Top scientists around the world want schools to support evolution globally

Mars- absolutely no disagreement about what the public schools should be teaching. As a public school administrator, I would take disciplinary action against any science teacher who tried to sneak in Intelligent Design into the biology class.

I found the idea that Maciamo is putting out there that the teaching of any religion, by anyone, to any child should be criminal and is "intellectual rape" rather shocking and offensive. Not only is it indicative of some ego driven Athiestic superior mindset, it is proposing that the state should decide what we teach our children and it is a defacto outlawing of religion. When the state dictates what we teach our children, it is deciding the orthodoxy of our beliefs. Such a facist state should never be allowed to exist.

Feel free to raise your children as you like in good concious. As for me and my house, we will serve our God.
 
Mars Man said:
The opinion presented in the OP is obviously for the sake of argument.

You are reading that into it. To me, it seems rather clear that Maciamo has some strong opinions on the matter and he was sharing them with us.

I believe those are his opinions, and if he wants to say they are not, then he will correct my reading of it, or he will correct his opinions.

Either way doesn`t bother me. But, I think he was rather clear and straigtforward.

Everything isn`t always planted in multiple meanings of words or presented for the sake of argument. Some who are for some reason personally involved in the Bible and all the double meanings of all the different words, however, may tend to have a world view that everything is.
 
Not nit-picking or anything, but if you look at the bottom of the page on the Religion and Philosophy Forum homepage you will see that Maciamo is not a moderator for this forum,Tsuyoiko and myself are. Maciamo is admin for the entire site and any problem subjects on individual forums are left up to the mods for that forum. Only when things get out of hand will other staff members become involved and ultimately the admin.
 
Actually I hope Maciamo posted for the sake of argument alone, otherwise I would worry about him. What he posted just isn't what any balanced person would post in all seriousness.

No one should ever go to prison for telling their children that they believe the world was brought into existence by a greater being. It's as simple as that.
 
Thanks Mycernius and Revenant.

I thought at first that is was just hyperbole and I have given him ample opportunity to either explain it or to back away from it... but he continues to stick to it. I am afraid that it is an indication of some deep seated resentment, contempt and hatred toward religion, the religious establishment and religious people.

That someone would say, or imply, even for the sake of argument that I abuse and mentally rape my own children is offensive. That he actually believes it is cause for concern and renders his decision in protecting and shepherding SVF in an entirely different light. That he would continue to assist a religious bigot in spewing contemptuous derisions and protect him from comment or rebuttal from three other members of our community makes sense if he shares SVF's contempt for all people who declare a faith. I am directly questioning his ability to make such decision when religion and philosophy are the topics of the forum. Perhaps this role should be reviewed.

...Or perhaps this is not a forum for free thinking people who hold tolerance as a core value. A warning concerning the bias toward athiests and those without claims to faith should appear with the forum rules.
 
I wondered how old he was. Ah, to be thirteen again. Just starting to learn how to be a surly teenager, hair growing from strange places, noticing girls and starting to move from the boy soprano to the bass baritone range. Has he got to the I know it all stage and your just the inbelievable old person who is so out of touch phase?:D
 
Revenant said:
Actually I hope Maciamo posted for the sake of argument alone, otherwise I would worry about him. What he posted just isn't what any balanced person would post in all seriousness.
No one should ever go to prison for telling their children that they believe the world was brought into existence by a greater being. It's as simple as that.

You are right, prisons are already too crowded and use up tax-payers' money...:blush:
 
Yeah, although I've most likely stopped puberty except for some more growing, maybe a few voice changes.
 
Revenant said:
A lot of the members of the church I grew up in, and the kids I grew up with still carry the Young Earth paradigm. They seem healthy, neither psychologically nor emotionally harmed, and their beliefs don't actually cause anyone harm.

Maybe they haven't confronted reality yet. How old are they ? The older people start to realise the deception of religion, the harder the shock. I know many 'elderly' peolpe (well, over 55-60) who have finally understood that all the things they were told by the Church were big lies, and they ended up depressed, feeling their life was a huge deception. Some of them died soon after because religion had taken such a big place in their life - for nothing... But a good deal of those "long-term" indocrinated people never manage to face reality because they know (consciouly or unconsciouly) that they wouldn't survive the psychological turmoil. That's why I say that teaching kids lies can sooner or later cause irreparable harm.

That is one of the reason why religion causes wars and violence. After a certain age, once people cannot easily change their beliefs or conception of the world/universe, they'd rather fight to death than give up their beliefs when threatened. I think that it is exactly what is happening with Muslims nowadays. Globalisation, technology, societal changes, and increasingly easy access to information over the Internet have all contributed in shattering the dogmas of Islam. The poor socio-economic and intellectual (e.g. scientific, artistic...) perfomance of the Muslim world in the 20th and early 21st century have created doubt about the validity of the religious model and faith in the God that was supposed to "save them" (or at least favour them over the "infidels").

Americans have been less confronted to these doubts and frustration thanks to their prosper economy (esp. after WWII), yet things are slowly starting to change in the US too. Contrarily to homogenous Muslim societies where one is pressured to keep faith and where frustration can only be vented through fanaticism, terrorism and violence, the USA is a freer country (though with its own religious pressure groups, more in some areas than others), and people can more freely become non-religious or Atheist. The percentage of the US population who is Atheist has passed from 8.5% to 15% between 1990 and 2001. This coincide with the Gulf War and 1991 economic crash, then the time when the US has increasingly deteriorated its international image and gaps between the rich and the poor took unprecedently large proportion (see article about the Gini coefficient). God no longer blessed America, and some people finally understood that their religion was not really the word of god. But it is mostly younger people who become Atheist, as others often cannot bear the psychological upheaval it brings about. That's why Atheism grows slowly over decades in a same society, and not in a blink once new scientific facts are found. Only the flexible (and independent) minds of children, teenagers and some adults can assimilate the new knowledge and challenge the beliefs they were taught.
 
In Australian in public schools, no religious classes are conducted. In private schools however they are. So, it depends on the religion of the private school, some are Methodists, some Anglican, some Presbyterian...etc

I don't think they should teach religion in public schools but in private schools
I think it is ok. After all, those private schools are linked to the various religions. Some even has the religion in their title, for example Methodist Ladies' College. A College is a private school in Australia unlike in the U.S. it is an University.
 
Minty said:
I don't think they should teach religion in public schools but in private schools
I think it is ok. After all, those private schools are linked to the various religions.

I strongly disagree.

My first reason is that in some countries, like Belgium, people have virtually no choice between public and private school, as they are almost all private and affiliated to the Catholic church (the school names are always "Saint something" or "Our Lady of something"). In fact I was suprised to see in the UK that Catholic schools had the word "Catholic" in their name, as it is almost always so in Belgium for a school that is not called a "Atheneum" (i.e. government owned, at least in the French-speaking area).

My second reason is that it is ethically unacceptable to force children (who have no say in what school they go to) to learn about a particular religion. It would be ok if "religion classes" were like in the UK, i.e. teaching about the differences between the major world religion, without ever favouring one. But propaganda for one particular religion is just unacceptable in any kind of school.
 
Maciamo said:
It would be ok if "religion classes" were like in the UK, i.e. teaching about the differences between the major world religion, without ever favouring one. But propaganda for one particular religion is just unacceptable in any kind of school.
As I see it, comparitive religion and proper science (including the theory of evolution and excluding Young Earth Creationism) should be mandatory. Comparitive religion classes would go some ways in increasing tolerance towards other belief systems. Both atheists and fundamental Christians could take a lot from these classes, as both seem to have members that are highly intolerant. Still, teacher prejudices cannot be avoided, so an atheist teacher or a Christian teacher may put opposing belief systems in a very poor light.

If a school is religious, the two above mentioned classes should also be mandatory, and propoganda religious classes completely seperate from those.

I can't see telling parents that they can't raise their children with the belief systems that they absolutely believe in, but neither do I think that the children should not have some working understanding of other belief systems as well as hopefully an understanding that promotes more tolerance, for example, that religions don't cause war, or the Koran isn't a book of hate from front to back.
 
Last edited:
Revenant said:
As I see it, comparitive religion and proper science (including the theory of evolution and excluding Young Earth Creationism) should be mandatory. Comparitive religion classes would go some ways in increasing tolerance towards other belief systems. Both atheists and fundamental Christians could take a lot from these classes, as both seem to have members that are highly intolerant.

I agree that comparative religion classes would be good. I agree that it would make religious people more tolerant of other religions, and probably help them relativise (and attenuate) their religious faith and fervour. However I disagree that it would make Atheist people more tolerant. In my experience, the more I have learnt about various religions, the more unreligious I became until becoming an Atheist. And the more I learnt about the (irrational and conflicting) beliefs and the politics and money involved in many religions, the more annoyed and intolerant I became of religions and religiousness in general.

I had a pretty positive view of Buddhism before coming to Japan. It was a bit damaged when I saw how Japanese Buddhist priests made such a big business out of funeral, with huge sums of money asked to the bereft family to obtain a "better" Buddhist name, which would grant acess to Nirvana (add to that that the name in question came out of a computer software that anybody could have bought for a fraction of the price !). Another thing I disliked was all the superstitions attached to Buddhism in Japan (e.g. the Daruma dolls). I still have a fairly good image of some purer forms of Buddhism (NOT Mahayana) where superstitions and money doesn't conflict with the true quest to self-improvement. But that's more of a personal code of conduct, rather than an organised religion...

If a school is religious, the two above mentioned classes should also be mandatory, and propoganda religious classes completely seperate from those.

That will never happen. :eek:kashii:

I can't see telling parents that they can't raise their children with the belief systems that they absolutely believe in, but neither do I think that the children should not have some working understanding of other belief systems as well as hopefully an understanding that promotes more tolerance, for example, that religions don't cause war, or the Koran isn't a book of hate from front to back.

I am the kind of person who believes that people shouldn't even be allowed to become parents if they do not have the necessary knowledge/skills and motivation to raise children properly. This means knowing the proper nutrition for a pregnant woman, for a baby, for a child; learning about children psychology, pedagogy, etc. Isn't it a full time job to raise a child ? Maybe there should be some laws limiting the number of children as well, as the dedication and care of parents to their children tends to be increasingly divided (and thus "bad") the more children they have.

I find it vital not to teach lies that could be detrimental to the psychological development and self-accomplishment of a child (not just lies about religions, but about nature, the world, laws, social conventions, etc.). It is part of being a good parent. And if we want society as a whole to improve, governments should assure that all parents be good parents, so that children will become better people, and society will be allowed to progress.

There are already thousands of preventive laws about almost everything (against ecological problems, monopoly of big businesses, unfair trade, racial and sexual discrimination...); why shouldn't there be preventive laws against bad education in homes ? Isn't the most fundamental and important thing in preventing crime, delinquency, vandalism, unemployment and many other societal problems typical of lower (read poorly educated) classes ?
 
Maciamo said:
However I disagree that it would make Atheist people more tolerant. In my experience, the more I have learnt about various religions, the more unreligious I became until becoming an Atheist. And the more I learnt about the (irrational and conflicting) beliefs
I've got no problems with irrational beliefs that make people a whole lot nicer to live with.
Maciamo said:
and the politics and money involved in many religions, the more annoyed and intolerant I became of religions and religiousness in general.
The whole politics things isn't easy. People don't want abortion banned, but only some land developers would complain were a Buddhist party to start campaigning for old growth forest protection.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows that actual religion and business aren't supposed to mix. Corruption shouldn't be reason to view the religions themselves in a bad light.
Maciamo said:
Maybe there should be some laws limiting the number of children as well, as the dedication and care of parents to their children tends to be increasingly divided (and thus "bad") the more children they have.
Supposedly IQ has gone up, and EQ has gone down within the last century. Perhaps children of large families learn relationship skills better than only children.
Maciamo said:
Isn't the most fundamental and important thing in preventing crime, delinquency, vandalism, unemployment and many other societal problems typical of lower (read poorly educated) classes ?
A lot of Muslim fanatics are poorly educated, that doesn't speak at all for some of the Christians that I have come across on the net.
 
While I agree with some of the points, or in other cases the essence of some points you have and are making, Maciamo san, I am nowhere near convinced that you yourself have taken that careful a look at the 'BIG PICTURE'.

If you were to look out your window, I think you'd notice that the world is working about as well as usual--and this usual time span is several millions of years, right? And of course, this is in spite of any belief-system that humankind has every come up with over all this time. It is in spite of the homo sapien's (as well as other species) tendency towards violence against those of 'out-groups'.

We can generalize and share our personal experiences and so on, but to put some peer-reviewed, valid statistics out on the table would take a good quarter of a lifetime to do, I'm sure you'd agree.


Maciamo said:
I think that anyone (not just school teachers, but also parents or religious workers) who teaches to children things contradicting hard scientific facts about evolution should be considered as a criminal and sent to jail.
(bold and underline mine)

While there is some generality, thus some room for margin of application and intent, the above is otherwise extremely uncalled for and fanatical in nature. And I yet strongly urge that a greater degree of empathy be shown by correcting this wrong. I do declare that such a statement is wrong !
 
Maciamo said:
I strongly disagree.
My first reason is that in some countries, like Belgium, people have virtually no choice between public and private school, as they are almost all private and affiliated to the Catholic church (the school names are always "Saint something" or "Our Lady of something"). In fact I was suprised to see in the UK that Catholic schools had the word "Catholic" in their name, as it is almost always so in Belgium for a school that is not called a "Atheneum" (i.e. government owned, at least in the French-speaking area).
My second reason is that it is ethically unacceptable to force children (who have no say in what school they go to) to learn about a particular religion. It would be ok if "religion classes" were like in the UK, i.e. teaching about the differences between the major world religion, without ever favouring one. But propaganda for one particular religion is just unacceptable in any kind of school.

I was referring to the schools in Australia; I don't know anything about the schools in Belgium. I don't know about French schools neither because I am not a mother yet. Furthermore, I think my child will be born in Australia. And after 6 months s/he is born, the first 6 years s/he will be baby-sit by my mother so it would be half a year in Australia and half a year in Malaysia. My husband and I would move to Australia few years from now and that's the time he wants our child to be born. This way I could further my degree and still work.
 
I have been mulling over the education of religion on children ever since Maciamo mentioned it as Intellectual rape and offenders should be punished. I am afraid that statement sounds like something that would come from the extremists, either religious or non-religious. How someone raises their own children in a caring environment shouldn't be open to such a belittling statement. The case for anyone raising their children with any type of teaching could have the same accusation laid against them. A parents chief goal for their children is to bring them up as best as they can. They want the best for their children. If they are raised in a faith household, the parent will feel that the best way to raise their children is within this environment. An atheistic person might want to raise their children in a sceintific view on the world. We, as a society, cannot say that one is morally wrong above the other. Both sets of children will encounter facts beyond their parents as they go to school and meet other children whose parents have different views on the world. This itself can be traumatic for young children. The mere fact of sending your 5 year old away from you for 6 hours a day, 5 days a week causes tears. How many of you have seen children on their first day of school in tears? Doing this could cause abandonment issues, lose of love from a parent. Should everyone who does this be open to causing emotional distress to children? Of course not. It is part of growing up and learning how to cope with the world around us. After all how many do it for the rest of their school lives?
Children are very resilent to changes and facts that come into their lives as they get older. I admit that I have not got any children, but I am a Cub scout leader and have been for almost 20 years. The age group I deal with is 8 to 11, an age when they start to question the world around them. If a child asks me about God and faith, I will never say that their parents are wrong. I will tell them that I have a point of view that might not be the same as their parents, but it is not my job to say 'Your parents are wrong', because that is just as much emotional or intellectual rape as the teachers, priests or parents are doing. The child will find their own way.
I don't know if Maciamo has any children, but when they start school and have teachers telling them one thing and a parent telling them another, you'll find that they will cope. It is part of growing up.
All sabro has to look forward to at the moment is a surly teenager, who regards him as a walking bank:D
 
Revenant said:
Just a few like Maciamo and strongvoicesforward (although he isn't actually Atheist). I think most go through an anti-religious stage, and after that simply take on attitudes much like Duo's, that people can believe as they like, so long as they don't try and replace secular laws with religiously-inspired laws.

I have been abgry at Christianity since I was a child, and at monotheist religions since I was a teenager. I do not feel that my anger appeases itself with time, on the contrary. It highly depends on what kind of people I am talking to. In everyday life I have very few opportunities to complain about religion because I never hear anybody talk about religion in Belgium or Japan. But while travelling or on Internet forums, I meet a lot of very Christian Americans that really piss me off; these people are almost always Conservative Protestant Americans, or Muslims (much more the former, as I interact with more American Christians than with Muslims). Interestingly, I was raised in a 100% Catholic environment (well among the Christians, as there were many non religious people as well), but I now do not harbour as negative feelings towards Catholics, because almost all of those I know (who are priests or religion teacher or old) are non-practising, not very religious or agnostic. The exception are Philipinos, who are still very conservative and fanatic depite being Catholics. In other words, the fanatic Christians I have met were almost all American and Philipinos.
 
Although we have science requirements and standards in the state of California, it is not part of the Exit Exam requirements. Evolution is definitly not empasized in the way it should and the State's Science framework- the document that governs the scope and sequence of the curriculumn and serves as a guide in the subject area for textbooks, materials, and methodology... is in my opinion, one of the weaker examples. (Math and English are much better.) I do believe that it would greatly benefit California to strengthen the instruction of science- in all grade levels. They should consult with some of the larger science bodies such as the NAS, fill in the holes and not only update the content, but reemphasize method, critical thinking and analysis and the basic concepts that can be applied accross the curriculum.
 

This thread has been viewed 16565 times.

Back
Top