Iowa policy puts religion in school
source: http://www.examiner.com/x-10853-Portland-Humanist-Examiner~y2009m7d9-Iowa-policy-puts-religi...
-
-
- unimatrix0
- added this
(more at link)
----------------------------------------------------
Should religion be allowed in school? What do you think?
-
-
jchung
-
Ridiculous. Teaching religion in school would just cause more problems. There was a reason the Constitution included separation of church and state; that religion was taken out of schools in the first place.
- 2 years ago
-
jchung
-
-
Leaora
-
jchung:
I meant as a separate class, not as a part of another like science. Religion is as much a part of the shaping of this world as history and perhaps it (as a subject) should be regarded as such.
- 2 years ago
-
Leaora
-
-
Leaora
-
I think religion should be taught in school, but from an unbiased viewpoint. Furthermore, it should be about multiple religions and stress tolerance. Most kids don't even know the details of "their" own religion, much less any others. Having a multi-religion class would definitely cut down on religious ignorance.
- 2 years ago
-
Leaora
-
-
caitlynmaerose
-
I am generally a universalist. I think most religions have merit and worth. Before critizing too harshly the allowance of religion, let's look at the classes being offered.
1)A biblical history class. This is a history class. Much like Medieval history, or history of Greek philosophy, or Eastern history. It is a historical account of an individual movement/people group that has much to offer, culturally and otherwise. It is not about persuading people to become Christian at all. A history of China doesn't make me become Confuscian or Daoist. But what it does do is make me more understanding of those viewpoints and how they interact with my own, which is always a good thing. Not to mention, most Christians have no idea why they believe what they do and that is why we get ridiculous things like homophobia, etc. A history class would be quite advantages.
2) A Critic of Darwinism. Take a good look at history. Science is constantly rewritten and never taken as fact. There should ALWAYS be a class critiquing the scientific norm, lest we become to comfortable and thus, stagnant. (Think flat earth thought.)
While religion is not the primary purpose of educational facilities, these two classes aren't necessarily even religious. And I think they would do a great deal of good.
- 2 years ago
-
caitlynmaerose
-
-
Eleganza
-
Royulery, I would agree if you are speaking of adults in a college course debating the differences between scientific explanations of the origins of life and the religious explanations...but elementary age school children take what adults teach them as truths, they haven't yet developed a mind that can debate with an adult..the same reason that they are not bound by contracts untill they have reached their majority...it's not about an opposing point of view, it's called brainwashing, there is nothing in science that says if you don't believe in this or that theory that when you die you are going to be tortured for eternity...
- 2 years ago
-
Eleganza
-
-
caitlynmaerose
-
Eleganza:
Truth. I think the doctrine of hell is the stupidest and most frightening thing Christians ever concocted. Fear tactics in religion? It's ridiculous.
But, take this into account. If you examine Christian history (like one of the classes up for debate will do), you will see that 'hell' was not even considered an actual place or a real threat at all in the Bible. It was used by the apostles as an allegory as was the tradition. There was no such thing as eternal hell or damnation at all.
Christians view of hell comes mostly from Dante's texts and a little bit of Augustine hundreds of years later. But this is something most Christians don't know, because they never actually examine the history of their religion, they just blindly believe what their parents taught them.
So, maybe ridding the concept of hell from Christianity could actually happen with classes like the history of Christianity.
- 2 years ago
-
caitlynmaerose
-
-
royulery
-
why be afraid of an opposing point of view? what is lost to having an open mind? those that insist on only their way are insecure in their beliefs and need to convince others for self validation. who cares to argue with nonsence? would you argue with a barking dog (or god)?
those who pressure others to believe something are unattractive. they drive away the intellegent and the average are left uneasy, the sheep however are sheep and they listen to barking dogs.
have faith in what you believe and keep an open mind. - 2 years ago
-
royulery
-
-
Rorenado
-
royulery:
I'm not opposed to different points of view. I encourage them. However, if we do teach religion in general (as the article poster's original question was), we have to be delicate about when and how we teach it.
High school is probably the best time to teach such a thing. Their minds are developed and have the capacity to debate the issues at hand with religion, as well as fully understand what religion is about. Agreed that it should be an elective, since we don't want to push anything on our children like that.
How we teach religion is important. We must be willing to teach multiple religions. In an average 32 week school year for high school, you could teach about eight different religions (one every four weeks). That's pretty good. In a semester, you could teach around the same amount of religions (around one religion every two weeks) with less content. I think it's important for high school students to be able to understand the ideas and practices of a religion, so that they are less judgmental of others' religions.
I advocate for teaching religion as described above.
- 2 years ago
-
Rorenado
-
-
gfletcher0913
-
I think allowing prayer at grad and extracurricular events is a good idea. If the school wants to invite a pastor to give a blessing at an event it won’t hurt anyone, and it will be meaningful to the kids and parents who are religious.
The Bible in History and Literature class sounds like a good idea. Like it or not, there are lots of biblical references in literature, history, and pop culture. If the class is designed to help kids understand the part the Bible played in History it sounds fair.
- 2 years ago
-
gfletcher0913
-
-
Eleganza
-
I keep reading from the likes of Dabne etc how president Obama has taken all their freedoms away from them..my question is simply this...what is it that you want to do that President Obama personally is keeping you from doing?.You are free to move anywhere in this nation you want, choose whatever career you want, read what you like, watch on TV anything you like...choose public or private school, attend any church you wish...travel abroad...now I admit you can't own machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, howitzers, or keep anthrax or nerve gas in your garage...you can't make or solicit child porn, or advocate the killing of the president or the violent overthrow of the govt...murder, theft, drive 70 mph in a school zone...so what is it that you want to do that you can't?.My kids go to a public school and no, you can't teach them about your particular superstition ...fill your own kids heads with storys of talking snakes, and men living 969 years but spare my kids your particular mythology.
- 2 years ago
-
Eleganza
-
-
mypittica
-
Can someone say indoctrination? Religious zealots are losing ground in the Darwinism era faster than ever.
- 2 years ago
-
mypittica
-
-
I_Heart_MAMBOSAUCE
-
This would be okay if a religion class were a free elective, or something that is not required for graduation. That way, people who are interested have access to the class, and people who think its BS wont have to take it. Every1 wins that way.
I do think that they should at least teach about the major religions in the world, and not just judeo christian religions. I think that could be really benificial. I took a world religion class and really enjoyed it, because it included a diverse range of people. We had visitors and speakers that were Buddhist, Hindu...ect. and i thought it was really cool. I was forced to take a lot of Christian classes though (i went to an episcipal school that my mom wouldnt let me leave). I understood since it was a Christian school we were going to have to take Christian classes, but if I went to a public school and that happened id be so pissed.
So yeah if they give the students a choice it could work... in theory of course, theyd probly find some way to mess it up :(
- 2 years ago
-
I_Heart_MAMBOSAUCE
-
-
good_stuff
-
Wow, quite a step back. I thought they were getting more progressive up there; what with allowing gay marriage and all.
Personally, I think that they should teach a well mixed set of religions in school. Teach christianity, greek/roman mythology, budhism, etc. This young folks will see it for what it really is and also will can make an informed descision as to what they want to beleive as opposed to following family tradition. Also, it would really help me answer those darn saint answers that always come up on Jeapordy.
- 2 years ago
-
good_stuff
-
-
of10rot10
-
As if there aren't enough problems with our school systems already. Sure why not throw something else in there that encourages a person NOT to learn or think for themselves.
- 2 years ago
-
of10rot10
-
-
Dillos
-
Why not throw all religious beliefs in school and teach tolerance? It's still a risk move because Iowa recently allowed same-sex marriage. This move seems more a conflict of interest.
- 2 years ago
-
Dillos
-
-
Rorenado
-
Dillos:
Solid idea.
- 2 years ago
-
Rorenado
-
-
Tankguy
-
When will the bible-thumpers give this one up? Its called seperation of church and state and they should appreciate it the most. Just think about if there were a state sponsored religion. That means the bible-thumpers would have to let the government tell them how to worship in their own church. One thing would lead to another and soon the government would start outlawing certain religious groups because they dont worship the way the law says.Then that group would have to exodus from the country to search for a new land where they could be free to practice the religion of their own choosing. HEY! That scenario sounds familiar doesn't it?
- 2 years ago
-
Tankguy
-
-
troygrimm
-
@croationpimp religion is just a theory but so is evolution... hence it being called "The Theory of Evolution".
Why should only evolution be taught in school but not creationism? There is plenty of scientific evidence which disproves evolution.
I'd like to see a "Creationism Vs. Evolution" class.
- 2 years ago
-
troygrimm
-
-
neonbunny
-
troygrimm:
You clearly don't understand evolution, or else you wouldn't have made such a stupid comment. Where is this "evidence" that disproves evolution you speak of?
- 2 years ago
-
neonbunny
-
-
I_Heart_MAMBOSAUCE
-
troygrimm:
creationism has no place in a science class. theres nothing scientific about it.
- 2 years ago
-
I_Heart_MAMBOSAUCE
-
-
JuiceBug
-
The policy changes mentioned in the paragraph are really quite moderate, and in your smug elitism you have all blown this small thing quite out of proportion. Consider:
>> allow for the distribution of religious materials on school grounds, and allow the employee (e.g. teachers) expression of personal religious beliefs > In addition, the school district wants religion in the curriculum, mandating two classes: "The Bible in History and Literature" and "Critic of Darwinism, a scientific approach"
- 2 years ago
-
JuiceBug
-
-
imp_print
-
JuiceBug:
Your way of thinking is borderline retarded, go get yourself checked or something, really
Your Hate speech is really disgusting. - 2 years ago
-
imp_print
-
-
davesarush
-
How about they teach about RA masturbating the world into existance??
- 2 years ago
-
davesarush
-
-
Acedia
-
I really thought we were beyond this point. If it's just a proposal, I don't think it'll pass, and if it does, I'm sure it'll be challenged immediately.
I bet the Mormons are behind this!
- 2 years ago
-
Acedia
-
-
lxurdiales
-
Ok I'm all for people being able to express there views, but talking about schools a public school. Were in the way i see it is a place to learn normal stuff first and other courses 2nd so these 2 class while might be cool to learn about students should not be forced to take them now if the students wants to take yah go ahead but don't force them
- 2 years ago
-
lxurdiales
-
-
CroatianPimp
-
THIS IS BULL SHIT, RELIGION DOES NOT BELONG IN SCHOOL IT DOESNT BELONG ANYWHERE ITS HOLDING HUMANS BACK FROM MAKING PROGRESS
RELIGION IS NOT FACT JUST A THEORY SO QUIT SPREADING BULL SHIT
- 2 years ago
-
CroatianPimp
-
-
Rorenado
-
CroatianPimp:
Caps lock may be cruise control for cool, but you still need to steer.
- 2 years ago
-
Rorenado
-
-
Rorenado
-
I'm fine with religion being taught in school as philosophy. However, we need to teach multiple philosophies. We should teach Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. We should not limit things to one perspective.
I would be very supportive of this. The majority of American students tend to have a one-track mind when it comes to religion. They are often unwilling to listen or learn about other religions. I believe that this is a key element in the growing Islamophobia occurring within this country.
We have a choice, though. We either teach it all, or we don't teach religion at all. When one, and only religion is taught in a public school setting, that is prosthelytizing.
I do believe that it is important to expand our childrens' horizons.
- 2 years ago
-
Rorenado
-
-
dabne
-
If your child is in a public school, you've already ruined him or her with his free government indoctrination.
At some point we have to get our personal freedom back from Barack and the United States Government.
This particular administration is hell bent on gaining control of everything at an alarming rate.
Quit spending money on useless gadgets and vacations and put your money into a private education of your choosing, that is if Barack hasn't taken your savings already. Don't leave your child's education to the Government.
Do you ever wonder why most people don't even knows how the government works or what it is? That's because most were educated by the Government.
Our public schools have created one of the most idiotic societies on planet earth.
- 2 years ago
-
dabne
-
-
Rorenado
-
dabne:
No, that would be "No Child Left Behind" that has stupified our children. Civics and government are not taught to their fullest extent, and this is why college freshmen are frustratingly ignorant about the U.S. government. We focus in on English, Math, and Science. More the latter two, though in a last ditch effort to catch up with the Chinese, the Koreans, and Japanese, in terms of technology production, because that has been what has made our country powerful. Our technological resources.
The other problem with our education system is that we just don't care. Look at where our priorities are: sports and entertainment. In a public school setting, where will you find the most money? The sports programs. Now I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with sports, but I'm saying that in the institution of education, funding for education itself is being supplanted by sports programs. Our priorities are on sports, not education.
To claim that President Obama is somewhat responsible for the loss of your personal freedom is absurd. He has barely been in office five months. George W. Bush's US PATRIOT Act did more to take away your freedoms than this nonsense you're talking about with Obama, which you never fully define, so it leaves me curious as whether or not you're just spouting right wing rhetoric without any substance.
- 2 years ago
-
Rorenado
-
-
anglcazn
-
dabne:
Please tell me how your line of logic came to that conclusion Dabne.
- 2 years ago
-
anglcazn
-
-
I_Heart_MAMBOSAUCE
-
dabne:
i agree with you about one thing. Most public schools suck, and many dont teach what I belive is the most important class: CIVICS!!!! how can you expect people to be effective participating members in a democracy when half of them barely understand what a democracy is or how our government works? Do you know how many people ive met that think Obama has powers like a king? (the answer is most people). its crazy. This one guy was trying to argue with me about politics and he didnt even know what checks and balances are, (he was like "what do banks have to do with this?"). whats the point of having a democracy full of stupid people? Somebody needs to to something to make public education better.
- 2 years ago
-
I_Heart_MAMBOSAUCE
-
-
alsnewlife
-
dabne:
Dabne .you must have been home taught...you should seek medicine for your paranoia and irrashional thought process. or maybe move out of the woods..Teaching your child narrow vision only helps if you never move beyond your narrow minded friends. The real word is scary I know, but your in luck most of us real worlders are very accepting and will tolerate your narrow vision because that is the real American way..
- 2 years ago
-
alsnewlife
-
-
bishopobispo
-
Wait... The same state that just legalized gay marriage?
Shame on you Iowa. One step forward two steps back.
- 2 years ago
-
bishopobispo
-
-
anglcazn
-
Either they don't understand or have knowledge of our Nation's constitution or they just don't care. I have a really good feeling it's the second option.
It's a direct violation of the First Amendment in the US Constitution.
Public schools are state institutions. Therefore, belonging to the state, it cannot express favoritism on one religion.
I love how they would propose something like this. Yet, they believe that homosexuals are going to "brainwash" our children. How laughably hypocritical.
- 2 years ago
-
anglcazn
-
-
vipergts333
-
how bout this one guys. where are all the missing links? god made us and animals to be able to breed within our own kinds(dogs make dogs cats make cats). that being said...evolution can be seen as a religion also i have not seen or even heard of in the fossil record a single PROVEN 'hopeful monster'.
not only this but what about our 'history' books? half of that is crap half truth b.s.Amendment I
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.
thomas jefferson.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
- 2 years ago
-
vipergts333
-
-
of10rot10
-
vipergts333:
Which religion in school?
It wouldn't matter which one really. By allowing religion back into the schools you are "compelling" people to take part in a religion that may NOT be of their own choice.
- 2 years ago
-
of10rot10
-
-
vipergts333
-
vipergts333:
true, however not everyone agrees on evolution. yet it is still taught. my son is being taught that global warming is all man made. i tend to disagree on that notion because didnt we come out of an ice age about 10k years or so ago?
anyways. i think it crap that you(speaking in general here not pointing at anyone in particular) believe is allowed to be taught. then it is only fair that the crap i believe should be taught. everything or nothing. unfortunately i dont think we have the teaching resources to combat this problem so in order to eliviate problems i think only math and language should be taught in school. since nobody teaches common sense any more then i dont think this should be too much of a problem. - 2 years ago
-
vipergts333
-
-
neocongo
-
I would get all of my friends together, and become muslims; making it glaringly clear we were praying to the East.
- 2 years ago
-
neocongo
-
-
TentativeChaos
-
Hey Iowa, read the fucking constitution!! And constitution or not, adding non-fact based elements to the curriculum goes against the purposes of a school (well at least the official purpose).
- 2 years ago
-
TentativeChaos
-
-
SunnyDayBluez
-
I have only one thing to say, Westboro Baptist church... Look them up. Be very afraid.
- 2 years ago
-
SunnyDayBluez
-
-
Remdog13
-
If people want the bible in our schools so bad they should send their kid to a private or chatholic school instead of going through all the effort to change state law. Its just easier for everyone that way.
- 2 years ago
-
Remdog13
-
-
Eleganza
-
Can you imagine the outrage if a proposal was made to teach the theory of evolution in Sunday school...turn about is fair play.
- 2 years ago
-
Eleganza
-
-
JasonCovich
-
I am bothered by this because I think that religion has caused and continues to cause most of the worlds problems. People think it is good because some of its teachings loosely throw around the idea of compassion. What they don't talk about is how the concept of an intervening god is utterly ridiculous. I think that it is dangerous to tell children that an invisible man in the sky can save them. I think that kind of fantasy is dangerous for the mind of a child. I think it puts reason and logic on the back burner. I think sabotaging reason and logic is a form of child abuse. It's an intellectual neutering so to speak.
- 2 years ago
-
JasonCovich
-
-
jkudurog45
-
Well said omarty. How can anyone expect an idea like that to work? A really stupid person could. The kind of stupid person that would be our elected official. I am against indoctrinating our kids with a theory based on blind faith. If the parents choose to do so that's fine, keep it to yourself and respect other people. They're all just good theories. Reason would be a good thing to start teaching... maybe with a side of common sense.
- 2 years ago
-
jkudurog45
-
-
jubal
-
The only way I am going to allow Religion into a classroom is as a comparative religions class. Teaching only Christianity and Judaism would be advocating a state religion and unconstitutional.
Iowa sure is a state full of ironies and dichotomies, contradictions and turmoils.
- 2 years ago
-
jubal
-
-
div
-
Yes. If all children are allowed to bring their own religions or lack of religion to school. ALL of them. Even if it means Christian kids will be in the minority. I would have loved to see this when I was at school. I had to take comparative religions in Gr 12 before I could find something like this anywhere.
I want to see Native practices, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoism, Flying Spaghetti Monster, EVERYTHING. *cough* but maybe not Scientology.
- 2 years ago
-
div
-
-
omarty
-
Ok so you woant religion in the Schools... whoes religion?
Jews do not believe in Jesus how do you make a Jewish child feel welcome in an Christian School?
Dont get upset when all the Muslim Children stop an bow to the east twice daily.
Its a nice idea, That is doomed to failure to allow any religion in school. School is for learning. Church is for Religion. Let us not confuse the two and our Children
- 2 years ago
-
omarty
-
-
H3ADLINE
-
It's just what the school districts in Iowa need during this recession: a high cost legal battle that will inevitably rule against their policy! The law is really clear on this, and Supreme Court decisions have further clarified that funneling taxpayer money to religious indoctrination is not allowed under our Constitution. Sorry guys, but no means no.
- 2 years ago
-
H3ADLINE
-
-
Weepowopo
-
This story made me think of PInk Floyds "Another Brick In The Wall".
"We don't need no thought control!"
- 2 years ago
-
Weepowopo
-
-
wayseeker
-
The Kansas Board of Education tried to do this stuff several years ago. During the next election every one of them was voted out of office.
- 2 years ago
-
wayseeker
-
-
wayseeker
-
These people want to turn the class room into a church. So what's new?
- 2 years ago
-
wayseeker
-
-
Cicada_Song
-
Sunday School was terrible. High School was bad enough. Now they want to combine the two. Fuck off...
- 2 years ago
-
Cicada_Song
-
-
wikidpissachick
-
this is already an issue determined by the supreme court to be against the constitution.
it doesn't matter what iowa does, the federal government will rightly adjust the problem
religion should never be taught in school, unless in a historical context. this is a ridiculous waste of time and tax money
- 2 years ago
-
wikidpissachick
-
-
cheeterio
-
maybe have a class on different types of religion but not a class just about christianity because that would be unfair to use tax dollars for something like that. also, if students want to pray at school, kewl, but not so kewl if the teacher leads it. i say that teachers, being role models for all students, shouldn't be allowed to express religious opinion or belief so that the students that don't follow that type of religion or religion at all wont feel left out. i don't believe but that doesn't mean that some kid who wants to pray before his track meet shouldn't be able to.
- 2 years ago
-
cheeterio
-
-
JasonCovich
-
How about we start teaching Star Wars as history and Desperate Housewives as Home Economics? They are basically throwing logic and reason out the window with pushing the fantasy of religion as fact. So why not teach something fun and harmless like Star Wars? It's got to be better than lying to children about a fictional afterlife and fantasy universe. Religion is mind control and fantasy, nothing more. If you see deeper meaning in fiction you are a retard.
- 2 years ago
-
JasonCovich
-
-
alsnewlife
-
JasonCovich:
you the man covich...
- 2 years ago
-
alsnewlife
-
-
idealist
-
I agree with ashcatash somewhat, it should be completly voluntary, with views being un bias and more of a religion awareness...not generalizing on one religion but teaching about all of them.
- 2 years ago
-
idealist
-
-
idealist
-
I agree with ashcatash somewhat, it should be completly voluntary, with views being un bias and more of a religion awareness...not generalizing on one religion but teaching about all of them.
- 2 years ago
-
idealist
-
-
dainjdc
-
Uuuuuummmm no
- 2 years ago
-
dainjdc
-
-
Kamilo
-
Its the school board cycle in the mid-west. Insane Bible-thumpers elect like minded local officials (cause who really votes in local elections other than the elderly and people with an axe to grind), said officials try to pass sweeping legislation basically turning the Bible into the math textbook, normal people find out and reinstate sanity. Rinse and repeat.
- 2 years ago
-
Kamilo
-
-
Eleganza
-
Kamilo:
Man you hit the nail dead center..Excellent post!
- 2 years ago
-
Eleganza
-
-
bluestranger
-
Kamilo:
In a roundabout way you just made the point of why local elections are so important.
- 2 years ago
-
bluestranger
-
-
KefKef
-
No. Simple reason is that if its allowed, that people will focus more on their than others. Christians (or anyone) will spend 8 weeks talking about theirs and one week talking about everyone else's. It already happening in school with certain subjects. Recently, my bio teacher spend more time on the life cycle (about 4 weeks) and then hit every type of living thing in one week at the end of school.
- 2 years ago
-
KefKef
-
-
l1ttlebear
-
...what exactly IS the the scientific criticism of darwinism from a creationist standpoint?
- 2 years ago
-
l1ttlebear
-
-
Weepowopo
-
l1ttlebear:
This is how that class would go.
"God did it!" the end. - 2 years ago
-
Weepowopo
-
-
JuiceBug
-
l1ttlebear:
The explanations that Darwin offered are much more limited in scope than what is popularly believed. Evolution tells us nothing about the origins of life, for example - there is scant evidence to support the myth of single-celled organisms arising from primordial ooze, and some scientists like Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA) find it more reasonable to believe that life arrived on earth from outer space.
The theories of evolution happen to provide some very useful models in widely variant applications - from psychology to software programming - but that doesn't mean that those theories have been proved *true*. That is, evolution may give us a helpful framework for understanding human behavior and genetics, but it ultimately does not give us any firm assurances on human origins.
In a similar way, we might say, Nikola Tesla was a prolific inventor without whom we wouldn't have widespread electricity, radio, or radar - but by modern standards he was a quack who didn't believe in electron theory. Likewise, the ancient astronomers believed in an earth-centric universe - and yet they were able to forecast eclipses and the appearances of comets thousands of years into the future.
Whatever Darwinism's contributions to strict empirical science, its greater use to secular society is as the root of a mythology by which the masses - recently disengaged from the monotheistic faiths - can view the world. Thus you have uninformed people using evolution as an explanation for the origin of the universe, as a justification for racist and other inhumane ideologies, and as a kind of New Age tenet suggesting that we are headed toward a new phase of enlightenment.
This very un-scientific use of Darwin's theories also helps to explain why many people vigorously maintain the essential truth and legitimacy of evolution, even when they cannot describe its mechanics in detail. The reason for their opposition is that alternative modes of thought are, quite simply, unthinkable - they dare not venture into the realm of barbarians, Middle Americans, and mouth-breathing dumbs.
- 2 years ago
-
JuiceBug
-
-
vizzzzzance
-
l1ttlebear:
Microevolution refers to genetic mutations which are able to diffuse (especially via reproduction) within a population group. When a population is divided by a barrier (geologic or genetic) which precludes future diffusion between subgroups, it is referred to as speciation. Microevolutionary developments in one group unable to diffuse across the species barrier are considered macroevolutionary with respect to the other group.
While the rate of speciation is low (on the order of per species-megayear, depending in part on time to reproductive maturity), the large number of species on earth has resulted in several dozen speciations being recorded in the literature since Darwin's time.
When a species barrier arises, the organism does not become an ENTIRELY new species; rather, it becomes a MORE specific species. Humans, therefore, are technically a sub-species of hominid-catarrhine-primate-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazoa n-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. After becoming distinct sub-species, any novel mutation in one is thus macroevolutionary with respect to the other.
Given that we KNOW species barriers can arise with time, it is a reasonable inference that extant barriers may not have always existed. Fossil evidence supports this. EG, searching back, we can find example some fossils showing resemblance to modern seals and some to weasels; and the older those appearing ancestral to seals are, the closer they are to resembling ancestral forms of the weasels. Thus, weasels are considered mustelid-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life, whereas seals are considered pinniped-caniform-carnivore-mammalian-chordate-deuterostomial-bilateral-eumetazo an-animal-eukaryote-cellular-life. This inference is additionally supported by modern genetic sequencing, which indicates considerable overlap between the modern forms, with the distinguishing sequences consistent with mutations of the same type as observed in the lab, and in an degree consistent with the expectations from observed rate-of-mutation in present and from the time estimates of the fossil record.
Evolution try it - 2 years ago
-
vizzzzzance
-
-
artemis6
-
How about a comparative religion class , instead ?
- 2 years ago
-
artemis6
-
-
ashcatash
-
I think religion should be allowed at school, but strictly on a voluntary basis. Teachers should not be allowed to encourage students one way or another about the subject.
- 2 years ago
-
ashcatash
-
-
JimboTheHippo
-
ashcatash:
i agree available but not mandatory
- 2 years ago
-
JimboTheHippo
-
-
metalcookiesxy70
-
If anything to replace religion with, is to replace it with education, common sense, and confidence...
For Christianity that is, should not be allowed, only words of it, but never teaching of it,because it would only enforcing the competition between different religions (You should know humans), and the violation of freedom from religion....
- 2 years ago
-
metalcookiesxy70
-
-
ashcatash
-
metalcookiesxy70:
We don't have freedom "from" religion, but freedom "of" religion. Meaning we can choose what we want to believe and we can practice/preach it freely.
- 2 years ago
-
ashcatash
-
-
metalcookiesxy70
-
metalcookiesxy70:
Yeah, I know but religion it cannot interfere with basic schoolings....
- 2 years ago
-
metalcookiesxy70
-
-
artemis6
-
I think religious people have some doubts themselves . This is not allowed in faith based thinking , so , to compensate , they force it on people for which it has no value . For their own good , of course . Out of compassion and brotherly love , at first . If you look at history , though , it always always turns bloody ... Doesn't even matter what religion . So , NO . What should be included in schools , is education on coping skills . Community building skills , and internal motivation for morality . Replace religion , with reason .
- 2 years ago
-
artemis6
-
-
ThoughtNu
-
No. School is mainly 90% conditioning for the repetitive and social nature of the work place, 10% learning. To include any religious activity in a PUBLIC system displays a clear bias that may not be welcomed in an other child's family.
- 2 years ago
-
ThoughtNu
.jpg)