“Thank you for alerting me to this post and to your very interesting site. I’ve added you to my blogroll and intend to visit frequently.”

No problem Dr. X, I’m glad that I found your site. I have added you to my blogroll as well.

http://tinyurl.com/ybl6nz

re: your trackback to my post, The Genesis Account of Evolution

Thank you for alerting me to this post and to your very interesting site. I’ve added you to my blogroll and intend to visit frequently.

Best,

Dr. X.

For anyone who hasn’t read Harun Yahya, take a look at his “Evolution Deceit”: and other articles, which are available at his website: http://www.harunyahya.com

Classroom is a very general term. Science classrooms seem to be what are being discussed here, and since God/gods cannot be studied and described through the methods of science, they should not be discussed in the science classroom. I think that is the issue at its core.

I don’t really think science was “rammed” down anyone’s throat. I think scientists and the federal government were trying to officially describe what science is all about so there would not be anymore creationist spearheads into science education. Unfortunately, it had to be done again recently with the ID folks.

It’s been said many times before; unlike some other fields, science does not have a democratic process and is not subject to anyone’s opinions for very good reason. This issue is serious business. If we let supernatural discussions enter into a science classroom, we may disrupt future generations’ understanding of science, and perhaps the structural integrity of the scientific community. That’s why scientists and “rationalists” (a general term that has no meaning) have reacted so strongly. I applaud their efforts.

Good discussion, nice to hear different points of view, btw.

Even a student from a home that teaches him/her a literalist young earth creationist view of the universe should be able to garner that he/she does not have to agree with material, but must be able to understand and explain it.

Likewise, we should not be hiring teachers (so poorly educated that that they) stand up in history classes (as in New Jersey) and tell students that there is no factual basis for evolutionary biology. Or that he (the techer) believes Muslims are going to hell. Which was the subject of a recent article concerning a student who taped such comments made by a teacher (lacking critical thinking skills).

Now that student’s father is considering a law suit against the district.

And with good reason IMO.

Thank God we have a Constitution with the 1st Amendment.

And thank you for an interesting blog and the opportunity to contribute.

Happy New Year all.

Science is a non-theistic, non-partisan (one would hope) venture, and I think persons’ difficulties with evolution are sometimes because they do not understand that evolution is not a falsification of their religious beliefs, unless of course they adhere (for example) to a young earth creationist view of the world, or what is often called a literalist approach to the Bible.

I am not opposed to some discussions of God in the public school classrooms depending on the context, subject material, and the approach of the teacher.

But I think we get into some tricky territory here because of the 1st Amendment — which I wholeheartedly subscribe to.

For example, one school I read about instituted a Bible as Literature elective. Sounds fine, right? We’re not doing religion, and it’s not required. But the teacher was not really approaching the Bible as literature; rather along the lines of what one might get in Sunday school, with a few discrete pedagogical twists to try to circumvent the Constitution.

I agree that God issues (?) are part of well-rounded philosophy education, and I think it’s wonderful if students have the opportunity to examine these questions in a secular public school environment. Quality philosophy education addresses the decline of critical thinking skills in our nation. Of course, you are presenting a plethora of thinkers. One can have their hands full, and especially at those ages, just reading one, and never even talking about some of the philosophical questions I understand you as raising. For example, some high school history teachers incorporate Karl Marx. But they’re rather unusual, and I think, in that context (i.e. high school history), religious-philosophical questions aren’t part of the undertaking. They are more concerned with Marx’s criticism of capitalism.

But IMO, if parents want their children to learn religion, they should do so outside public school classroom time, and insofar as science education is concerned, stop using their children as political pawns to disrupt valuable classroom time in biology for everyone else.

We do seem to keep missing each other, and I’m not sure exactly why (I have not read your blog opinions in their entirety), but I hope this better clarifies where I’m coming from.

“I am not really clear on what your point is here, in regard to challenges to the teaching of evolution in the schools, and what I stated earlier.”

I am attempting to reason out your conclusion that,

“[P]art of the difficulties in the schools have been three-fold.”

Where you go on to explain this saying,

“One, there has been a very well-funded and orchestrated theocratic movement through the Discovery Institute.

and also that

“[W]e are, however, vulnerable to these kinds of influences in the United States because of the rise of fundamentalism…

As well as,

“[A] decline in the quality of education, including sciences, mathematics, critical thinking skills, and an understanding of Constitutional issues.”

My point is that although the decline of the aformentioned areas are a national issue, there is a significant difference in the decline of education in liberal-blue states, where Christian-fundamentlism is not present, than that of typically conservative red states where Christian-fundamentalism is popular. So how do you explain these vulnerabilities and their effects on the U.S. by way of poor education and fundamentalism when the two seem unrelated? How does this work in three-fold as you claim? Can you explain the problem a little further? Do you mean resistance to discussions on God in school?

Perhaps, you may have misunderstood my position? Afterall, I am all for discussions on God in the classroom. Whereas, I would like to see philosophy added to the curriculum as a standard for middle and highschool kids. Perhaps, ibn Khaldun, al-Ghazali, Max Weber, Marx and others would be helpful to shape the coming age of a pluralist society. Because, ultimately, there can be no discussions of philosophy without discussions on God, agree?