Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Having finished my exams for the year, I decided I'd clear out all of my old schoolwork that had been clogging my desk for the past 2 years. In doing so, I came across some interesting revision leaflets handed to our class by one of our Ethics & Philosophy teachers last summer (I took the course from Sept 07 until June 08). Ah, how excited I was to be doing a joint course in ethics and philosophy- it sounded as though it would be fun! Sadly, it turned out to be christian ethics backed by poor philosophy. For all intents and purposes, we can assume this was just a religious education class.
Anyway, the leaflet. It had the title "Unit 3- Religion and Science". The two previous leaflets I thew in the recycling pile, but this one caught my eye. For some reason I had a bad feeling about this. The following takes a look into the contents of the book, which you may skip if you wish. I'm only doing this to paint a picture, but the main point of this thread will become apparent afterwards.
Disection:
Unit 3- Religion and Science Wrote:To achieve a grade in this unit you must be able to:
Describe the different Christian beliefs about the origins of the universe- how a fundamentalist/conservative/liberal will differ.
Describe Scientific ideas about the origins of humanity- big bang, darwinian evolution.
Does the big bang theory give an accurate account for the origins of humanity? Perhaps in an indirect way, but I was udner the impression that it was more a question of cosmology. Also, darwinian evolution does explain how humans came to be and traces us back right to the single-celled organisms from whence we came, but the leaflet seems to imply that evolutionary theory accounts for the origin of life itself. Perhaps I'm reading into this too much, but I think the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis should really have been made.
Unit 3- Religion and Science Wrote:Scientific theories on how the universe came into existence vary but most scientists believe that the universe came into being with a big bang. The happened over 15 million years ago and was a result of matter becoming very compressed.
O'rly?
First and foremost, I don't think scientists posit that the universe came into existence through a big bang. The universe as we know it did, but before this expansion, we cannot make many accurate guesses as to what the universe was like. Besides this, I can't remember any scientist claiming that at some time our universe absolutely did not exist. Okay, I'm being nitpicky.
15 million years ago?! Bloody hell, our planet outdates the universe. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the author in assuming that this was a typing error. However, I cannot be lenient with her statement that the big bang was a result of matter becoming condensed. All we know is that matter was condensed at the time the big bang happened. We don't know how it got there, and we certainly don't claim that it used to be in an expanded state and suddenly condensed itself to create an explosion. Which scientists are being referred to in these claims?
Unit 3- Religion and Science]
Scientists explain how humans came into existence thought the theory of evolution. This theory was proposed by Charles Darwin in the 19th century.[/quote]
Edgy, but I'll assume this is only talking about humans- not life itself. The next segment shocked me:
[quote=Unit 3- Religion and Science Wrote:He said that as plants and animals grew up and aged they adapted to their surroundings; this is called natural selection.
Is it just me, or is this statement implying that plants and animals adapt during their lifetimes and pass on their new adaptations, as opposed to the adaptations occuring during replication of DNA in meiosis/mitosis which give the offspring a set of traits which may help them live and breed more succesfully than their parents? Again, perhaps I'm just being picky.
Unit 3- Religion and Science Wrote:Darwin claimed that this is how humans came into existence: they developed from animals through the process of natual selection. This means that humans are part of the animals kingdom and not unique as religious belief states
Not unique? This almost seems like a ploy to appeal to the emotions of the young adults taking the course. Of course we are unique! We aren't bonobos, nor are we chickens, nor are we starfish. The human species is still unique as it is its own species. The only distinction between this and christianity is that christianity tells us that humans have a special place above all other animals and are the handywork of a divine creator. Nowhere in any scientific theory are we told "humans are not unique". Every single human being has their own unique genetic make-up, how could we be anything BUT unique?
Sidenote: humans ARE a part of the animal kingdom. Even TheAmazingAtheist managed to demostrate this in the most layman terms in a recent video.
The point I wish to make is that while my science classes taught me scientific facts, the religious education classes made out like there was some sort of debate between the two fields of thought, completely misrepresenting scientific accounts for the universe and appealing to the emotions of mid-teens in a most typically religious fashion. Now, because I don't live in the states, I've never come across a science-vs-religion debate in the science classroom. I was taught objectively, given only the facts uncovered by science. Religious agendas never played a role in my science education. However, it appears the religious are still managing to pollute young minds with their warped sense of reality and lowly tactics of emotional appeal and misrepresenting data in the one classroom where they're still allowed to spew their venomous ideas: the RE class.
Should there be a requirement for the RE classes to teach objectively? Should RE be christian by default? Should the RE class be allowed to teach as if its claims hold any water, or should all religions be taught as "this is what some people believe- you decide what's right"? Should RE be its own subject in high scool, or a subset of history? And finally, should it be required that the teachers of religion are scientifically literate, or should science play no part in this class at all?
Religion is already taught in High School and even Middle School. It's put within the course of "Social Studies". However, it's simply the people, history, and time lines that are looked upon.
As far as Creationist bullshit being taught in a Science classroom, this would be a different story. We have a church on every other corner, Wednesday and Sunday's to brainwash the children, if their parents want them to learn ID mess.
I simply want for my children to receive a good education learning what is facts in Science, NOT Science fiction.
LukeMC, are you in the "U.S." and if so what state did they have this leaflet in? I have never heard of it before, that's why I'm asking.....
(June 7, 2009 at 4:12 pm)Samson Wrote: LukeMC, are you in the "U.S." and if so what state did they have this leaflet in? I have never heard of it before, that's why I'm asking.....
LukeMC Wrote:Now, because I don't live in the states,
I live in England. The leaflet was a revision leaflet printed by a school teacher- nothing official. Apparently it represents what is learned throughout the curriculum though.
For a second there it sounded as if the leaflet was from the U.S. ....lolol (Sorry about that)
I know you said you don't live in the states, but I've heard that same expression from other countries as well talking about their own states in place... It's the reason I wasn't for sure if you meant U.S. or somewhere else...
Was the teacher that was handing it out "unofficially of course", doing this during school hours?? If so, did you talk with her or do you know someone else that gave their opinion about the leaflet?? Just curious..
well I'm in Australia and went to Private religious schools for most of my teen life. They didn't teach us anything about evolution or the big bang or etc. Science classes were usually just about adding different chemicals together and seeing cool stuff happen.
June 8, 2009 at 1:27 pm (This post was last modified: June 8, 2009 at 1:28 pm by LukeMC.)
(June 7, 2009 at 8:56 pm)Samson Wrote: Was the teacher that was handing it out "unofficially of course", doing this during school hours?? If so, did you talk with her or do you know someone else that gave their opinion about the leaflet?? Just curious..
She handed them out during a lesson in the run-up to the exams. Nobody in my class said anything about the leaflets, mostly because nobody cared enough to read them. At this point (1 year ago) I hadn't fallen in love with science yet and had only just subscribed to RabidApe on youtube, so my exposure to atheism, science, religion and the debates that they encompass was very limited. However, I did attempt to debate the content going on the little knowledge I had. The teacher used arguments from design to prove that her God was real and that him creating the universe is more likely than random chance from an explosion of gases. All I could really say at this point was "that's not what big bang theory states. If you look at the science and analyse the red shift, would you disagree that the universe is expanding? Scientists don't make things up".
Her response? "You should philosophy next year".
I asked to take the course this year but we didn't have the staff. Shame really, I'd have been having a field day in there nowadays.
If the debate comes up again, let her know that Creationist are the only ones claiming "Something came from nothing"...
They have no problem telling you how there had to be a designer because of the complexity of it all. But by using that argument "Complexity", they fail to realize that it would require for their designer to have a designer as well.....
If the debate comes up again, let her know that Creationist are the only ones claiming "Something came from nothing"...
They have no problem telling you how there had to be a designer because of the complexity of it all. But by using that argument "Complexity", they fail to realize that it would require for their designer to have a designer as well.....
Haha, sometimes I get the urge to stroll over to the humanities department just to have these discussion with her
It's the reason I wasn't for sure if you meant U.S. or somewhere else...
