Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Teachers brainwashing our children?


Mr.Canada

Recommended Posts

there was no "bible study" when I went to school and there was no "creationism" taught when I went to school...there was some comparative world religious study in high school but that was part of a larger Social Studies course...

what we see today is religious groups fighting for survival by attempting to inject their beliefs through the school system...religion is dying a slow death of attrition as young students are educated in logical sciences without the biased fantasies of religion...

Exactly, I went to Sunday School and church to learn about religion; I was in school to acquire knowledge that would allow me to be a contributing member of society.

I believe this was said previously, probably several times, but I think it is worth repeating, if parents want the school system to teach their children the tenets of Christianity; they should enroll them in Christian schools and leave the public schools to teach an academic curriculum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 286
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why on earth would those two things be taught beside each other? That would be like teaching astronomy and astrology "beside each other".

Science class isnt supposed to teach every point of view, its supposed to teach the scientific method, and the body of knowledge aquired using the scientific method. Religion is a doctrine that some people believe because they were told to by other people. Even if you think the scientific method has produced the wrong conclusion in this case, you should still be able to see why those theories dont belong in the same forum. If you want to teach religion in a school then you would have to do it in a "comparative religion" class where children all taught about the hundreds of different religions, worshipping thousands of different gods, and all the bizzare beliefs religious followers have held along the way.

Okay I see your point. I shouldn't have used the word Creationism.

BUT, definitely the theory of Intelligent Design ought to be taught in school as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not relativism, its a simple fact. Some schools teach the traditions behind christian holidays, and some don't. Some schools do christmas projects in art class, some don't.

If you believe that is "relativism," I'm not sure what else to say.

That said, insisting that all views ought to enjoy equal presentation and airtime in the interest of "fairness" is bordering on relativism, but still not there.

I was responding to the reasonings of other posters here who tried to justify by saying there's no need to impart others about our culture since ours is the dominant culture.

Actually your previous statement:

Because teaching students about something that completely saturates their culture and is utterly impossible to miss in the course of daily life isn't exactly an important educational experience.

Yours is in the nativity scene set up outside almost every city hall for 2-3 months every year or the pithy pronouncements on billboards outside of every second church.

Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. Either way, it has very little educational value due to the omnipresence of christian holidays in our culture.

And then you asked this:

Schools are educational institutions, yes?

Exactly! Educate by showing an example. If you want to teach equality....you have to demonstrate equality!

Exactly. If you want to teach democracy....you have to set an example. You don't stifle or silence dissenting views....or theories.

You don't enforce and ram your theory as the rule....when there is a serious debate about its validity!

Exactly. If you want to teach inclusive-ness....you set an example. Don't exclude anyone.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay I see your point. I shouldn't have used the word Creationism.

BUT, definitely the theory of Intelligent Design ought to be taught in school as well.

:lol:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District -U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution....

absolute comedy how the creationist "textbook" Creation Biology was renamed and re-edited as Of Pandas and People eliminating the words "creation and creationist" and replacing them with "intelligent design and "design proponent" in order to try sneak by as a serious science source :lol:...really how dumb are people to fall for BS like that :rolleyes: ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being multi-cultural isn't a one way-street.

Betsy:

Furthermore, since schools are educational institutions, it's all the more important to impart to all Canadians from various cultures about the history of CHRISTMAS! How it came about. What's it all about!

It only makes sense that Christian Christmas tradition, most especially be given direct focus, since non-Christians from various cultures have adapted it one way or another!

Since you claim schools teach facts, and not conjectures....all the more reason to explain that Christmas is about Jesus Christ. Unless the system/schools had wilfully decided to distort the facts.

Though so many would like to see any mention of Christianity erased or would rather sweep it under the rug....we can't deny that it's a huge part of our culture. To omit it is a distortion of this nation's history.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm all for statutory holidays. I'd like to see more of them. I think we should use Jewish, Muslim, and Hindu holidays as well, for a start, just because holidays are awesome.

Betsy:

EASTER! ....and GOOD FRIDAY! Thank you for reminding me.

Two holidays that's part of our culture. High standard of education will include the historical facts why we celebrate these as holidays! Bunny rabbits and the egg-hunt aside, children of all cultural backgrounds (including natural-born Canadians of course) should know the meaning behind these holidays since they're part of history and the culture of this nation.

We can ignore Halloween...we work and we go to school on Halloween. Not a stat. :D

Since most of you couldn't stand ignorance, surely you'd find it unacceptable when children gets asked why is Easter and Good Friday a holiday, and you get the embarrassing, head-scratching, "I dunno."

But to the point: you said that Creationism should get equal treatment in public schools, and you summoned the word "democracy," to buttress the argument.

I should've said the theory of Intelligent Design.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District -U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution....

absolute comedy how the creationist "textbook" Creation Biology was renamed and re-edited as Of Pandas and People eliminating the words "creation and creationist" and replacing them with "intelligent design and "design proponent" in order to try sneak by as a serious science source :lol:...really how dumb are people to fall for BS like that :rolleyes: ...

It wasn't considered science because ID broke the century-old groundrules of science - not to invoke supernatural causation.

That in itself shows a somewhat close-mindedness, I would say....to limit itself. What if - as other scientists assert - there is a first cause? A supernatural causation?

Are we suppose to just ignore it? If we truly are searching for the truth....shouldn't we keep our minds open? Be prepared to entertain other theories that may or may not be to our liking?

Anyway, it's still all politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't considered science because ID broke the century-old groundrules of science - not to invoke supernatural causation.

That in itself shows a somewhat close-mindedness, I would say....to limit itself. What if - as other scientists assert - there is a first cause? A supernatural causation?

Are we suppose to just ignore it? If we truly are searching for the truth....shouldn't we keep our minds open? Be prepared to entertain other theories that may or may not be to our liking?

Anyway, it's still all politics.

It wasn't considered science because ID broke the century-old groundrules of science - not to invoke supernatural causation.

That in itself shows a somewhat close-mindedness, I would say....to limit itself. What if - as other scientists assert - there is a first cause? A supernatural causation?

Thats not true. Its not considered science because its not a product of the scientific method. Its not a theory that was generated by scientific works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't considered science because ID broke the century-old groundrules of science - not to invoke supernatural causation.

That in itself shows a somewhat close-mindedness, I would say....to limit itself. What if - as other scientists assert - there is a first cause? A supernatural causation?

Are we suppose to just ignore it? If we truly are searching for the truth....shouldn't we keep our minds open? Be prepared to entertain other theories that may or may not be to our liking?

Anyway, it's still all politics.

Wow, how many times does one have to point out that there are different types of sciences and all of them deal with the physical world and not the spiritual world. That is why they are called physical sciences, not spiritual sciences.

And creationism = intelligent design.

Edited by GostHacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, how many times does one have to point out that there are different types of sciences and all of them deal with the physical world and not the spiritual world. That is why they are called physical sciences, not spiritual sciences.

And creationism = intelligent design.

However, the phenomenon of creationism/intelligent design could be examined under psychology and anthropology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ID doesn't pass muster either. And it's not separable from Creationism.

There, you hit it in the nail. That's the reason why it is claimed that it didn't pass muster!

The theory of evolution is only that....a theory. It is not an established fact....not even backed by clear evidence.

You'd think that through the ages (millions and millions of years) that the earth will be littered by thousands and thousands (if not millions or billions) of fossils that show the evolution of one specie to another. Yet not even one....not a single one could be found! All we ask is ONE SINGLE evidence!

Anyway, I don't want to get involved in yet another evolution debate on this thread. Just like abortion or global warming...I tend to agree that this has become nothing more than politics.

The Politics of Evolution

It isn’t about science. It isn’t even about religion. To some, it’s about politics.

We don’t like to talk about politics because we aren’t trying to take a political stand. We want to talk about science. But we can’t help noticing that scientific “truth” is being influenced by political ideology. The elephant in the room, which we have so far pretended not to notice, is that political liberals tend to favor teaching the theory of evolution and political conservatives tend to oppose it. There is a political reason for that.

Maybe we have been wrong to ignore politics for so long. We criticize evolutionists for not talking about the scientific evidence against evolution. Perhaps it is hypocritical of us not to talk about the political agenda that is behind the drive to institutionalize the teaching of evolution.

Conservatives would like to see local school boards establishing the curriculum for their own school districts in accordance with the wishes of the local population. They don’t want these decisions made by ED or the National Education Association (NEA, the teacher’s union). The Cato Institute expresses what many conservatives think.

Liberals, on the other hand, take the position that education is important to success, and that no section of the U.S. population should be handicapped by an inferior education. Every student is entitled to an excellent education, and therefore national standards ought to be set to ensure that certain minimum standards are met everywhere.

Those are the two completely opposite positions on how education should be conducted in the United States. Neither side is “anti-education.” Both sides are sincere in their beliefs that they know what is best for our children.

Evolution and Politics

With this background, you can see the relevance of the theory of evolution to the politics of how evolution should be taught in America.

The theory of evolution is a political wedge for establishing precedent concerning the federal government’s roll in establishing a nationwide educational curriculum. If a legal precedent is set that the federal government can mandate what can be taught about the theory of evolution in public science classrooms all across America, then courts can use that precedent to enforce other things being taught in the science classroom. These other things might include the government-approved positions on global warming and environmental responsibility. Once the government has established the right to require the teaching of these things in physical science classes, it is a small step to mandate the teaching of social science issues, including attitudes toward race, gender, abortion, socialized medicine, religious tolerance, the right to die, etc.

More…http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v10i4f.htm

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats not true. Its not considered science because its not a product of the scientific method. Its not a theory that was generated by scientific works.

Why would a quest for truth put a limit on how we come to the truth? All roads should be open in searching for the truth. Schools and educational institutions should uphold this! You don't ram half-baked theories and ram it in as facts....that's being fraudulent - mis-representing - as an institution that passes itself as a place for "education."

In this way, educational institutions become nothing more than "brain-washing" institutions for whomever or what ideology is in power.

If the possibility of a supernatural causation is there....instead of saying, "hold it. Hold it. It's not a scientific method," shouldn't we say...."Prove it?" After all, that's what anti-evolutionists are telling the evolutionists....prove it!

Shouldn't we keep an open mind?

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should've said the theory of Intelligent Design.

It's not a theory; it's an untestable hypothesis. We've gone through this before. Stop mixing up the definitions of theory. You're only calling it that to try to give it equal ground to the "theory" of evolution which is a scientific theory and not a hypothetical one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There, you hit it in the nail. That's the reason why it is claimed that it didn't pass muster!

The theory of evolution is only that....a theory. It is not an established fact....not even backed by clear evidence.

You don't understand what the word theory means in a scientific context. Scientifically speaking evolution is an established fact.

You'd think that through the ages (millions and millions of years) that the earth will be littered by thousands and thousands (if not millions or billions) of fossils that show the evolution of one specie to another. Yet not even one....not a single one could be found! All we ask is ONE SINGLE evidence!

Huh? There's millions of fossils that demonstrated evolution in action. There's an entire human family tree of fossil evidence.

Why would a quest for truth put a limit on how we come to the truth? All roads should be open in searching for the truth. Schools and educational institutions should uphold this! You don't ram half-baked theories and ram it in as facts....that's being fraudulent - mis-representing - as an institution that passes itself as a place for "education."

In this way, educational institutions become nothing more than "brain-washing" institutions for whomever or what ideology is in power.

By definition, supernatural explanations are untestable and therefore unscientific. As for "half-baked theories", well, you can't be talking about evolution, because it's backed by reams and reams of data and is regarded by the scientific community (as well as the Catholic Church) as fact.

If the possibility of a supernatural causation is there....instead of saying, "hold it. Hold it. It's not a scientific method," shouldn't we say...."Prove it?" After all, that's what anti-evolutionists are telling the evolutionists....prove it!

Shouldn't we keep an open mind?

An open mind is not the same thing as empty room to be filled with any old junk lying around. I bet your open mindedness would balk at giving equal credence to alternative supernatural explications for creation outside of the Judeo-Christian myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wasn't considered science because ID broke the century-old groundrules of science - not to invoke supernatural causation.

That in itself shows a somewhat close-mindedness, I would say....to limit itself. What if - as other scientists assert - there is a first cause? A supernatural causation?

Are we suppose to just ignore it? If we truly are searching for the truth....shouldn't we keep our minds open? Be prepared to entertain other theories that may or may not be to our liking?

Anyway, it's still all politics.

No. We are supposed to test it. If someone came up with a way to test for and show consistent results in repeat attempts of an extra-natural creator, they would be the most lauded scientific mind since Einstein. You see that's the nature of science. Throw out old ideas that no longer work and accept what the new evidence shows.

However, do you have any way to test for a creator? The only arguments I have heard create an infinite regression. Life is too complex to be created out of "chance" (it's not, it evolved over millions of generations), so there must be a more complex creator that made it. That complex creator is then so complex that it needs a more complex creator to have created it, by the same logic. Ad infinitum. Biological complexity does not necessitate a creator, so that argument is squashed.

How else might we test for a creator? Are you going to say, "you just need to have faith!" Well why don't I have faith that a celestial garden gnome created the universe instead? If simply having faith in something makes it valid, then that has equal weight to your Christian God. If it needs to have cultural and historical support, then belief in any of the hundreds of possible Gods that have exited throughout history are equally valid. What if the creator is not some benevolent designer? What if the creator was the deity you believe to be Satan and this is our torture before dying and going to hell for eternity? Basically, anything is possible if it's simply a matter of having faith because there are no other answers. That is exactly the same thing, and it's sad that you can't see it, as saying "I don't know but I'm going to make shit up and demand that it's taught in school."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, do you have any way to test for a creator? The only arguments I have heard create an infinite regression. Life is too complex to be created out of "chance" (it's not, it evolved over millions of generations), so there must be a more complex creator that made it. That complex creator is then so complex that it needs a more complex creator to have created it, by the same logic. Ad infinitum. Biological complexity does not necessitate a creator, so that argument is squashed.

It's turtles all the way down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theory of evolution is only that....a theory. It is not an established fact....not even backed by clear evidence.

there's the problem...you have zero understanding of the definition of science terms Law, Theory and Hypothesis...Theory in scientific terms means "accepted to be true" it has developed from a hypothesis that has stood repeated challenges from peer review based on clear evidence...creationism/ID is a hypothesis that has no evidence and is unable to progress past the hypothetical/speculation stage....

Theory of Evolution = accepted to be true

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There, you hit it in the nail. That's the reason why it is claimed that it didn't pass muster!

Correct, because creationism is as much religious bunk as Intelligent Design. Good time to bring in Mr. Ray Comfort and the 'The Banana is the atheists nightmare'. Touting how the banana is an invention of intelligent design because of how many sides the banana has and how it fits ever so neatly in the human hand, without knowing that the banana in it's current form, is the results of centuries of human manipulation. So it may be intelligently designed, but that intelligence is not divine, it's human.

You could say god invented it , but humans perfected it. :D

The theory of evolution is only that....a theory. It is not an established fact....not even backed by clear evidence.

After pages and pages and threads upon threads, my only response to this now is LOL.

You'd think that through the ages (millions and millions of years) that the earth will be littered by thousands and thousands (if not millions or billions) of fossils that show the evolution of one specie to another. Yet not even one....not a single one could be found! All we ask is ONE SINGLE evidence!

Again ... lol. And the earth was created in 6 days and 6 nights, only 6000 years ago. 6,6,6, ... hmmmm

Anyway, I don't want to get involved in yet another evolution debate on this thread. Just like abortion or global warming...I tend to agree that this has become nothing more than politics.

Politics, no ... ignorance, yes.

Edited by GostHacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would a quest for truth put a limit on how we come to the truth? All roads should be open in searching for the truth. Schools and educational institutions should uphold this! You don't ram half-baked theories and ram it in as facts....that's being fraudulent - mis-representing - as an institution that passes itself as a place for "education."

In this way, educational institutions become nothing more than "brain-washing" institutions for whomever or what ideology is in power.

If the possibility of a supernatural causation is there....instead of saying, "hold it. Hold it. It's not a scientific method," shouldn't we say...."Prove it?" After all, that's what anti-evolutionists are telling the evolutionists....prove it!

Shouldn't we keep an open mind?

Im not saying you shouldnt keep an open mind, and people can teach whatever spirital beliefs they want to their kids. Im just explaining to you how we determine what we teach in science/biology. ID/Creationism has no place there at all.

Do you think we should teach creationism in math class, or at a hockey school? No... its not a part of either of those subjects, and its not a part of science class either.

Besides that... Im not exactly sure what it is youre whining about. You rant about all this "brain washing" and try to act all victimized by the fact schools are secular. But the reality is that MOST people believe in some sort of higher creator. More than 90% world wide as a matter of fact.

We have churches and parents to teach children spiratual beliefs, and we have schools to teach them the skills, and knowledge they need to prosper in the evidence based reality they have to live in. Why is that such a problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...