its value in a supposedly modern, civilized and developed society. Science will always be useful but i cant remember the last time i was asked how many candles jews light at honica (sp)
"undermining other subjects such as geography and history at the same time"
RE already does undermine science, geograghy, history etc. (Or as i said maybe it was just my school)
Last edited by j17sparky; 12th September 2008 at 04:04 PM.
I'm not talking about getting along with people - I find it interesting. No one really needs to know about quadratic equations or oxbow lakes but generally humans like to learn more about people and environment. I find religion fascinating but prefer that it stays out of science - we can't afford for that to be corrupted with opinion. Science isn't about what we would prefer to be true - you can't have an opinion on a fact.Originally Posted by j17sparky
Mine too. I think it's changed a little now ( I hope it has)Originally Posted by j17sparky
RE was not taught like that when I was at school, even though the teacher was a devout Christian. It covered all the different major religions, explaining what they believe etc... Some of it *is* factual, as it is verifiable history but most of it is based purely on beliefs and this was imparted to us as well.
RE is a very important subject, otherwise people simply don't understand what people think and look at them as strange.
Time I posted the CFSM openletter again:
Open Letter To Kansas School Board - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
It is for this reason that Iím writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. Iím sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.
Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people donít understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
Iím sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we donít.
You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.
P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.
Some stuff in science can be proved - eg if you add an acid to an alkali then you do get a salt and some water. Other things can't be proved; we're just pretty sure that they're true but they're still theories!
I'd like to think that a good science classroom is about discovering new things as far as the pupils are concerned. Of course other people will know them already but I think good science teaching is about encouraging people to investigate, to ask questions and to learn.
Absolutely Steve. Isn't it always the danger that theories are taught as fact. Yes it may seem to be near as dammit right but it remains a theory.
Gwendes - I thought you'd taken up the cloth and disappeared up a mountain somewhere! Welcome back!
Subjects do naturally run into each other's territory, which is where the conflict arises. When thinking about science I naturally apply the knowledge to my religious experience - you have to!
Schools naturally over classify subjects and over-specialise as that's how academics delve deeper into their own field of expertise. Their ideas then are involuntarily biased. Difficult then to present a well rounded view.
Exactly.Science isn't about what we would prefer to be true - you can't have an opinion on a fact.
I've always considered them this way;
Science - the search for fact, truth
RE/RS - learning what people believe
You can't *believe* in a fact - it is either true, or not.
Some stuff in science can be proved - eg if you add an acid to an alkali then you do get a salt and some water. Other things can't be proved; we're just pretty sure that they're true but they're still theories!The major difference between scientific theory and god stories is that a scientific theory can be disproved. Scientific journals are full of different research groups disproving each others work.Absolutely Steve. Isn't it always the danger that theories are taught as fact. Yes it may seem to be near as dammit right but it remains a theory.
The existence of god cannot be disproved, and by definition cannot be a scientific theory.
Science and religion can and do mix. plenty of scientists have religious faith, but religion should most certainly be kept out of science teaching !
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)