Scott's - April Query - Science in Religion

[Scott Nesler]

As one who respects the institution of public school, I previously was
offended at the arguments to push religion in the public school
science room. Blog and newspaper editorial tend to turn this into
an evolution vs. creationism argument. As if one has to be chosen
over another. From a scientific point of view both of these
concepts are theories. There is no scientific proof that says you
can't believe in both.

Last night during a sleepless period I had an epiphany. Why not
allow religion in science. Using proofs and postulates or
describing key religious concepts in terms of theory sound like a
great educational tool for teaching science.

Just as evolution and the big bang is a theory, so is the resurrection
of Christ, so is the concept that the Bible is literal, and so is the
origination date of the Genesis. From a scientific point of view, I
think it would be good for children as well as adults to understand
the difference between theory, fact, and belief.

[Scott Nesler]

What a coincidence. The St. Louis PBS station aired the Spencer
Tracy movie called, "Inherit the Wind" the day after I submitted this
query. I had never seen this movie before. The movie is based on
the Scopes Monkey Trial.

The ending scene where Tracy's character walks out the room with the
Bible and Darwin's book held together in a single hand is so symbolic
to my query for the month.

For those who like good court room movies like "To Kill a Mockingbird"
or "Twelve Angry Men", "Inherit the Wind", is a movie to see.

[Brett Kraus]

I'll need to think more on the concept of teaching religion in public school. My initial gut reaction is to say it is a bad idea. But I need to think more on why for right now.

 

As to the movie, "Inherit the Wind," it is a lot like "To Kill a Mockingbird" since it was based on a better book.

[Adam Webster]

Scott, I do like your approach to the concept, but I'm afraid you will only make people mad on both sides.  Not only does Creation Science hold to a very narrow definition of religion (i.e. Protestant Christian creation mythology), but it is also essential oxymoronic.  Creation Science does not explore the Biblical account of creation as a hypothesis to be tested but as a postulate, basing all other theories on this group of accepted "truths." Approaching this account using the scientific process would be considered relgious bias on the part of all non-Christians, and many Christians would consider it heresy to question "the Word" because it may imply doubt in "the Word Made Flesh."

 

To me, relgion and science have always answered different questions.  Science examines the mechanics of how things happen. Religion approaches the question of why it happens. To my understanding, the questions of whether or not Jesus suffered for sins and if God even exists are unapproachable by today's scientific understanding.  Hence the need for faith and religion.  Once science touches the realm of the divine, religion is merged with evidentiary knowledge. Until then, they remain separate in my understanding.

 

I would, however, be very open to the teaching of ancient or modern theology as a history course.

[Scott Nesler]

Is there an acceptable place, a meeting point between what is sacred
and what is profane where we can all agree? -- Jim Fleming

I'm afraid the answer is no.

I'm coming to the conclusion there will never be a middle ground for
hot button arguments. The radical moderate will continue to be the
most despised person in a debate. Maybe this explains the demise of
Christ and Socrates. It might also have something to do with
Arlen Specter leaving the Republican party.

Adam, I agree with all of your points. History is my preference
for religion in public schools. I would also suggest more elective
course available at the high school level. A humanities type of
religion course is a suggestion. I could only hope students would
enroll in the course.

I admit this query is profane and possible a slap in the face for
those imposing religion in the science room. The query is also
directed at those in the scientific community who accepts group
consensus as the truth. The motivation of the query is to develop
an intelligent argument which supports a happy middle ground.

On Apr 27, 10:43 am, Adam Webster <gqwonder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scott, I do like your approach to the concept, but I'm afraid you will only
> make people mad on both sides. Not only does Creation Science hold to a
> very narrow definition of religion (i.e. Protestant Christian creation
> mythology), but it is also essential oxymoronic. Creation Science does not
> explore the Biblical account of creation as a hypothesis to be tested but as
> a postulate, basing all other theories on this group of accepted
> "truths." Approaching this account using the scientific process would be
> considered relgious bias on the part of all non-Christians, and many
> Christians would consider it heresy to question "the Word" because it may
> imply doubt in "the Word Made Flesh."
>
> To me, relgion and science have always answered different questions.
> Science examines the mechanics of how things happen. Religion approaches the
> question of why it happens. To my understanding, the questions of whether or
> not Jesus suffered for sins and if God even exists are unapproachable by
> today's scientific understanding. Hence the need for faith and religion.
> Once science touches the realm of the divine, religion is merged
> with evidentiary knowledge. Until then, they remain separate in my
> understanding.
>
> I would, however, be very open to the teaching of ancient or modern theology
> as a history course.
>

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Brett Kraus <moraleconom...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > I'll need to think more on the concept of teaching religion in public
> > school. My initial gut reaction is to say it is a bad idea. But I need to
> > think more on why for right now.
>
> > As to the movie, "Inherit the Wind," it is a lot like "To Kill a

> > Mockingbird" since it was based on a better book.A

[empire...@gmail.com]

One of the big problems we have in our culture is a complete lack of
it. The idea of a religious history course has been batted around in
this thread but history isn't as prevelant a subject as I'd like it to
be. We teach science as early as possible but things like "social
studies" has replaced history as a course. Even after going through
high school history, I knew a lot more about controversial court cases
than I did about pivotal characters like Alexander Hamilton or Thomas
Jefferson. Most kids graduate high school knowing little more about
George Washington than that he was the first President. We don't know
our founders or our history.

Or our religion. We talk about religious tolerance or cultural
tolerance and perform it by ignoring it. I think that religion should
be taught because it is a part of our cultural heritage and our
identity. I don't know that teaching it LIKE a science would be
beneficial, but if we taught it LIKE a history class we would know it
very well and we would be less likely to be afraid of it or be
offended by it. Religion is important to us as Americans, and our
public school system ought to act like it.

> > > Mockingbird" since it was based on a better book.A- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Adam Webster]

Isn't it funny that we talk about sexual and racial tolerance by
parading minorities around like circus animals, but religious tolerance
is taught by hiding?