Quote Originally Posted by denuseri View Post
The real point however is that what I discribe the little girl as doing is fine by any reasonable standard, even if she is answering questions about her faith posed to her by others at the lunch table etc, she has a right to freedom of espression.
Given the scenario you are presenting, I have to agree: I see no problem with her answering questions posed by her classmates, or having a civil discussion with willing classmates. To my mind it's no different than kids arguing about the relative merits of particular video games.

Not in any greater precentages than the atheists would be my theory, simply based upon human phycology.
You may be right. I don't know squat about psychology.

Its use in a science class can still involve any manner of the unknown or untested viewpoints or examine the differences between conflicting theories regardless of whats been tested via the scientific method or not
Untested, perhaps. A theory can be so new that tests are still being conducted, or we may not yet have the ability to test them, like the theories of life on other planets. But untestable? That would require teaching ANY inane speculation just because someone claims it is true. This smacks more of philosophy than science.

When teaching people about the theory of evolution I think for a teacher to be truely objective he or she must also present as many of the plausable counter theories as possible within the alloted time or at least make reference to them regardless of said teachers personal beliefs as to the validity of said theories and let the students form their own opinions as to weather or not they will choose to believe whats presented.
Ahh, but who decides what is plausible? Here is an "alternate theory" of the Earth's structure. Should we include this in our science classrooms? What about other Creation myths? Shouldn't they be given time as well? If you allow ANY non-scientific claims to be taught, you MUST allow ALL of them, and you no longer have a science class. You have the Internet. Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science? If so, such a claim does not belong in a science classroom!

As for the opinions of students, that is NOT what teachers are there for. Should we poll the students to determine what their opinions on spelling words are? How about math problems? "How many of you believe that 2 + 2 = 5? A majority? OK, then, that's what we'll learn today!"

Students are there to learn, and hopefully HOW to learn. They shouldn't have to learn analytical chemistry in a history class, and they shouldn't have to learn theology in a science class. Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science, they are theology. By all means, teach them in a comparative religion class, where they belong.

(I wonder, though, how many of those parents who demand their theology be taught in science would really want to risk putting their children into a comparative religion class, where their particular brand of religion would have to stand against every other brand. My "guess" would be, not many.)

It has to be noted as an alternative theory, nothing more, nothing less. No subjective analyisis on the part of the teacher is required.
So you're implying that the teacher should say something like, "The Bible teaches this, Intelligent Design teaches that. Now that that's out of the way, let's deal with reality for the rest of the semester." What's the point?

Pure science doesnt preach, it just presents the findings of experimentation and should not take part in sophistry to convience people imho.
YES! Finally you agree with me! Now, explain to me the experiments which show the evidence for Creationism or Intelligent Design. I haven't been able to find ANY! All I have been able to find are denials of science based on nothing but faith. No experiments, no tests.

Yet the bible is the earliest written record of any such thing being said (hence why its our only evidence)...and being raised Chatholic I am sure you were exposed to the consept in a religious fashion long before you ever "self generated" any such ideal for yourself.
No, there are older texts, such as the Code of Hammurabi from ca. 1790BC, which long predates Mosaic Law which is no older than about 1000BC. There are even references to a Code of Urukagina (2,380-2,360 BC), though no copies of this law are currently known to exist.

Just because a person is raised in a particular faith does not automatically mean that his faith is teaching the one true law. Virtually ALL faiths make the claim that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. Some, however, differ in the application of that claim. Sometimes "others" means "others of that faith."

And there is equally no reason to assume that humans didnt allways have religious involvement as an active part of their social dynamic (which btw is pretty much evident based off our scientific findings to not just be a homo-sapiean thing, but inclussive to other types of hominids) once we achieved a certian level of development...becuase its part of us.
Which says nothing as to the validity of the religious argument. Again, just because everyone believes it does not make it true.

Until their is verifiable proof to the contray people should be allowed to continue believing what they wish on the subject.
And again, I've never claimed otherwise. That doesn't give them the right to force their beliefs on others, or to use those beliefs to infringe on the beliefs, or non-beliefs, of others.

just becuase a group of people decide to become organized around an idealogy doesnt not make them inheriently a "problem".
And again I agree. It's when unscrupulous con artists attain authority and start twisting the ideology to suit their own ends that the problems arise. And that applies to more than just religion.

Why Ive been told I handle just fine under the proper conditions...winks.
That sounds positively ... divine!