h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No, I disagree completely. I had RI rammed down my throat at school and have actively disliked (quite intensely actually) any organised religion since. Having said that, I have since studied Native American belief systems and found possibly the only "Spiritual" way I could ever want to take part in.
Studying religion is in no way essential to your school life - there is plenty of time to study it (if you want to) later in life.

(sites messing about, apols if this multiposts!)

But it is as important as teaching history surely?
Perhaps your experience has put you off the idea completely, but that was just your experience. 1 teacher (or maybe 2 or three!) etc.

Question is, were they trying to indoctrinate you or educate you?
I can see the argument for the education angle, which is what I was proposing, but definitly not the indoctrination.

Given the importance of religion in both the world and history thereof, you will end up with a people who have very skewed ideas of what the different religions are about if you don;t teach them what the different ones stand for. Educate them and at least then they can make their own mind up.

I think we need to learn about religion not only because of how it influences culture and other aspects of peoples behaviour, but because of it's huge significance historically and on geo-political issues at present.

I agree in and of its self all the talking to the wind bits of religion have no tangible effect on the physical world what-so-ever but that does not mean that it does not have the same effect as film, news media or music. You cant simply ignore it.

one love

For 's sake! There's an error in the second paragraph:

"The president has suggested that a ***theory*** known as 'intelligent design' should be taught in the classroom."

Intelligent design is not a theory. BY DEFINITION a theory must produce falsifiable hypotheses. Intelligent design BY DEFINITION is incapable of producing such testable hypotheses because it can never be disproven. Therefore intelligent design BY DEFINITION excludes itself from being a theory.

Science consists of a simple cycle:

1. Take a theory. (eg. The moon is made of cheese.)
2. Generate some hypotheses. (eg. If we get some samples from the moon, they will taste like cheese.)
3. Design and carry out experiments which can disprove these hypotheses. (eg. Send a shuttle to the moon and bring back some samples to taste.)
4. Re-evaluate theory in light of observations. (eg. Yuck! These samples taste like rocks and sand! Maybe the moon isn't made of cheese.)
5. repeat from 1. (eg. Let's try the theory that the moon is, in fact, made of rocks and sand.)

In summary, the scientific process is:

Theory > hypotheses > experiment > observations > (improved) theory...

We have already demonstrated that intelligent design is not a theory, since it cannot generate any hypotheses and therefore can never be tested through any experiments—so our observations of reality don't matter so far as intelligent design is concerned, because there are no hypotheses to test.

I ask: given that intelligent design is completely outside the realms of science, the scientific method and our own observations, how is it even remotely possible to classify it as a science? It's like claiming that pieces of broken glass are actually precious jewels, and forcing jewellers to sell them at the same price, in their displays, as a "valid alternative" to diamonds.

This is the same sort of "weasel creep" as they're pulling on abortion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/28/AR2005082800981.html

Now, abortion I can actually understand when I realise that many people consider an unborn fetus to be a real human being. I don't necessarily agree with them, but given the substitution it makes sense. (What really makes me angry is what they're forcing abortion-providers to say.) However, smuggling in religion in the guise of science is simply beyond excuse. It's intellectually dishonest, which is fine in the privacy of one's own home, but certainly not implemented in our schools.

"What we should be teaching are the problems and holes, and I think there are legitimate problems and holes in the theory of evolution."—Sen. Rick Santorum

You think? In all probability, I know rather more about evolution than you (Sen. Santorum) do, and I can tell you that the so-called "holes" in evolution aren't so much holes as the gaps between the threads of a rugged, well-worn garment. Evolutionary theory, and the underlying principles which support it, have *earned* their place in science books and classrooms by withstanding the rigors of over a century of careful trial and analysis. As for intelligent design? It never had to "earn" anything. It has never been tested, never generated any hypotheses to disprove, and thus its "truth" remains *completely independent* of reality, observation, and over a century of established scientific FACT.

There is no "controversy" over evolution in the scientific community. I'm sorry if I sound like Justin, but that's the truth; the only controversy is amongst religious peoples who see that kids are paying more attention to what they're learning in science lessons, and are trying to jump the bandwagon by claiming that their beliefs are "scientific" too—not realising (or caring) that science earns the respect it deserves the hard way.

It's one thing to believe in something; it's quite another to infiltrate someone else's beliefs using force of law.

- Jordan

No, I remain convinced that "Religion" and the study thereof, is not essential learning in school. I would rather my kids had extra lessons in subjects like Maths, English, Languages, Physics, etc.

Religion is a "Soft" subject that serves no useful purpose within school. I know next to nothing about anything outside of the Catholic and C of E churches, and have felt not one jot of interest in ever finding out anything about any other organised religion. That may limit my capability on theological debate, but on the other hand I have learnt a hell of a lot about other subjects that have benefitted my life far more than religion ever would.

My children will learn about it when they choose to. I will do all I can to exclude them from the subject if and when it surfaces for them at school.

"Oh come on! Religion is tolerable as a hobby for the deranged, but it has no business being taught at schools. It's currently popular, though, as a soft option for GCSE."

That makes as much sense as "Manners and culture are tolerable as hobbies for idiots, but there's no reason to teach *our* kids about them."

Religion is a major part of the world. Just a month ago, Londoners were killed because of people following their version of a popular religion; the world is riddled with inter-religious tensions, and America (a major world power) is being overrun by it. If you have gay children, they might well be prevented from marrying because of religion. So saying that we shouldn't teach our children about religion is like refusing to teach them about politics, or (as I said earlier) manners and cultural differences; in the end, it leaves them blind.

Apart, that is, from it being incredibly odd to call all religious believers "deranged". A majority of British citizens alledge to believe in some sort of religion; while truth is not a function of support, surely that entitles their religious beliefs to inclusion within the normal thought patterns of human beings?

Sorry if I'm expressing this poorly. I'm falling asleep at the keyboard—I'm off for a kip.

- Jordan

You said on your last post that we should teach children "what they believe, what matters to them etc"

That made it seem like *teaching* beliefs, not history or theories.

And yes, my experience has put me off the idea of teaching children religion, but there is no other way to view life, other than guided by your own experiences. I was not put off by one or two or three teachers either, it was the entire concept and entire religion that presumed to inflict their *beliefs* on other people as though they were the absolute truth that made me resentful.

Actually, the word *resentful* doesn't describe how I felt for most of my life. I'll bore you with a bit of personal history so this makes some more sense... My mum is an athiest and my dad was raised Presbyterian but was "sitting on the fence" when I first became aware of religion through school. Before school I had not been told anything about religion or God or Gods. My school started teaching religion (Christianity only of course) in Grade One - that's 6 years old!! The people teaching it were adults - I thought adults, especially teachers, knew all, so I blindly believed them. I questioned my Mum aout her beliefs, and the fact that she did not believe in God meant that she was going to hell, as was my dad...can you imagine what it feels like to know that your parents are going to suffer eternal toment even though they'd done nothing wrong? My parents never tried to teach me *out* of Christianity, they wanted me to make up my own mind. But it wasn't until I was 10, the teacher that year told the class that the earth was only 6000 years old. I thought that was ridiculous and asked about the dinosaurs. He said that the scientists were either lying or mistaken. I knew that didn't make sense so I started to think about it and I realised that it was a lot more plausible that people made it up than it was the truth so I became an athiest.

I KNOW that these "teachers" were trying to indocrinate me, and it scares and horrifies me that they could have succeeded. I have no problem at all teaching the history of religion, some of the best time I had in school was learning about other religions, ie Roman, Greek mythology and Buddhism, Taoism etc. But I really really doubt you could objectively teach Christianity in primary or high school - it would always become a sermon, it would be biased - no one would teach the actual history that came out of Christianity, ie, wars, the justifications for enslavement, the massacre and conquering of "heathens".





Nice idea, but there's no way you could objectively educate everyone about something as touchy as religion. They'll always be a bias towards Christianity in a Christian country.

How long ago were you at school? It's true that at one time Religious Studies was simply an excuse to drill CofE/Catholic teachings into kiddies brains but when I was at secondary school (1990-1995) it was used as a means to educate kids about different religions without a) concentrating too much on a single one or b) "brainwashing" people about how one religion is better than others.

regarding the teaching of critical thinking, which some ID proponents put forwards as one reason for adding ID to science, I wonder how many of their suppoerters would welcome the same thinking being applied to religious education?

"Now children, let's calculate how many animals would have to have been on the Ark for the 'Flood theory' to have worked, how much they would have eaten and defecated, how long after the flood it would been before they could re-establish themselves, whether we should find evidence of a genetic bottleneck a few thousand years ago in all species, how long it would have taken before predators wcould find something to eat, where the flood waters came from and went to, how many *plants* could have survived a medium-term burial beneath kilometres of water..."

Grade One - 1991 Grade 5 - 1995

My hobby is, of course, provoking the religious.

Sure, religion *does* have a place in education. As as sub-topic in sociology, perhaps. Just so long as we take as our starting point the assumption that it's all a load of twaddle, then I'm happy for my children to be exposed to it on that basis. But I don't see why I should have to contribute my share of taxes to teaching children that Jesus wants them for sunbeams. And the same would go for hippy-trippy Native American spiritualism, of course, just in case I've forgotten to offend anyone.

It's not as if I'm suggesting anything radical. Off the top of my head, countries where religion is not taught in (state) schools include France, Turkey and the US. They seem to get along fine.

But back to Shrub and Intelligent Design...
There was a good article in the Grauniad a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/lastword/story/0,,1546180,00.html.
Followed up in the letters column the following week:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/opinion/story/0,,1550739,00.html
The letter from Ed Hollox is a particular doozie.

>>How long ago were you at school? It's true that at one time Religious Studies was simply an excuse to drill CofE/Catholic teachings into kiddies brains but when I was at secondary school (1990-1995) it was used as a means to educate kids about different religions without a) concentrating too much on a single one or b) "brainwashing" people about how one religion is better than others.

1) My local council recently passed a motion to re-affirm the value of teaching Chrtistian prayer in schools.

2) RC and CofE schools receive state funding. They *do* teach Christianity. Very much so. And I pay for it.

<>

That is only a valid starting point once you have been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it *is* a load of twaddle.

>>That is only a valid starting point once you have been able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it *is* a load of twaddle.

Sure. I'll accept that. Provided you're happy with curriculum time being devoted to topics with equally sound footing, such as alchemy, horoscopes, fairies and hobgoblins.

Proof isn't the issue. It's the lack of a single shred of evidence that counts.

Anyone who wishes to harangue me further on the topic is cordially invited here: A4497492

(At the risk of attracting deranged hobbyists to the forum )

No, I remain convinced that "Religion" and the study thereof, is not essential learning in school. I would rather my kids had extra lessons in subjects like Maths, English, Languages, Physics, etc.

What if people *want* to study it?

"Sorry johny and Jamelia you cant study that because some peoiple see it as non-essential, now i know you dont like or have the mathematical wherewithal to grasp physicas but we're sending you to that class instead. Please dont disturb those in there who are interested even thopugh you're bound to be pissed off and bored"


"Religion is a "Soft" subject that serves no useful purpose within school.

Please tell that to the 12 people I helped to teach research skills to so they could learn about the Nazi death camps and the current rise of fundametalist jihadi groups. Hopefully they wil make use of those same research and skills in later life and employers will realise that as well as needing such skills they also demostrated an ability to retain facts to get good marks in the exam portion of the course.

"I know next to nothing about anything outside of the Catholic and C of E churches, and have felt not one jot of interest in ever finding out anything about any other organised religion. That may limit my capability on theological debate, but on the other hand I have learnt a hell of a lot about other subjects that have benefitted my life far more than religion ever would."

I do not drive Im a hopeless driver and stopped after a few lessons.

Therefore by your reckoning no on should learn how to drive, driving is non essetial and as i have got a long just fine without it no one elkse need bother with those damn infernal automobiles either.

How does that sound?

"My children will learn about it when they choose to. I will do all I can to exclude them from the subject if and when it surfaces for them at school.

You will exclude them from learning about Rastafarian culture, why?

Im really glad the people who raised me werent as closed minded as you are being.

onelove

*smacks head against brick wall... again*

The amount of closed-mindedness about religion on this otherwise intelligent site never ceases to amaze me. Just because I advocate the study of religion it doesn't automatically follow that I advocate the study of fairy tales... In my opinion religion is a very important thing for kids to learn as it will help build tolerance rather than sending us back into the days when it was acceptable for kids to throw stones at the fuzzy-wuzzys and wierdos.

"What if people *want* to study it?"

There are plenty of places they can go - there seems to be a church on every corner. School is for learning facts, not beliefs.

Close-mindedness can be a wonderful thing. If Einstein were not close-minded about the untruth of Newtonian physics, he would never have come up with relativity. It's called 'scepticism' and has been the keystone of rational empiricism for the last 200 years.

Meantime, I remain close-minded about fairies. My bad.

I have no particular problem with people learning *about* religon in schools. I would go as far as to say it is pretty important for a well rounded education (given how important rightly or wrongly religon is in the world).

The problem I have is that in my experience (which I except is limited and possibly not representative) learning about religon equated to "learning a religon". Namely whatever sect of christianity the RE teacher was. My main teacher was a self ocnfessed evangelist who saw his calling to teach chritianity in schools.

What to do? I dunno...