Oklahoma Bill Promotes Religion over Science

[Aizen]

The condescending attitudes in this thread are yet another reason I am a Fundamentalist Christian.

 I personally believe God created the universe in seven days, there was a Garden of Eden, a great world wide flood, man and dinosaurs coexisted and the Earth is only 6,000-years old. These are my personal beliefs; they are not science and can not be 100% backed up by science. This is why they can not be taught in science classes.

I am classical liberal on education, so I would oppose this bill. I believe that only solid and proven science should be taught in a science class. All religious (or anti-religious) teachings should be kept out of schools altogether. Schools should neither promote nor discourage religion; they should be non-partial on the subject. When it comes theories of how the world was made or how old it is, these really shouldn’t be taught by science classes at all.

As for the age of the world, I am far more interested in the rock of ages than I am in the age of rocks. When you look at theories of creation, I don’t know of one that’s perfect and has no flaws in it. For this reason, creationism, intelligent design and evolution are plain bad science. Things like gravity, chemistry and the human body are obviously scientific and you can’t seriously challenge their validity. These topics are perfect for science classes since they are proved science.

I firmly believe that creationism belongs in church and evolution and intelligent design should be taught in after school clubs, like the Science Club. When I become a teacher I wouldn’t mind teaching an after school class about the theories of creation, since it’s out of the class room.

In conclusion, religions opinions are not science and science classrooms are temples to scientific facts, not error ridden theories. This bill is wrong, and I hope Oklahomans will oppose it. Schools are for teaching facts, not left or right-winged indoctrination.   

Though I come from a Theistic Evolutionary perspective on the actual issue, I know intellectual integrity and Constitutional common-sense when I read it.

Thanks, PBrunsel.  Well, well done!

I agree.  Well said!  Sometimes I have a hard time putting ideas like that together.  I agree with PBrunsel, to be perfectly honest.  He put things in a way that made sense to me and I appreciate that and I can see his point.

Thank you, PBrunsel!!

Well, that completely goes against what your state is trying to do and what you so (stupidly) attempted to defend earler. Are you going back on what you said earlier? If so, good for you I guess.

[Person Man]

Geee, what's with this jesmo guy?

[John Dibble]

The condescending attitudes in this thread are yet another reason I am a Fundamentalist Christian.

That's rather silly - I might as well say that the condescending attitudes of Fundamentalist Christians are yet another reason I am an agnostic. You're a fundie because you believe in the doctrine, not because of other people's attitudes.

[PBrunsel]

That's rather silly - I might as well say that the condescending attitudes of Fundamentalist Christians are yet another reason I am an agnostic. You're a fundie because you believe in the doctrine, not because of other people's attitudes.

It was a poor attempt at humor, John.

[??????????]

PBrunsels' stance is pretty much where I'm at on the issue of science as well. Thanks PB.

[jesmo]

This Oklahoma bashing is getting ridiculous. Last time I checked, their governor isn't a sex hound.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Science is about evidence and fact - religion by its very nature is not.

That is not condescention, that's simple reality. You need to be able to prove something in science, God cannot be proved by a scientific method. Therefore that being central to any scientific theory is bogus.

Does what a Governor does in his private time have anything to do with this?

I personally believe that there is NO evidence that the earth is as young as the fundamentalists need it to be. I don't discount evolution as the 'how' of creation. It's like a group of people pushing against a dam wall hoping the reality won't hit them. The 'flood' is central to almost all ancient civilisations, the Garden of Eden may well have existed - but as a metaphore for that place where the first human emerged. Not believing the literal translation is not the same.