Separation of Church and State? (Page 5)

Ok.  I can go along with that as long as there is no derision of those who choose to believe differently.  Unfortunately, throughout my high school and college career, I have seen where it is very clear what the professor believes and it is mocked if you disagree.  That is really the point that I am making.  Tolerance works both ways an ANY issue and should be practiced by people on both sides of any particular coin.  In my view (my little world) I have an expectation that "educators" should educate and shouldn't "influence".

My point was that, in general, the people crying for the exclusion of religions from schools are adhering to the tenets of secular humanism, and therefore are then forcing a non-separation by pushing that religion on the school system.

No, they didn't.

One judge, in a footnote, included secular humanism in a list of religions in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961). That is not the same as the Court ruling it a religion.

The most recent time (1994) someone tried to claim that secular humanism was a religion, and the prohibition of teaching evolution was tantamount to teaching the "religion" known as secular humanism, this claim was rejected by the an Appeals Court, and the Supreme Court refused to review the case.

"We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or Secular Humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes."

and in a subsequent case said

"The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the "Fellowship of Humanity" qualified as a religious organization under California law."

I think this is partly why I gravitated towards a degree in mathematics.  Your grade is not dependent on group work, persuasive arguments or personal bias.

That said, in my non-math/science courses, the best professors were the ones who encouraged thoughtful dissenting positions.

Is secular humanism a religion?  If so, that's news to me.

Black & white world-views.

Careful mr2tony, a message like that could be dangerous!  Forget you ever said that and from here on out, do good things because (insert religion here) says so.

Heh... this was my initial thought when secular humanism was first mentioned in this thread.

I do the right thing because:

a) My mom & dad told me to do it 

or

b) My wife told me to do it

It's been a pretty good plan so far.

I just got back from a visit to Rome & the Vatican.  It removed any last crumb of respect for organized religion that remained in my [now] heathen body and soul.  And yes, I beleive in God!

Hijack over!

How many weeks of a curriculum do you suggest to encompass each religion's belief of creation?

If we just teach the one that's right, it won't be a problem.

I don't necessarily believe that the details should be taught, but just a simple nod to the fact that there are religions that believe differently and encourage them to pursue that line of thought outside of the class as this is a science class.  I don't see any harm in acknowledging the difference and then moving on.  Again, the teacher isn't advocating (by actions or words) that one is better than the other, but he/she is there to teach evolution from the scientific approach and that is all that will be covered in depth. 

So in a history class, should a school give a "simple nod to the fact" that there are people who deny the Holocaust?

Is it not true?  There are people that deny it exists. 

My point, which I must not be making clearly, is that teaching should be neutral in the sense that a teacher shouldn't be pushing their personal beliefs to the point that open dialogue and learning about the issue from all sides is discouraged.

When GW was first introduced there were a lot of problems. More research was done, some questions answered.... at that point GW was about science, and as science, I find the topic very interesting.

Then GW became politicizied. Then it became "Climate Change" ... then a bunch of scientists did a lot of harm by doing some pretty shady things.... now it is not about science. Now it is about a political movement with the same thing driving it as does everythig else... huge amounts of money and control. It has become a religion in and of itself.

Now if school would teach the science of GW and practice sound scientific processes and encourage disention and critical thinking... that would be awesome... but that is not what this subject is about when it is taught. This is a fine example of the difference between teaching fundementals of critical thinking, and "indoctrinating" the next generation in what is most definitely a battle front on the cultural war that rages in this country... public education.

But do you advocate teaching that point of view? The problem with this idea of "teaching the controversy" is that it generally only seems to be applied when science interferes with people's religiously driven view of the world.

Or to put it another way, we don't do this:

or this:

or this:

or this:

We already have a problem with scientific illiteracy in this country. Along with a strong anti-intellectual streak. To effectively teach any of the "controversies" would first require teaching people the basics of what the scientific method is, and how a "theory" in science is not the same as a "theory" in everyday conversation. And how scientists arrive at conclusions. And how the fact that ideas change is not a sign that science is "wrong", but that it is essentially self-correcting, and accommodates to the real world, rather than expecting the world to meet its models of how things should be. 

Who needs to know what the scientific process is as long as we know >97% of scientists agree? I thought we just took polls now.

No, I don't advocate "teaching the controversy", but acknowledging it exists or at least not deriding someone for believing differently can be achieved without losing your credibility.

If a student brought up the subject, how would you want the teacher to react?  I would hope the teacher would acknowledge it and then potentially suggest they research it outside of the class if they so desired.  Respectful and yet doesn't deviate from the course.