Evolution, Religion, schools, and brainwashing

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

with all due respect annyone wishing to rpely to this post, please read the whole thing.

so heres this argument ive been bouncing around trying to find someone to poke a hole in it, here goes

we all know evolution is taught in 9th grade biology classes, and with just cause as Evolution is the leading theory today and thats what progress (science) is about. however i am concerned with the impact of teaching evolution with intolerence to religious individuals. most teachers are forced into no comment policies regarding religion, which i believe is effectivley brainwashing atheism into youth.

please note this post is not about which theory is right, rather the rights of the theorys, or more aptly put, conflicting beliefs.

under the first amendment which was passed along with the bill of rights

“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.”

the meaning of this has been twisted in the past but it remains clear today.

when youth of a grade 9 class learn biology, they learn evolution in a public forum, and giventhe nature of school, easily accept it as truth. it’s hard for any dependant mind to deny anything they learn in school, infact the level of blind acceptance is frighteningly high. but anway they go to school in all its glory and learn this theory that directly contradicts one of the major mainstream religions (christianity) aswell as most all other religions. there has been alot of heated arguments surrounging this topic but i must restate this is not about what is right. anyway, any religious student who learns evolution in biology is effectivley being told that their religion is wrong. afterall its not the responsibility of a mind to protect itself, but for a mind to not attack another in the first place, you can hardly expect them to.

95% of religious christians have given up their faith… stunning numbers… some of you might see this as a score for the people who “aren’t” crazy but i feel it is a brutal and effective way of brainwashing students into atheism.

i’m not saying teaching evolution is wrong, but perhaps “teach” is the wrong way of going about it. instead “learn” about things instead of having them dictated. is it fair that a mandatory social institution contradicts the establishment of religion clause?

meerley stating the fact “there are other people who believe differently” could provide a great remedy to the issue, telling students that what they learn is not an absolute truth and mandatory to subscribe to.

would it be fair if church gained all the power instead of government and your children had to attend church to eat (school = survival) and while they were there their heads got filled with a bunch of ideas from the bible and no longer believe in what you raised them to (im not going to touch a parents right to raise their kids as they see fit, it is assumed)

in this fashion kids are being bread into mundane styles of thought, resulting in a wide range of intolerance and narrow-mindedness.

this is what the teachers read:

scientists see this as the intrusion of ID upon their evolutionary turf, however i see this as an attempt to respect the beliefs of others in a public forum where it is illegal to promote or hinder religious beliefs.

however my feelings may be, these men and women were tried and convicted of having religious motives for presenting the brief paragraph.

what do you guys think, atrocity or justice?

2

I’m not going to lie…I didn’t read the whole post. But I would like to say that it seems often times the parents and friends are more influential than a boring biology teacher. I don’t think that by teachers not offering an opinion it is effectively brainwashing them into atheism. It’s a pretty outlandish statement.

3

firstly you should have read the whole post if you reply, secondly how is it outlandish? all you said was that to yourself it seems to be so. whats so outlandish about someone being influenced by someone you look up to and is an authourity figure. having myself had alot of first hand experience in this specific topic, i can confidently say that it is one of the major contributors to the 95% decline in christian individuals. people are forced into the mundane

“tis better to set 100 guilty men free than to imprison 1 innocent man, perhaps it is better to allow a hundred people to develop their own beliefs than to waste a single mind to such an attack.”

i have taken this argument many places and it seems the only 2 forms of argument i recieve in return are the ones about religion being dumb, and that of denial

4

why not, i hung off most teachers every word when i was young, it took a bad teacher to put things in contrast. i myself have lost religion because of this exact reason. when i said “what about god” he looked at me like i had nine eyes.

my teacher was particularily enthuseastic about evolution. and it is not the responsibility of the student to doubt. having learned evolution along with many other things they all fit in the same category: believe this or fail at life

5

Seems like I learned about evolution way before that, but it was a long time ago.

The government does though, make requirements that restrict religious practices, what groups can be exempt from taxation, how many people are required, papers must be filed, stamps and signatures and authorizations acquired. Native Americans had their religions arbitrarily criminalized. Christians can, and do, have their own schools.

Evolution explains how species differentiate over time. Like geology, the dispute is over time frame.

Most people are not atheists in spite of an understanding of science.

Brutal brainwashing, sounds like you think it is pretty wrong. Teaching is teaching, it is not the fault of science that science was not understood as well by the people who committed the word of god to paper. Honor killing, the stoning to death of homosexuals, and a number of other illegal things are also commanded in the bible, are the laws prohibiting these acts not more of an obstruction to the practice of religion?

Since evolution is presented as a theory, it necessarily invites critical evaluation.

ID does not fit this definition, unless you are considering tests of faith well tested. This definition is also not similar to the one in this dictionary.

Evolution of species does not define the origins of life.

I think scientists are more likely to see this as a promotion of religious beliefs. The problem for educators is that the belief in ID is not supported by any scientific principals. For instance, geology could also not be taught, and that has nothing to do with evolution. Cosmology, physics, philosophy; the list goes on of ideas that challenge the literal interpretation of the Bible. Where can a line be drawn? According to the Pennsylvania court, at promoting a religious belief.

If they were sued, they may have had a judgement against them. This is different from a civil conviction.

6

im referring to the fact that is taught atleast by 9th grade and that the 9th grade still contains impressionable and even vunerable minds

private school? are you rich? i’m not. and yes they do make religious laws all stemming from the establishment clause they try to do it within the rights i have quoted,im just attacking one of their mistakes that is ofimportance to me

sadly its more than that, the onotoligical dispute is largley (or atleast presented as) did we come from monkeys or were we created. this inconsistency to a vunerable mind can cause alot of confusion resulting in the inevitable absolute choice between either extremes. and my most hated logical fallacy plagues the entire world “appeal to popularity”. what most people believe, is therefore considered true. (the foundation of democracy ](*,) )

do you honestly have faith in those statistics? the number of people losing religion and becoming agnostic is rapidly growing. perhaps athiesm was a strong word.
p.s where do your statistics come from?

re-read that little bit… can you figure out whats wrong with it? it begs the question to the max; is science right. you just said in other words : its not human beings fault, that they were not like US enough to make a religion that ahs the right to exist.

woh stop right there. no offense but you have a major knowlege defficiency when it comes to religion. in the past, religion has been manipulated and changed by man, masses have followed single men, and not even what was in the bible to begin with. have you ever read the bible? it is a collection of moral stories that in no way tell you to honor kill, be prejudical, and as far as doing “illegal things” hell yes, i ahte alot of laws, i would gladly commit what you dictate to be illegal, why are you so right? a great many evils have been done in the name of “god” in alot of religions. let us not judge freedom of belief based on passed patterns. despite what you think religion is responsible for civilisation. Being the most powerful social institution to ever have existed .it has seen many accomplishments and many atrocitys.

everything invites critical evaluation. and it’s folly to assume the nature of something based on its cover (source). the nature being the actual fact : does it actualy recieve critical evaluation?

i agree, on the same token where is the line drawn at protecting beliefs of others? i have said before most athiests see the attempt to guard vunerable minds from a negative experience as the ultimate offense and intrusion on their right not to have religion imposed on them. why? because they hate religion. the poor teachers who read the paragraphs were reaching out to the religious students, not athiest children. this is what i warned against in my first post (narrow-mindedness)

semantics.

7

i just want to clear up the intentions of this argument. it is not a ploy to keep more children religious, or gain more religious children, but to protect their right to believe by stopping the subtle slip of athiesm that exists in public schools

stop how you might ask? simply through respect, a mere mention or opportunity for anyone so inclined to learn alternatives.

8

Parents (should) have more influence than a school in this matter.

Schools (should) present the theory of evolution as a…theory. People forget what theory means.

There’s a difference between how it is and how it ought to be, as per usual. In any case, I don’t have much sympathy for anyone who allows themselves to be impressed upon as a child and then continues those beliefs unquestioningly for the rest of their life.

9

i have no sympathy for the good men who let it happen

10

There are a lot of religions. All of them “theories.” Where exactly do you draw the line? How do you decide that rib women is a plausible theory while any of these other ones are not. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth#Asia As far as I can tell, the no comment policies regarding religion[s] are reasonable considering the multitude of religions, most of which deal with impractical metaphysical things. Little Christian Timmy’s parents would probably worry even more about their boy’s faith if the Christian creation myth were to be presented among thousand others.

Science is materialistic. It is useful. Practical. It helps students learn practical things about the nature of reality. Things with which the child can use to successfully predict events. This isn’t to say that religion (or creation myths) shouldn’t be taught. They should, but under the right context…as myths, as silly superstitions of ancient (and presently stupid) peoples who guess, in English or Social Studies class, but not as science. Just because you wish to call any guess a theory does not mean that it ought to be taught alongside Universal Theory of Gravity, for example.

11

I like the warning label.

12

The theory of evolution is an honest scientific theory. That is ideally what is taught in schools in science class. Schools can’t be without bias - it is an impossibility. But they can teach the type of knowledge that is the basis for investigating the world properly. I once wrote a paper in junior high school supporting creationism over evolution, using arguments gleaned from a pamphlet I picked up at my church. I got a D or an F on the paper - it was shock to me at the time, but it was good for me in the long run. I thought I was being daring, when I was actually just being ignorant. If people’s view of reality is so simplistic that they reject outright basic scientific descriptions of material reality, then there is a serious problem which is typically called extremism or fundamentalism. Religion could represent a broader view of reality, rather than a rejection of reality. Parents certainly have the right to teach their children to not believe everything they hear, and to think for themselves.

13

Erlir, this is not about drawing line at whats plausible, to put it bluntly (*which is required) i draw the line at you calling religions stupid through the absence of tolerance in the public setting of school. all religions must be respected. and im not fussing about evolution onotoligicaly contradicting creation, IM FUSSING OVER THYE LACK OR RESPECT THROUGH INTOLERANCE.

anon, calling anyone or anything simplistic is simplistic in itself. your thoughs of extremism are created by your relative perception of the world you live in. when evolution came out, it was extreme in the eyes of religious people. furthermore this is not about rejecting the idea of material reality (a fact almost no athiest can wrap his head around). this is about protecting beliefs that already exist from exclusion through ignorant and narrowminded introlerance

tortoise, alot of people still see religion as the peddeling of a god, this is why noone can grasp my honest intentions. one nation under god? that couldnt be more far from the truth. mandatory jesus loving?.. lol thats a funny notion, i thought it was about santa clause and present loving. but even so this is not a blame game. 2 wrongs do not make a right and a victory for one side is an equal victory for the other.

however difficult it may be to fathom. all i am arguing for is that religious students be given fair chance to choose what they believe in, not ushered into one through subliminal corecion (lack of respect)

14

It kind of annoys me when people say evolution is “just a theory” as though that fact puts it on a par with creationism. Evolution is just a theory, but there is a lot of evidence supporting it and the odds are heavily stacked in its favour, when compared to, say, intelligent design. That doesn’t mean that creationism should be discounted, but the notion that both theories should be taught in schools as equally plausible is silly. I put it Wonderer that he’s a god botherer which is why he’s getting uptight at the idea of evolution taking precedence over creationism.

15

Why?

16

someones right to religion resides in FREEDOM OF SPEACH/BELIEF. sorry for the hidden meaning through extension

17

Right, which is why no comment policies regarding religion is good idea, because 1000s of religions would be neglected of mention by the teacher. It is why I think it is wise to leave religion in the churches and science in the schools. And besides, there are comparative religions classes in most high schools I’m aware of. My problem is that you ask of science classes to put religious notions on par with scientific notions and to be taught alongside eachother.

There is no easy way to put it. No religion stands a shining star in midsts of others. That is why the rates of non-religious people is growing.

18

heres the process (it dosent involve the matter of truth, truth is irrelevant to me and the matter of discussion)

and before i continue let me restate i do not want religion taught in schools at all! i want objective respect be given to religious students, this does not mean teach religion to any of them, it means allow religious students to retain their objective views, as they will need that to make the proper decision later in life.

ok so sadly this is the argument

pesmise 1: school settings even the media present the image of us evolving from monkeys
premise 2: in a school setting, you are inclined and expected to accept all and any knowlege, even if provisional, that is presented to you
premise 3: schools do not allow students to persue any alternatives regarding to anything regarding religion, and through extenstion even intelligent design.
conclusion: by not letting them get a word (a personal word, not for athiest children to hear) in edge wise in reconsiliation to the revelation that their beliefs are wrong, they inevitably now have a greater risk of disgarding their previous beliefs.

im not worried about evolution taking precedence over creationism, im worried about the blatant fact that impressionable minds are denied equal oppourtunity, your argument says “religion is so far fetched, its not good enough for school” as i have said before the nature of religion is irrelevant if its within your law, right? (criminal law not physical law). why is it so important that the attack on beliefs remains?

19

hmm, my problem is that ignorant athiests hate religion so much cannot understand any logical argument regarding religion.

for the love of god (if he exists, i dont know or care), can you please grasp the idea of letting someone else believe the way they want to. this is not about poisoning your childrens minds! think about what your saying. im trying to put evolution on par with creation? please… what right do you have to set a par for someones personal beliefs. your type of thinking can lead people down dark roads

20

The fact is that religion in any form or faith in any form doesn’t belong in a ‘science’ class, the fact that we all have different beliefs is swell, not all these beliefs deserve equal-time or respect. AS some people point out, holocaust deniers don’t get anytime in history classes (though we should respect their rights to free speech)

Evolution is a theory like the earth is round is a theory, theories can be considered fact, though some aspects of the explanation for evolution are surely theoretical.

Anyway, lets not even try and pretend that people don’t ‘hear’ about religion in schools and everywhere else, where it shouldn’t even be.