[RyanPm40]

Originally Posted by caveBEAR

What about when said creationist try to teach creationism in schools? Is it intolerant to not let them?

I personally think schools should teach all points of view to leave it up to the student to decide based on their own reasoning process, as long as both are called theories. A teacher shouldn't project his personal opinion to a student, they should just lay out the facts, which is why I think it's bullshit that some professor out there said he wouldn't recommend a student to med school if they don't believe in evolution. I think it's just as intolerant to not let someone teach/learn creationism as it is to not let someone teach/learn evolution. Either one is okay for someone to learn and believe in, to me (I personally believe in a mix of both). But, that's just me, and I get that others think otherwise.

However, either one is okay to believe in. That's where tolerance comes in. The intolerant thing would be to hate on that person for their view and to consider them less than you or less deserving of something (like med school, as mentioned in the above example) than you.

[caveBEAR]

I'll leave that ^ for someone else.

[_veges_]

Originally Posted by RyanPm40

The article doesn't say you are intolerant for believing those things. What makes you intolerant is to hate and be unable to tolerate someone who thinks differently. Whether or not you believe in evolution, for example, is your own business, but to try and belittle somebody's entire religion due to them believing in creationism is nothing but needless hate.

I don't disagree with religion it's just the literal interpretation of something that simply cannot be true. I think that believing in it in a symbolic way can be beneficial for people

[jawstheme]

Originally Posted by RyanPm40

I personally think schools should teach all points of view to leave it up to the student to decide based on their own reasoning process, as long as both are called theories. A teacher shouldn't project his personal opinion to a student, they should just lay out the facts, which is why I think it's bullshit that some professor out there said he wouldn't recommend a student to med school if they don't believe in evolution. I think it's just as intolerant to not let someone teach/learn creationism as it is to not let someone teach/learn evolution. Either one is okay for someone to learn and believe in, to me (I personally believe in a mix of both). But, that's just me, and I get that others think otherwise.

However, either one is okay to believe in. That's where tolerance comes in. The intolerant thing would be to hate on that person for their view and to consider them less than you or less deserving of something (like med school, as mentioned in the above example) than you.

There is a huge difference in the theory of creationism, which when tested should be discarded by any credible method, and evolution which about as solid of a theory as you can get. I would go as far as to say evolution is a fact at this point. There are many things to be taught at school, why waste time on something that in all likelihood is not true? Why not learn the theories behind creationism at home? Or maybe have an elective class that covers creationism in some way.
Also I can see a lot of issues arising with teaching creationism and people who believe it taking it personally when other students question it. It would be a nightmare for schools. Where evolution really shouldn't offend anyone and there's no reason to take it personal, its a reality of life. In short, evolution is a huge part of biology, its very scientific, and as such belongs in schools. Creationism could maybe fit in some philosophy class or something, but because of the personal nature of the subject for some students it should probably be left out altogether.

[jkim4007]

It's an endless play on words if you put it that way. Tolerance is about coexisting with the people you disagree with, but what if the people who disagree with don't want to coexist with you? You'd be tolerant of intolerance, then.

Calling someone intolerant doesn't make you intolerant. I can't bring myself to accept racism, sexism, and homophobia as valid differing viewpoints. Does that make me intolerant? Maybe, but I feel like the true intention of the word would be lost somewhere in that interpretation. Tolerance wouldn't be something to strive for then, because there would be absolutely no point to it. After all, we (as humans) didn't get to where we are scientifically and culturally because we were tolerant (except maybe in the last 50 years).

As for religion, I think it does more harm than good. It teaches people to repeat what they've been told, and not to think for themselves (just my opinion). If we teach creationism in schools, then it should also be okay to teach the idea that aliens and monsters brought about the creation of the earth in schools. There's no scientific evidence for creationism. By definition, it's not a theory, because it can't be tested. Therefore, it's not just a "different viewpoint." It's a personal, scientifically unfounded, objection to a theory with an indescribable mound of evidence in its favor.

[David87]

Originally Posted by RyanPm40

I personally think schools should teach all points of view to leave it up to the student to decide based on their own reasoning process, as long as both are called theories. A teacher shouldn't project his personal opinion to a student, they should just lay out the facts, which is why I think it's bullshit that some professor out there said he wouldn't recommend a student to med school if they don't believe in evolution. I think it's just as intolerant to not let someone teach/learn creationism as it is to not let someone teach/learn evolution. Either one is okay for someone to learn and believe in, to me (I personally believe in a mix of both). But, that's just me, and I get that others think otherwise.

However, either one is okay to believe in. That's where tolerance comes in. The intolerant thing would be to hate on that person for their view and to consider them less than you or less deserving of something (like med school, as mentioned in the above example) than you.

It is not the government/public school's responsibility to teach the christian belief system on creation as part of the "science" curriculum. It can be offered in a religion course maybe, but it is not "science", and thus should not be taught in a science class.

[RyanPm40]

Originally Posted by jawstheme

There is a huge difference in the theory of creationism, which when tested should be discarded by any credible method, and evolution which about as solid of a theory as you can get. I would go as far as to say evolution is a fact at this point. There are many things to be taught at school, why waste time on something that in all likelihood is not true? Why not learn the theories behind creationism at home? Or maybe have an elective class that covers creationism in some way.
Also I can see a lot of issues arising with teaching creationism and people who believe it taking it personally when other students question it. It would be a nightmare for schools. Where evolution really shouldn't offend anyone and there's no reason to take it personal, its a reality of life. In short, evolution is a huge part of biology, its very scientific, and as such belongs in schools. Creationism could maybe fit in some philosophy class or something, but because of the personal nature of the subject for some students it should probably be left out altogether.

Oh yeah, I never said that it should be something taught in a science class. But, History classes teach about random religions all the time, including Christianity, and they teach it in a way where it doesn't imply that any single religion being taught is true (thus eliminating offending people), it is taught that these religions are beliefs. Why can't creationism be approached in a similar way? I fail to see how it's offensive to have a lecture saying, "This is what some people believe, but it hasn't been factually backed up," explain it, and then go on.

I really don't care that creationism isn't really taught in schools, considering there can't really ever be any factual evidence to back it up, but to just outright call it untrue and to imply that someone isn't intelligent for believing in it is where problems with tolerance begin to emerge. Like I said, I believe in the form of tolerance where people should just learn to live with others who believe differently and respect those views, rather than this new definition that implies that everything must be equal and we all must agree on the same views, if that makes any sense?

[David87]

Originally Posted by RyanPm40

Oh yeah, I never said that it should be something taught in a science class. But, History classes teach about random religions all the time, including Christianity, and they teach it in a way where it doesn't imply that any single religion being taught is true (thus eliminating offending people), it is taught that these religions are beliefs. Why can't creationism be approached in a similar way? I fail to see how it's offensive to have a lecture saying, "This is what some people believe, but it hasn't been factually backed up," explain it, and then go on.

I really don't care that creationism isn't really taught in schools, considering there can't really ever be any factual evidence to back it up, but to just outright call it untrue and to imply that someone isn't intelligent for believing in it is where problems with tolerance begin to emerge. Like I said, I believe in the form of tolerance where people should just learn to live with others who believe differently and respect those views, rather than this new definition that implies that everything must be equal and we all must agree on the same views, if that makes any sense?

A social studies class has a LOT of shit to cover throughout a school year...they don't have time to pick and choose different beliefs and go into them. You teach some basics about the religion, maybe have a fun unit on songs or symbols from the religion, and then you move on.

It's not up to a public school to cover creationism

[Keri]

History is not the same as science when it comes to why religion is taught in one and not the other.

[gfxtwin]

I think the issue with conservative/right-wing groups (which, in effect, also means mostly white and religious as well) complaining about being discriminated against is that it just doesn't effect them in such a powerfully negative way as it does someone in a minority segment of the population, who's upward mobility in society (not to mention physical and mental health) is harmed on a much bigger scale. If you're a christian republican, you can deal with stress and discrimination against you by simply moving to the christian republican part of town and, unless we're talking about the deep rural south,it will usually be a comforting place that looks nice, has very little crime, and serves as an opportunity for you to seclude yourself in a comfortable room far away from those horrible minority groups who were mean to you. This form of escape is seldom available to minorities. If you are black, atheist, gay, jewish, or whatever, you still have to get up every day and face a world that requires the burden of conformity to some degree in order to be successful. If you're gay, yeah you can move to a gay part of town and will probably have the opportunity to be happier in an emotional and material sense, but believe it or not most gay people (for example), don't like only being around other gay people. Most minority groups in fact would rather be in a diverse environment. And if you're black or hispanic, there's a much higher chance that you don't have any sort of luxuriant place where you can escape the stressful experience of conforming to whiteness.

I just feel like the religious conservative right have a vision of the world in which everyone needs to conform to their beliefs: talk white, be a good church-going person whether you believe in a god or not, etc. Where working hard is all anyone ever needs to do to be successful, despite the fact that such a philosophy is much, much more effective if you happen to be white conservative. I know not all conservatives are white. As we saw at the RNC, there are at least a good 5 or 6 minorities and they aren't all necessarily unhappy conformists. I like Michael Steele a LOT, though the majority of his party doesn't seem to feel that way.

So that's why I can't really sympathize with conservatives when they complain about discrimination against them. Oh no, an oversensitive black or gay was mean to you. Go back to your family in your suburbs and get the fuck over it.

EDIT: that said, I will say that the poster child for the kind of liberal being discussed in that article is Bill Maher, and he is most definitely a raging asshole towards towards conservatives. Probably more than anyone needs to be.

[crackedthesky]

Originally Posted by RyanPm40

I personally think schools should teach all points of view

You know there are like, thousands of different religions, right? You really think it's important for people to learn the basics of every single one of them in school? Besides the fact that this is a terrible idea, it's not mathematically possible. And anyway, where do you draw the line? Should we teach kids in school about White Supremacy? Neo-Nazism? Those are points of view, you really think we should teach them in school?

Of course you don't. So why do we pick and choose?

It's one thing to say "here is what science currently holds, also there are many many religions that do or don't conflict with them, if you are interested you can find more info here _____" and another to actually teach "Here's evolution, also Christianity says all of these things, let's focus on those for a few chapters" which is closer to what happens today.

We don't have the time to teach religious theory in tandem with science, and with the advent of the internet, we don't need to. If someone really wants to disappear into the realm of spirituality, they can do it on their own time, not that of teachers and students who want to learn things that can be and in some cases have been proven.

[plyb]

Originally Posted by crackedthesky

You know there are like, thousands of different religions, right? You really think it's important for people to learn the basics of every single one of them in school? Besides the fact that this is a terrible idea, it's not mathematically possible. And anyway, where do you draw the line? Should we teach kids in school about White Supremacy? Neo-Nazism? Those are points of view, you really think we should teach them in school?

Of course you don't. So why do we pick and choose?

It's one thing to say "here is what science currently holds, also there are many many religions that do or don't conflict with them, if you are interested you can find more info here _____" and another to actually teach "Here's evolution, also Christianity says all of these things, let's focus on those for a few chapters" which is closer to what happens today.

We don't have the time to teach religious theory in tandem with science, and with the advent of the internet, we don't need to. If someone really wants to disappear into the realm of spirituality, they can do it on their own time, not that of teachers and students who want to learn things that can be and in some cases have been proven.

Not really responding for him, but responding to your idea of 'how to pick and choose'. There should be some focus in a child's education system to provide context to point of view's which they are likely to encounter in the future. If we are talking about Creationism, in particular, when 46 percent (man, that seems high) of the US holds creationist views, providing context to that those who may not know what Creationism is seems like it would serve the people well. I am not saying spend a day's lesson, I am saying it identify it as an opposing viewpoint, mostly by name only.

[crackedthesky]

Originally Posted by plyb

Not really responding for him, but responding to your idea of 'how to pick and choose'. There should be some focus in a child's education system to provide context to point of view's which they are likely to encounter in the future. If we are talking about Creationism, in particular, when 46 percent (man, that seems high) of the US holds creationist views, providing context to that those who may not know what Creationism is seems like it would serve the people well. I am not saying spend a day's lesson, I am saying it identify it as an opposing viewpoint, mostly by name only.

Yeah. That would fall under what I mentioned earlier, that there are widely held beliefs outside the realm of scientific theory, and it's fine to point people to sources of other information. I just don't see the point in teaching "all views". "Creationism" is a broad enough term that a passing mention of it is more than warranted, but I don't see a need to get into details in a science class. In sociology sure, since you're not really learning to replace science with them but how they exist in the world together, but not as a substitute for measurable theory.

[jkim4007]

Originally Posted by plyb

Not really responding for him, but responding to your idea of 'how to pick and choose'. There should be some focus in a child's education system to provide context to point of view's which they are likely to encounter in the future. If we are talking about Creationism, in particular, when 46 percent (man, that seems high) of the US holds creationist views, providing context to that those who may not know what Creationism is seems like it would serve the people well. I am not saying spend a day's lesson, I am saying it identify it as an opposing viewpoint, mostly by name only.

Not all creationists are Christians. His point still stands.

[birdman]

Originally Posted by David87

It is not the government/public school's responsibility to teach the christian belief system on creation as part of the "science" curriculum. It can be offered in a religion course maybe, but it is not "science", and thus should not be taught in a science class.

Agreed, schools should stick to the facts. Leave faith to the family and the church.