Nusc
- 752
- 2
Is it not to say that by refusing to teach creationism in schools is inherently bigotry?
The discussion revolves around the implications of refusing to teach creationism in schools, with participants debating whether this refusal constitutes bigotry. The conversation touches on the intersection of education, religion, and science, exploring the appropriateness of teaching creationism in various educational contexts.
Participants do not reach a consensus on whether refusing to teach creationism is bigotry. Multiple competing views remain regarding the appropriateness of teaching creationism in schools and the implications of such decisions on religious beliefs.
Participants highlight the complexity of defining bigotry in this context and the nuances of educational policy regarding religious content in public schools. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of the First Amendment and its implications for religious education.
That makes no sense. What are you trying to say?Nusc said:Is it not to say that by refusing to teach creationism in schools is inherently bigotry?
Would you claim that a refusal to teach astrology in schools is bigotry?Nusc said:By refusing to teach creationism in schools, is this not bigotry?
That makes no sense. Either make a credible argument or this is getting deleted.Nusc said:By refusing to teach creationism in schools, is this not bigotry?
It's not a matter of opinion : creationism is not scientific. It has nothing to do with science. Note that, there is nothing wrong with that : there is a number of thing I believe which are not scientific and I am fine with that, I am aware and accept it. For instance, I (most of the time) believe that french food is the best (others are quite good too). But who cares ? It's certainly not worth teaching.bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
Nusc said:Is it not to say that by refusing to teach creationism in schools is inherently bigotry?
Bigotry is intolerance. Creationism isn't taught in school because it is against the 1st Amendment and because creationism isn't science so it doesn't belong in a science class, not because people (who you are referring to, I'm not sure...) are intolerant.Nusc said:By refusing to teach creationism in schools, is this not bigotry?
russ_watters said:not because people (who you are referring to, I'm not sure...) are intolerant.
I don't know who the four horsemen are, nor what they have to say. Please cite.Nusc said:Yeah I was referring to the four horsemen on the premise that science and religious beliefs are fundamentally incompatible.
Nusc said:harris, hitchens, dawkins, (perhaps not dennett)
Even Weinberg, Feynman,...
Most comedians. Larry King.
Evo said:Do you understand that religion is not taught in public schools in the US?
Nusc said:I was merely set up to ask was if those opposed to creationism being taught in schools are bigoted.
If you're of religious faith and are opposed to creationism being taught in public schools, what purpose does it serve you?
Does saying that it's not science justify that it's useless?
cristo said:Really? Do kids in the US not get any religious education in school?
cristo said:Really? Do kids in the US not get any religious education in school?
DavidSnider said:No. It's kind of a shame. Ironically this is probably the reason why the US is so religious.
Ivan Seeking said:I would say just the opposite: I think this is why so many people are hostiles towards people of faith. Most people who mindlessly slam religion here seem to know very little about it. The most basic concepts of faith are a complete mystery to people.
Ivan Seeking said:I would say just the opposite: I think this is why so many people are hostiles towards people of faith. Most people who mindlessly slam religion here seem to know very little about it. The most basic concepts of faith are a complete mystery to people.
Ivan Seeking said:If someone wants their kids taught about creationism, they are free to attend a church, temple, mosque, or synagogue, for that.
Ivan Seeking said:Most people who mindlessly slam religion here seem to know very little about it. The most basic concepts of faith are a complete mystery to people.
Yes, it could - as a historical curiosity, though, not as a theory on how we got here. I've never heard of a creationist being ok with that.drankin said:Creationism doesn't have to be taught in science class. It could be taught in Social Studies. Could it not?
What does that mean? If you don't believe that it is bigoted, what motivated the question? Where did you hear that it was? I don't like arguing with a brick wall or via proxy. It seems disingenuous because it alleviates the need for the other side to present rational arguments under the guise that the arguments are just "questions", when really they are arguments.Nusc said:I was merely set up to ask was if those opposed to creationism being taught in schools are bigoted.
Creationism is an idea that directly contradicts the scientific theory on how we got here. Therefore, the only place it could be close to applicable is in science class as an alternative to science. But since it isn't science, it doesn't belong there.Does saying that it's not science justify that it's useless?
The only mandatory religion in US schools is a unit or two on world religions taught in social studies (history) class. It isn't taught as 'here are your options, pick one' or anything - just like we're taught about Naziism, but without the purpose of making us Nazis.cristo said:Really? Do kids in the US not get any religious education in school?