Evolution is a theory but it is based on scientific discovery and the testing of hypothesis's over the past 150 years. Not much in science is based on fact but almost always on theory. We could not see microbes or viruses but we came up with vaccines. We cannot see atoms but we have whole branches of science based off atomic theory with not but argument from people who appose it. Does anyone really oppose that atoms exist?
Religion is also a theory based on the writings of many scholars through thousands of years. It is based on the writings of those who were there and the interpretations of those who were there and by those who have alleged to have spoken to god (little g on purpose). It is, of course, also based on faith. The faith that 10,000 years of human existence and thought cannot be all wrong. Faith that there must be more to existence than death.
Science and religion both evolve, if you will, and adapt to meet the needs of the people that they serve. Neither is right or wrong at any given point in time and both are right and wrong at any given point in time. I would like to explore the possibility that both theories can co-exist in todays world. I would like anyone who reads this to do two things:
1. Give examples of religious individuals who believe in evolution and those who believe in evolution that also believe in religion. In my personal experiences, I have never met a scientist who did not believe in god although I have met quite a few individuals who believe in god and strongly disagree with evolution.
2.Give reasons why theology and science should not be taught in in separate but equal classes in our public schools.
Do we really have to have a renaissance age again to show that both can coexist? i again point to a previous post for religious breakdown of the world.
- Christians 33.03% (of which Roman Catholics 17.33%, Protestants 5.8%, Orthodox 3.42%, Anglicans 1.23%)
- Muslims 20.12%
- Hindus 13.34%
- Buddhists 5.89%
- Sikhs 0.39%
- Jews 0.23%
- other religions 12.61%
- non-religious 12.03%
- atheists 2.36% (2004 est.)
13 comments:
1. 2 examples of devoutly religious (and famous) Americans, who also firmly believe in evolution: former President Jimmy Carter, and Bill Moyers.
2. Evolution should be taught. It's actually required curriculum in many states.
Religion should not be taught at all in public schools, unless it encompasses ALL religion. That is, Christianity should receive equal billing with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, and other mythology.
Please give examples of which states with some kind of support. Also, can you site where you read or learned of the beliefs of Jimmy and Bill?
Your last comment is ludicrous. If we did not teach subjects unless we encompasses ALL then we would not teach anything. History, science, literature, almost any subject is subjective. The best we can do is teach MOST and try to maintain a balanced view. Atheists are a minority in the world and we should not ignore the majority to please the minority. I am not suggesting that we teach spirituality but religion and theology.
I don't think you can be an educated person without a knowledge of the world's major, influential religions, or without an understanding of both sides of the evolution/creationism debate, given that it's one of the most important social questions of the last 150 years. (Not talking about creationism is like refusing to talk about, say, the humoral theory of medicine or alchemy or the luminiferous ether, on the basis that they were wrong. It's important to teach that conclusions that have held for centuries can be overturned by new and better information.)
Religions and the history of evolutionary theory are properly taught in social studies classes, since both have a profound impact on human society and governance. Natural selection is properly taught in science class along with genes and heritable traits.
Schools should not be in the religion business. There are these cool big buildings with very steep roofs that do a splendid job selling their wears. They are called churches. Keeping one group of peoples set of fictions straight from another is a very difficult and sometimes dangerous task. There has been much death and destruction brought on this earth in the name of religion. To teach the gruesome history of this injurious preoccupation we humans have is probably alright under certain circumstances.(i.e. history,social studies.) Religion entering schools in any kind of theological or spiritual way should be avoided at all costs. Who's truth do you decide to teach? Would it be the catholics version or the Orthodox Christian version. Would the Pentecostals get their say. Or might the Anglicans, the Baptist, and the Methodists get there way. Lets not forget about our friends the Lutherans. Or the Jehovahs or the Mormons or the Mennonites or the Quakers. This is just a small piece of the pie.(in the sky.)
Belief and faith are the two big undefinable areas of all theology.
Evolution (Biologic) has been accepted world-wide as definable scientific fact and substantiated by Scientific fact and is supported by over one hundred fifty years of solid scientific research. Theology is an attempt to define the unexplainable. Biologic evolution makes no such attempts, but uses Scientific fact to explain matter.
Are Dreams matter? Dream a god and follow it, if you wish, no problem.
Dream Science, and you are not a Scientist, but a dreamer.
Public schools should be religious dogma free zones in terms of teaching religious dogma. Public schools should teach current Science including current Scientific biologic evolution.
You want religious dogma taught in school? go to the religious school of your choice.
Religous non-science is not Science, and is not comparable to Theology. It is like which is more valuable to the earth the sun or the universe.....they are not comparable.
Here at the public schools in rural America students are let out early one day a week to attend religion class (one class meets right in the school auditorium!)However, at these same schools I have been warned about saying the word "yoga" because it may be interpreted as religious. Not a problem if it was a Lutheran thang, but Eastern philosophies,
ugh!
I agree that religion should be taught in school (or sanctioned by public schools) only if all religious or spiritual teachings are discussed and contextualized in the violent history that accompanies the role of religion in the human story. If we are considering teaching the bible then how can we point our finger at the madrasas of the middle east and consider fundamental religious studies as dangerous and deserving of our military intervention? I understand that hypocrisy is a 'Merican right, but come on, religious studies cannot be separated from the implications that righteousness has had on humanity. Why can't we just teach peace studies? Do we really need God to encourage children to be caring,kind,and moral?
Should religious schools that receive vouchers for carrying out public education be required to teach biologic evolution as an alternative to creationist non-Science as an alternative view of the Biotic world?
First I would like to thank ornery atheist, the only one who commented, for doing what the post asked and give examples of individuals and give reasons why you should not teach the two in schools. The point of this post was to collect information on why schools should NOT teach religion in science class and why schools should NOT stop teaching evolution. It has become, as many posts do, a sounding board for your personal view points, fraught with emotion, useless as arguments and meant only to widen the gap between the two sides instead of come up with some middle ground that we can agree. With that...
It seems most of you who responded strongly disagree that religion, although I argue that you are confusing religious doctrine with religious history, should be taught in schools. I never suggested that the schools sell their wares to the public about religion, just teach the history of it. 'Who's truth do you decide to teach?' I would say the same truth you teach in every other aspect of history class. No less biased or real than any other. We are a christian country with a mix of many other religions, start there. I do not know, unless I misunderstand, of any class that want to teach a specific religion's doctrine but religious concepts that are indeed real and factual, people really believe this stuff.
We all have some kind of idealized concept of myths and mythology and see no reason in teaching that in schools, we call it Greek mythology and require the readings of Homer or we marvel at the creation stories of the Native Americans or aboriginal peoples around the world and draw parallels from there stories that apply to todays world as educational allegories. This is religion people. Why do you scoff at your own history? Why do you deny the teaching of your own history to your children under the guise of it will do harm instead of good?
Religious dogma free zones, yes. Religious free zones no. Taught in the context in which they themselves evolved, yes. It is invaluable to teach the history of religion, the violence, the misunderstanding, the good and the bad. Like it or not your moral compass is based on religion. You can deny that your views are in any way shaped by religion but you are wrong. You cannot separate yourself from the context or religion.
I leave with a the thoughts of Cardinal Paul Poupard, who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture and is heading the Vatican project:
..."the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, religion risks turning into 'fundamentalism' if it ignores scientific reason." and he went on to state the opposing view...“We know where scientific reason can end up by itself: The atomic bomb and the possibility of cloning human beings are fruit of a reason that wants to free itself from every ethical or religious link..'
Way to go ornery athiest it seems you got an A in hodags class and the rest of us flunked. Its awfully bold to be so sure that our "moral compass" is driven by religion. Philosophers have been wrestling with that question for a good long time. I don't think that I am a good person or bad because of some religious doctrine. To be so sure is exactly why religion is such a dangerous pastime. It leads people to assume that one can't be a "good person" (or bad) without being a religious person(or at the very least having religion as a compass). The next step is of course that you can't be a "good person" without believing what I do. These dangers are not just philosophical. Ask people who live in the former Yugoslavia, present day Iraq, or any other country torn apart by wars of religion. Rightousness is a natural byproduct of religion. To end, I say use this space as a sound board all you want. Discussions based on "useless arguments, and emotion" are certainly only that in the eye of the beholder.
interesting article on topic.check this out
What the hell kind of blog is this when you can't get off subject, disregard thoughtful questions, introduce irrational,illogical thoughts, and just rant for pure pleasure?
First off, all the religions of the world are for folks with weak minds. Read Eric Hoffer,who came to the conclusion that fundamentalism of all stripes and flavors is just a rather severe form of mental illness.
Secondly, America's founding principle was for folks to live in freedom- mainly freedom from religious persecution. The teaching of one religion, all, or any of them in public school is a form of religious persecution. So if any of you weak-minded religious folks out there want religion taught in school then sign them up for a religious school.
Then let all the others go to public schools and do what they (public schools) do best. Teach our young little or nothing.
ENOUGH ALREADY.
Gottta go read the Bible, get fired up to do some blind violence to some unamed strangers, or maybe some obscure small nation.
When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
President George Washington, September 17th, 1796
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"
Patrick Henry
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations."
Benjamin Franklin Address at the Constitutional Convention Thursday June 28, 1787
"I have lived, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?
President John Adams
"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."
President Thomas Jefferson
"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart."
President John Quincy Adams
"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God."
I am not sure where the myth came into being the the founding fathers of this country were somehow anti religion. I believe that they were all religious people. The Bill of rights states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Some where along the way in our obsession with the evils of religion we have forgotten to teach about religion, the good and evil. We have gone from freedom from religious persecution to the persecution of all religion. Is the point of the first amendment? Why does the teaching of theology constitute religious persecution?
Feel free to rant about what you wish, just try to do it with a stronger mind than the 97% of the world that believes in a god. The 97% of the world, that may be wrong, but are not weak. By the way, it is my blog and anyone who wishes to comment or post like Sporty. If you do not like what we say then start your own blog and fill it with useless dribble like 97% of the other blogs out there. Wow 97% again, do you think that is a coincident??
By the way, nice article Sporty. What timing. It does give one pause for thought. My only point was that is impossible to separate ones morality in our society from the religious aspects of our society. Thousands of years of brainwashing is a hard thing to overcome.
i have read that seventy to eighty percent of the members of the National Academy of Science practice religion. In none of the current Scientific research that I have read, have I come across any religion or religious practice referenced, and I read a lot of current research. Teaching religious history with no dogma attached in public schools is ok, but probably beyond the ken of most public school teachers.
Teaching non-Science (creationism) in the name of Science and all other religious based dogma inspired explanations of the physical world is not o.k. Religion is crossing the border needlessly into an explained world anyway, when they get into the physical world. Religious dogma ought to stick to its knitting, and just deal with metaphysics and the unexplained just on general principles.
Mixing religion and government is a dangerous mix as proven throughout human history. It is better to keep religion and government separate for the longevity of the folks that live here on earth, as we humans have a huge fondness for murdering each other for very small difference such as religious practice, so to keep things peaceful, it is best for most of us to keep our beliefs or non beliefs at a distance from one another.
The confusion over the separation of church and state by politicians, former presidents, kings, queens, Indian Chiefs, tribal leaders, and ministers (foreign, domestic, and religious) is sure as hell nothing new. America got real lucky when this separation was carried out early in the county’s history and if the luck holds we may survive as a country a bit longer but things are looking real grim on the separation issue lately with a borne- again American President out murdering heathens again all in the name of Jesus.
All of human history is a tale of fang and claw not much different from our animal brethren.
The main difference between us and the critters has been that human’s scale for destruction and murder has grown exponentially.
The real debate is which institution, the formation of nation-states, or the development of different world-religions has caused the greatest threat to the continued survival of humans here on Earth? Or maybe their formation is just serving to allow for mankind’s violent nature to florish.
Human violence seems like a survival adaptation that got a little bit out of hand. Pretty hard to top nuclear weapons for scale.
Cormac Mccarthey’s latest, The Road covers post-nuclear society pretty well and is a fun read.
Post a Comment