RufusAtticus

I am. Atheists will never be able to fix the horrendous biology education in our schools. It is going to take a group effort of ministers, priests, teachers, scientists, parents, taxpayers, and other concerned citizens, to stand up against pseudoscience. This thread offers excellent proof why education isn't working. We keep stating that the issue is science versus religion. We want to "improve" science education so that people will be "saved" from "irrational" thought. Likewise, vocal religious opponents want to "improve" science education so that people won't be "corrupted" by "nonfaith." Who gets lost in the middle are rational people of faith--Yes, Virgina, they do indeed exist--who do want the children to have great education. However, for them the choice isn't science or religion. It is both. They understand the distinction between science and religion better than most freethinkers.

The political and cultural debate between evolution and creation is not the time to become anti-religion or anti-faith in general. Science education will be improved by showing Joe Public that there does not have to be a conflict between faith and science. That cannot be done as long as militant atheists agree with fundies.

~~RvFvS~~

Principia

I actually agree with most of this, Rufus. Excellent post.

Labeling religion and faith as 'diseases' endemic to certain cultures and lack of critical thinking as 'root of all evils' merely constitute belligerent posturing. I do not find any merits in using science (as practiced by mosts scientists now) as strictly a means to any political, religious, or philsophical end.

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

Starboy

RufusAtticus, yours is a noble sentiment. I applaud it. The pessimist in me asks, where are all these religious evolutionists? Why have the "minority" religious that are fundamentalists had such a big effect on education for so long? If the desire of this sea of unwashed open-minded religionists is to provide a good education for their children, how is it possible for the current state of affairs to exist?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Starboy

Aethari

I don't want to be the newbie jumping into a debate here, but this quote from galiel stuck with me, and I feel compelled to comment:

I'm currently finishing my first semester in college, and to this I must say "Hell Yes." I enjoy learning, especially philosophy and science, and I always try to "get the interesting" out of whatever course I take. However, and this is especially true in high school, sometimes the classes are simply so dull, or so laboriously obvious, that they cannot be made interesting by any mental contortion.

This seems to be even moreso the case with many of my peers (and I don't want to get an elitist, Trebaxian Vir-ish tone here, so grant me some charity), but many of my fellow students who are either not as intelligent, or simply not as interested in learning, find all classes to be this way.

And this is not only a problem with the curriculum. That attitude is fueled by parents and administrators, who constantly reinforce the concept that learning is for money and success, and not for any joy in knowledge. Whatever is not relevant to the "business world" (which, in America, seems to be the only truly important world), is not important at all. With this attitude, philosophy, critical thinking, and hard science are all subjects for "nerds, academics, and elitists"-- no business person gives a damn about these things.

This would not be so bad in and of itself, if it were not for two other great American traditions. First, Americans feel that "everyone should have an option about everything"-- which includes the assumption that even the horribly ignorant should get equal speaking time about any subject that arises. Second, there also seems to be a great reluctance in American culture to attack anything that deals with "belief, "faith", or "spirituality."

So what do we have? We have students that are turned off by disinteresting critical thought courses, whose opinions are reinforced by a wholly utilitarian support system, whose then-ignorant opinions are sought as valuable, and whose same opinions are protected because they are "personal faith decisions."

Sorry for the rant, but yes. I hope it contributed some perspective ^_-

~Aethari

RufusAtticus

Because fundies are very vocal and well funded. They also are willing to play the political games to control school boards and school policy.

Because as suprising as it may seem, liberal and moderate Christians have better things to do then play political games. When you actually want to help the poor and minister to people in need, going to school boards meetings comes second. The Religious Right is so influental in politics because they are willing to whore themselves to Caesar. Meanwhile, the Religious Middle and Left are busy actually helping people instead of their wallets.

My desire is not to get such people involved in politics, if they don't want to, but to get them involved in the community. It such churches there is no conflict between science and religion, and I think it actually suprises them whenever it pops up. I recently saw one Methodist minister from Cobb County say as much at a biology teacher's funeral. I'd like there to be a lot more discussion among Christians about the question of origin. Hearing an Atheist say that the importance of Genesis is the spiratual lessons, is not the same as hearing it from a fellow believer.

~~RvFvS~~

Starboy

RufusAtticus, it stretches credulity to think that they do not know what is going on. I find it impossible to swallow this without some evidence to help it go down. This is such a well-reported topic you would think that they could spare some time to denounce the fundamentalists.

A more reasonable explanation is that they do not want to rock the religious boat, after all even if fundies are ignorant, thoughtless power grubbing bastards, at the end of the day they are still Christians, and the support of a fellow Christian is worth a heck of a lot more then the unorganized rabble of atheists. And if atheists ever did become organized and effective would they support Christian causes? Probably not. It would be easy to understand that the sentiment of these Christians you speak of towards atheists would most likely be "screw'em".

Starboy

[ December 15, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

lpetrich

I'm inclined to agree with Starboy. I wonder why so many non-fundies have no sense of self-preservation when it comes to the more political sorts of fundies.

Because if those fundies get what they want, some sort of Iran/Taliban-like theocracy, they'll be sending non-fundies to "re-education camps". I have this picture of them meekly going along, and "thanking" their masters for "setting them straight."

scigirl

Starboy - I really liked this question you posed here:

Yes, where are they? I know they exist...I often think about this question when pondering the homosexual debate. There are some groups who would put homosexuals in prison (aka Pat Roberson-types) but the "liberal" Christians say nothing. Unfortunately their silence speaks volumes...

scigirl

Principia

I think I am woefully unaware of the Creationist "epidemic..." Otherwise, let me offer a few ideas on Starboy's question:

1) The way our political system works, a minority group can have a very great impact in policy making. This is the reality of lobbyists, campaign donations, etc. The question becomes who is more motivated, in my opinion. I think I agree with Rufus when he says that the evolution-creation debate pales in relation to other societal concerns.

2) Unless I am wrong about the statistics, there is still a great variety of educational choices for parents who are not willing to subject their children to Creationist-run education. I don't see a Creationist monopoly, nor do I see any possibility. At best, they are mere annoyances with most of their teeth yanked out by the various court rulings. The Constitution is still a powerful document, last I checked.

3) I sense a tremendous urgency to "eradicate" Creationism at all costs, but we have to be extremely careful in becoming what we detest. Science is not and should not become a political device or battleground for non-scientific ideologies. If creationism is wrong scientifically, then science ought to be able to take care of itself.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Principia ]</p>

Boro Nut

Dumb means you can't talk. I agree it's not an attribute we normally associate with Americans. The language does differ slightly, but that's not the same as being dumb. For instance, you say sidewalk and we say pavement. You say tomato and we say tomato. You say friendly fire and we say I'm dreadfully sorry Mrs. Pitchfork, I appear to have killed your only son by imagining I am John Wayne and shooting missiles of left right and centre.

Boro Nut