A biology teacher gives his opinion:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/15/my-take-the-scientific-case-for-teaching-religion-and-ethics-in-science-class/?hpt=hp_c3
I can see his point but I think further integrating science teaching with every day life could be done easily without having to bring in controversial topics. It takes a special kind of teacher to pull off directing discussions that could get heated without imposing their own bias. It would also require changing curriculum requirements to make room for tedious discussions; meaning that important information might have to be cut to make room for more discussion time....I don't know if that is even possible given how much students are expected to know by graduation and entering into the college level courses.
No sir, I don't like it. :<
Nope. Superstition and supernaturalism have no place in the science classroom. Science deals with verifiable facts, superstition deals with wild arse speculation and wishful thinking, these two conditions are not compatible.
However as religion plays such an important part in human life I think that simply ignoring it in school is not reasonable. In the UK one does have Religious Education as a subject. Personally I would like to see a subject called Belief, Morality and Ethics where these three subjects are dealt with objectivly and debated in a friendly supportive environment and children get the chance to discuss these vital issues. If we don't do that then it is quite possible that the only impression a Christian would get of a Muslim and visa versa would be the impression provided by their media of choice.
$0.02
I like how this guy thinks he's breaking new ground or something. It's well known that kids and people in general learn and retain things better if they can relate them to things in their life. This is different from the idea of putting religion and science up for discussion in a public school classroom. There's time for kids to delve into the deep ethical questions of such things in college, that's what college is for. Public school is there to ensure kids have a solid foundation education and not to attempt to address the world's problems and ethical issues.
I like how the guy refers to how we're supposed to compete with countries that are doing better in science education, and that his solution is to delute the science that is taught.
My solution would be to get rid of school superintendents like this (http://www.evolvingscientist.net/2011/12/someone-got-ahold-of-lines-full-letter.html) that don't even know what a theory is.
Quote from: Tank on December 16, 2011, 08:08:07 AM
Nope. Superstition and supernaturalism have no place in the science classroom. Science deals with verifiable facts, superstition deals with wild arse speculation and wishful thinking, these two conditions are not compatible.
$0.02
What he said plus $.0002
Quote from: Tank on December 16, 2011, 08:08:07 AM
Nope. Superstition and supernaturalism have no place in the science classroom.
...Or anywhere else except crappy TV shows, potentially OK movies and potentially great books.
Quote
$0.02
Add my 2 (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myemoticons.com%2Fimages%2Fobjects%2Fbody%2Fear.gif&hash=cbe919ca1ab5a40b38ca07d587af3a74dfb480b6)
(We are so barbarically awesome, that we use ears for coins, oh yes we do ;D )
Quote from: Asmodean on December 17, 2011, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 16, 2011, 08:08:07 AM
Nope. Superstition and supernaturalism have no place in the science classroom.
...Or anywhere else except crappy TV shows, potentially OK movies and potentially great books.
Quote
$0.02
Add my 2 (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myemoticons.com%2Fimages%2Fobjects%2Fbody%2Fear.gif&hash=cbe919ca1ab5a40b38ca07d587af3a74dfb480b6)
(We are so barbarically awesome, that we use ears for coins, oh yes we do ;D )
I'll raise your two ears after I ante up 10 fingernails.
Quote from: Gawen on December 17, 2011, 03:53:42 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on December 17, 2011, 03:46:28 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 16, 2011, 08:08:07 AM
Nope. Superstition and supernaturalism have no place in the science classroom.
...Or anywhere else except crappy TV shows, potentially OK movies and potentially great books.
Quote
$0.02
Add my 2 (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myemoticons.com%2Fimages%2Fobjects%2Fbody%2Fear.gif&hash=cbe919ca1ab5a40b38ca07d587af3a74dfb480b6)
(We are so barbarically awesome, that we use ears for coins, oh yes we do ;D )
I'll raise your two ears after I ante up 10 fingernails.
They use those as coins somewhere..? o.O
In Norwegian, a hundredth part of a krone is one øre (The lowest-value existing coin is 50 øre). The word øre also means ear. Nice, yes? :D
:o
In Brazil it's Real which means either 'real' or 'royal'.
I like 'real'. ;D keep it real, even in the science classroom.
I'm not against teaching about religions, comparative religions and even philosophy and ethics, but not along with science. Besides, people are smart enough to reconcile their philosophies with their existence, they don't need a teacher to guide them to do so in the classroom.
Religion in school? I think it would be a good idea, at least as long as they teach about other religions besides the Abrahamic ones, and the teatcher remeber to understand to keep away from the stand point of "but My religions is better then these other because....".
But science and religion in the same class room? It's like mixing chemistry and cooking classes. On one hand they are similar, on the other one produces eadible products while the other one creates dangerous and even deadly concoctions... :o
No religion in schools, except for the same purpose as anti-drug education. No mixing it with science.
HIJACK TOPIC ALERT:
No priests in schools, or within half a mile thereof. ;D
That's four cents - or is it six?
I know an atheist in Leeds who teaches RE and philosophy :D
I did read the article in the link, but wish to comment on something else. I don't see the point in your creating a forum posting, including a link, but not commenting. Maybe I am in a bad mood, but I think I can read articles on pedagogy without your help.
Jose AR
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 16, 2011, 02:41:43 AM
A biology teacher gives his opinion:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/15/my-take-the-scientific-case-for-teaching-religion-and-ethics-in-science-class/?hpt=hp_c3
Teach comparative religion and teach ethics but not in the same class as science -- not in public schools anyway. Our public schools are already far enough behind, no need to make it worse.
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 06:35:18 PM
I know an atheist in Leeds who teaches RE and philosophy :D
Someone who was always an atheist or became one after starting a career in RE and didn't wish to leave?
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 18, 2011, 12:35:49 AM
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 06:35:18 PM
I know an atheist in Leeds who teaches RE and philosophy :D
Someone who was always an atheist or became one after starting a career in RE and didn't wish to leave?
Always an atheist. He started off teaching philosophy at the school. Then the RE teacher left and he was asked if he wanted to take on that subject as well. His atheism actually suits him to the task perfectly as he has no axe to grind about a particular faith and can has no compunction to create a strawman of atheism either.
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 06:35:18 PM
I know an atheist in Leeds who teaches RE and philosophy :D
I had responsibility for the RE curriculum when I was teaching primary, and I was an atheist then too. There's a big difference between Religious Education and Religious Instruction.
Quote from: squidfetish on December 18, 2011, 12:51:36 PM
Quote from: Tank on December 17, 2011, 06:35:18 PM
I know an atheist in Leeds who teaches RE and philosophy :D
I had responsibility for the RE curriculum when I was teaching primary, and I was an atheist then too. There's a big difference between Religious Education and Religious Instruction.
Yes. And in the UK the later is what should (and usually does) happen in most non-faith schools.
Quote from: Tank on December 18, 2011, 02:46:34 PM
Quote from: squidfetish on December 18, 2011, 12:51:36 PM
I had responsibility for the RE curriculum when I was teaching primary, and I was an atheist then too. There's a big difference between Religious Education and Religious Instruction.
Yes. And in the UK the later is what should (and usually does) happen in most non-faith schools.
Yes indeed. Theoretically, it should be fine for someone of any faith to teach religious education in that they teach it from a "Christians think that...", "Hindus think that.." standpoint without passing judgement on the beliefs or the adherents themelves. I have encountered teachers who let their bias influence their teaching, occassionally, but this seems to be fading as the old-school types retire and are replaced.
The classroom is not the place to discuss relegion unless it's a world religion type class.
Hopefully an atheist teaching RE will spawn more atheists. XP
Quote from: Sweetdeath on December 18, 2011, 11:58:35 PM
Hopefully an atheist teaching RE will spawn more atheists. XP
lol @ 'spawn' :D
Religion and Science together in the classroom is just an excuse to reintroduce religion into the curriculum. We've already determined that the scientific method of finding solutions to problems is better than closing our eyes and praying to a God to fix those problems. Answered prayers are only a problem working itself out that to the religious reaffirm the idea that they can solve problems by "giving them to god". Someone should let them in on the fact that they can solve problems ALL of the time instead of some of the time by following the scientific method?