The Great Beyond

This “report” exemplifies the kind of arrogance that gives “academic freedom” bills and films like Expelled traction. Rather than getting their information from secondhand sources like Nature and the NCSE, readers interested in at least understanding what the movie Expelled is about will want to visit the actual Expelled web page:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

Better yet, just go and see the movie.

Florida Sun Sentinel). “We need to keep the wall.”

Walls are to keep people from escaping! The walls need to come down!
Science becomes dogma, when it is protected from being critiqued.
The only thing the Darwinist are afraid of. Is the weakness of the scientific claims of evolution!
Nothing but the facts please.

"Scientific Creationism" is an oxymoron.

Why would we need a bill to ensure “a right to present scientific information relevant to the full range of views on biological and chemical evolution”? Surely no relevant scientific information that is appropriate for any grade level is being suppressed or denied. The wording of the bill itself is so vague, considering its spirit, that it should be tossed out purely on that ground.

And of course religion should be taught in school. Religion is relevant to literature, sociology, philosophy, politics, and business. An understanding of the convictions, practices, and mythology of world religions would improve international negotiations and decrease domestic hate crimes and the dangerous alienation of marginalized subcultures.

I say yes to both science and religion in our schools.

Leisha Wharfield writes: “…of course religion should be taught in school. Religion is relevant to literature, sociology, philosophy, politics, and business.”

And “An understanding of the convictions, practices, and mythology of world religions would improve international negotiations and decrease domestic hate crimes and the dangerous alienation of marginalized subcultures.”

Implicit in this statement is that the teaching of religion is to an all-knowing, enlightened mass, who would then use this knowledge to “improve international negotiations” - presumably to “negotiate” with theocratic states, whose “philosophy, politics, and business” is dictated by their “world religion”. They would also “negotiate” with theocratic states, whose uncompromising religion dictates that their religion be spread throughout the world, with intimidation, threats, violence and war, if necessary, and whose very name means “submission”.

This would be akin to Chamberlin “negotiating” with Hitler.

There is a big difference between “teaching religion” and teaching about religion. Teaching about Nazi-ism is good – teaching Nazi-ism not. Teaching about “Intelligent design” is ok but teaching intelligent design is not.

This sort of “teaching of religions” is done in schools in my country also, under the guise of “social studies”. In theory this is very good, but in practice quite the opposite.

Nothing negative is taught about any religion. There is no balancing education about rationality or the origins of religion. No child is taught, for example, that part of the reason for the origin of religion was to explain our existence and that of the Universe and that as a result of scientific explanations, religious explanations, which depend on God, have become superfluous and on occasion, where they tread of scientific turf, plain wrong.

No child is taught the philosophy of science along with religion, as they should be. No child is taught that science depends on questioning and testing everything and religion depends on unquestioning faith. No child is taught that beliefs in science are founded on evidence and are not sacred but subject to review as more evidence is examined whereas religion depends on things that are sacred and hence beyond question.

That scientific “theory” is a kind of “belief” that has undergone decades maybe even centuries of rigorous testing, during which it has withstood, or been modified by, all logic and experiments and evidence aimed at falsifying it. That religious beliefs on the other hand, because they start with a declaration of universal truth for all time, inevitable clash with scientific evidence and cherry pick the evidence in its favour and ignore or deny all evidence that goes against its beliefs.

How would “an understanding of the convictions, practices, and mythology” of “world religions” improve and decrease the “dangerous alienation” of “marginalized subcultures”?

A primary school teacher, who I know was asked by her 6 year old student – “What is your religion?” when she answered that she was a Christian she was told by her 6 year old pupil “Then you will go to hell”. The 6 year old also attends a religious school, whose existence is guaranteed by our western democracy, but whose teachings are in direct conflict with our democratic beliefs. The religious schools are run not by a “marginalised sub-culture” but by a “world religion” who spew out its adherents from these very efficient brain-washing factories.