The Tennnessee State Senate, last monday, sent back to committee a bill which
would make teaching evolution legal grounds for a teacher's dismissal.  What
do you think?  Is this legal?  Would it be better to teach one theory, no
matter how flawed; to teach all theories as equally flawed and incorrect; or
to teach nothing on the subject?

34 responses total.

I think that our educational systems as a whole are ill-equiped to deal with
the influx of both bible-thumpers and secular humanists.  It would be great
and all to see a world that is held in union by similar beliefs, yet I can
not see the outline of this great world.  To truth I've never been inclined
to call anyone who can put their faith in front of family, friends, and
country, my friend
              I have callend them fellow human, so as I may stay firm to my
beliefs.  So I believ the only way to solve this problem is to contend with
one theory like evolution til at such time the relegions can be united.  Which
is highly unlikely, and evolutioon satisfies the needs of modern day survivial
and communication.  Where the bible-thumpers are laughed at, for their
relegious speil on life.

I've never understood this myself.  The bible and evolution don't contradict
each other at all.  In order to understand the bible, you have to understnad
that it was written in a language that doesn't work like ours:  It is words
that represent ideas, whole sentences.  The world was created in seven days,
but not in the literal snse that we all want to put on it.  Day as in period
of time.  Have you ever been awake for over 24 hours?   Didn't the entire
thing seem like one day?  
In the same vein, the bible doesn't say that things just up and appeared on
the earth.  Everything has a process.
You don't have to throw your bible out to support the theory of evolution.

Interesting.  So if there are a number of ways to interpret the Bible is
there one true and correct interpretation?  Or should the Bible be used
more like a inexact map where it doesn't much matter how you hold it,
right-side up or down, long as it gets you to your destination? 

I think that the passage of such a bill should be grounds for
dismissal of the entire Tennessee state legislature, en masse.
When are they going to give up on this?  Do they *want* to be
a laughingstock?  

Re #3:  Isn't that the basis for why there are so many different
denominations?  Catholics and Protestants are reading the same book, they just
emphasize different parts of it.  Yes, I think that there are several correct
interpretations of the Bible, but by saying that I am in no way saying that
it is impossible to interpret wrong.  There is no one way.  Protestants don't
believe that the Catholics are going about it completely wrong.  

Re #4: Are you saying this because it supports teaching only one view, or
because it supports teaching creationism.

Legally, they're violating the Constitution...separation of church and state,
but how often have we seen *that* ignored?  ={  <sigh>  If I was a biology
teacher, and my course guide had a chapter on evolution, I'd cover it. 
Actually, my biology teacher handled it well.  He taught it as  "theory of
science" instead of the only truth.  He stressed that it was a hypothesis and
told us that we could believe it or not.  That way, the Christians were happy,
and he didn't get fired.  =)

birdlady--it doesn't require the teaching of the Christian view of the
creation, it only seeks to prevent the teaching of evolution.

Oh, I realize that.  What I meant by "church and state" is by not allowing
the teaching of the evolution theory, their underlying statement is "God
created man, and that's that"...no more no less.

I keep hearing the argument that the parents should be able to control what
they wish their children to learn and recently my mind wandered to something
I once read. Here is a passage from _The Prophet_ by Kahlil Gibran on
Children.

And a woman who held a babe against her bosom said, Speak to us of Children.
  And he said:
  Your children are not your children.
  They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
  They come through you but not from you,
  And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.
  You may give them your love but not your thoughts.
  For they have their own thoughts.
  You may house their bodies but not their souls,
  For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not
even in your dreams.
  You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
  For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
  You the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
  The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you
with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
  Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
  For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that
is stable.


Intersting that I use this to argue the parents' role in the argument between
evolution and creationism since it obviously mentions God. I personally
believe that the mentions of God for me symbolize life itself, and not God.
Even those who do believe in God can't ignore some of the points made in the
passage.

Okay, I'm done rambling now.

Just how I would have put it, if I were Kahlil Gibran...

Birdlady:  keep in mind that it doesn't even disallow teaching evolution...I
think you're right, of course, but playing devil's advocate is more fun than
violently agreeing.

<grin>  You're cute, Daniel.

Robert -- that is one of my *all-time favorite* poems.  I bought _The Prophet_
simply for that one,  then proceeded to fall in love with all of his other
passages.  I, however, lost the book mysteriously two years ago.  I have no
idea where I left it or when.  <pout>
<birdy realizes she could just go buy another, but always seems to forget>

hello to everybody!
Now ,this is very popular problem in my country(Serbia,Yugoslavia).
Our education system are based on tutoring allmost all theories in science
or other questiones.
Some  of theories are learned in primary school ,and others in the
future.Other theories we only mentioned (sorry for bad english), but we must
know thet they (or wae) exist.
It is good thing becouse we are very good in theory matters ,and we havwe a
big knowledge in such as all basic sciences.
But ,in pragmatic matters we are not so good.Today they(state) trying to do
something with this .
In our education system we dont say anything about church,or God.I think that
is not good beacouse  ,young people dont learn anything about christian etic.
But,when you taslk about scienc ,I mean real science,there is no place for
bible(exept in hystory etc).It is beacouse bible is not good enough argument
for physical or any other scientific matters.I dont know how can we use bible
for education instrument in nature science.Maybe you will think that I dont
know anything aboute bible,but be shure, Iam ortodox christian ,even I am from
former communist country.
So ,I think that the bible is very important in ethic educationbbeacouse I
see what is happend here without the bible, but also I dont know what is the
effect of learning bible in school?
Ciao!
p.s.:dont ever allow anybody to teach you only one view!!!

Well, since I'm not a Christian, I don't see much need for the
Bible to be taught in public schools.  In fact, I'd be vehemently
opposed to having public schools teach Biblical anything in schools.
If I had any children.  >8)  Since our country has people from many
different religions, I don't think that any one religious view
should be taught in school, and it would take a ridiculous amount
of time to teach children about *every* religion.  (I don't know,
are there many non-Christian children in Serbian schools?)
I'd as soon let parents determine what their children learn about
religion, at home.

Okay...quick lesson...

CHURCH  <----        ---->  STATE

Any questions?

I think that you are wright Robh.But what can we do when society becomes very
bad or mad?What shall we teach rthe children. Here parents can not teach them
enything at all.They have n not time to eat...If you want to know there is
a few christian children i n Serbia.Here we have lot religiones.. ,but  the
ethic of life is wrong.

But do you think public school is the right place to teach children
ethics?  Wouldn't different parents have different ethics that they
would each want their children to follow?  I know a fair number of
parents, and I don't think they could all agree on a single syllabus
for the schools to follow for such a course, apart from generalities
like "don't kill people".

Right.  Because "don't kill people" is universally recognized by almost every
religion.  If a parent wants to educate their children on religion, it is
*their* responsibility as parents to take the children to mass, read them books
(Bible, Koran, etc), and talk to them.  

OK we all agree for this simple problem.But you ca n not look this problem
with question what is wright or wrong.Becouse in different societys  there
is different ways of life.But here we miss all ethic categories and now most
parents teach children only how to use phone.First many people have not other
information aboute life exept on State televisione.And our state television
is very poor (cultural).So just few of us who want to see Serbia in Europe
and the world ,every day we ask somebody what whe can do with our lives and
lives of our children.I think that the first step in this is to know and to
learn aboute basic of christian or any other ethic,becouse almost all world
work onm some ethic principles.If we dont do this ,my opinion is that in the
future we will be like animals..
q.

I think though that there are issues of morality other than "don't kill
people" that most cultures agree on.  Among *most* people (but not all, no
doubt), honesty, respect, etc. are agreed upon as well.  (Of course, there
are people who will disagree with these, but there are also those who will
think murder is justifiable or even necessary is some situations.  i. e., the
death penalty in some states.)  In addition, there are many laws in any nation
that are more or less accepted (for instance, laws against theft, assault,
etc.), and must be followed even if you do not belive they are right.  Any
of these would make reasonable ways to teach ethics without religion.

Also, koska, it may be true that the bible is incompatible with current
scientific ideas, but religion in general certainly isn't.  

May be it is true,orinoco...
thanks!

This response has been erased.

I don't mean to stir up trouble, but I think it is
completely possible to not believe in God(at least
in a Biblical sense) and still know(or learn) that
it is wrong to kill people. I have researched many
religions and very few of them don't try to control
people. I think it is more important to teach all
points of view; anything else is an attempt enslave
the mind. An added bonus of teaching all points of
view(religious or other) is...<gasp!>understanding
and tolerance, something which is lacking in most of
todays society(at least in the USA). Philosophy is
more important to teach in schools than religion.
Philosophy is the base of the knowledge tree. It
puts everything we learn in context. I'm not sure
if it's related or not. but every person that I have
talked to who was interested in philosophy also had
an open mind and realized that a different point of
view can be just as valid as your own.<he quietly
steps down from the soapbox and smiles>

While that would be a good idea, it unfortunately is impossible in the US
today, because of the way the 1st ammendment is interpreted.  It is taken to
mean that, not only can the state not advance one religion over the other,
but it cannot advance religion in general over atheism, and this means that
the public schools cannot teach about religion *at all* without risking a
lawsuit.  

I just got done saying that it is more important to teach philosophy than
religion; and philosophy does not equal atheism. Philosophy is not a religion
per se. I also mentioned teaching all points of view. This is NOT advancing one
religion over another.  Read what I have typed; do not attempt to interpet what
I am thinking, or assume that I am an atheist because I can understand that
point of view. Finally, teaching a religions point of view is not neccesarily
teaching that religion, as long as other religions are represented as well. For
instance, I could mention all of the names that different religions have for
God(i.e. Jesus, Yeweh, Allah, Buddah, etc.) without "teaching" that religion. I
could also mention how each religion worships their respective God without
"teaching" that religion. If you could not refer to religion *at all* you would
have to leave out a majority of the history of the human race considering how
intricately religion has been involved in our history. I guess it all depends
on what you mean by "teach".

I agree with you.  It is the school baords and parents that would not,
unfortunately.
I was referring in particular to your statement about teaching all points of
view.  If that was done, one of two things would happen.  Either parents would
become annoyed that religion <gasp> was being taught in the schools (even if
the atheist and agnostic perspectives were also taught), or parents would
become annoyed that atheism <gasp> was being taught (even if the points of
view of all religions were also being taught).
I would love to see what you are talking about happen, but it couldn't.  I
have seen a teacher fired for teaching the Bible as *literature*, even though
he was not in any way trying to 'indoctrinate' his students, even though it
was part of a unit on world mythology that included many other points of view.
I have seen a teacher refuse to tell me what her personal religious beliefs
are, even though she clearly said she would love to talk about it elsewhere,
because we were in her classroom and she was afraid that would be construed
as breaking the first ammendment.
Unfortunately, there is a paranoid attitude that *any mention* of religions
in school, no matter how balanced or non-judgemental, is a Bad Thing.  Because
of this, what would otherwise be a wonderful idea is infeasible.
Incidentally, I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was assuming you were an
atheist.  Perhaps I was not clear enough about what I was trying to say; I
hope
this clears
that up.

No need to apologize, but I appreciate the gesture. I was just attempting to
more accurately describe my point of view. It is a great pity that our schools
our limited by the ignorance of a few close-minded parents (especially when you
consdier how much knowledge a close-minded person misses out on). The best
teachers that I've had do not care if what they are teaching is uncomfortable
with a few over-bearing close-minded hypocrites. Sorry, I digress, I do not
usually berate people but this ignorance fuels prejudice and many other bad
things in todays society that are all but washed away with a little
understanding and patience).

Well, what I gave are the extreme cases: It's true that many teachers do teach
what they want regardless of the opinions of closed-minded parents.  I just
wish there were more who were free to do that.

Me too.

I'm an atheist. I am ADAMANT about my feelings of the seperation of church
and state. On the other hand
.....

....ahem..excuse me...on the other hand, I wouldn't have the slightest problem
with classes that discussed different world religions, including Christianity.
What I am against is teachers and schools that present a religious world view
as fact. Teaching *about* religion(s) is fine (and this is public schools I'm
referring to). Talking about different religious practices, customs, beliefs
is a great way for kids from different backgrounds to become more familiar
with each other. Actually *teaching* a religion (Christianity, for example)
as 'the way things are' is what I'm strongly opposed to. This includes kids
having to recite pledges of allegience to a god. This includes any of praying
to a god during normal class hours (silent or not). 

   i'm a pagan. i agree about the separation of church and state. i
agree that prayer and religious instruction do not belong in public
school. however, for those of us who do believe in a religion, it
*is* fact.

   disclaimer: i'm not about to try converting anyone.

Hrm...see, my approach to religion is more that it's 'what works for me',
rather than 'this is how it is'.  But I do understand your point, void.

   hmmm. perhaps i wasn't as clear as i would have liked. for anyone
who has a religion, the teachings of that religion tend to be "the way
it is" as far as that person's concerned. i'm certainly open-minded
enough to realize that my way is not the only way...but for me, that's
the way it is. when i say that religion is a fact, i mean exactly that.
i know what i've experienced, even though it may be unexplainable by
science at its current level. i certainly don't think that the
inability of science to explain religious experiences makes the entire
scientific method invalid.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss