If religion isn't taught in public schools, then why is science?

I was watching one of the old beauty contests. One of the questions that each state had to answer was "should evolution be taught in public schools". We already have separation of church and state, which prevents religion from being taught in public schools but, if religion isn't, then why should science be taught, at the same time?

Most of the southern states said "no, evolution should not be taught in public schools". It's already done, I mean, we can't change how public schools are run but, the question is, should they be teaching evolution in public schools.

by the way, some of the northern states said it as well, including Utah (technically northern), and Minnesota

Updates:
y'all keep saying that science is "known truth". How is that possible. We don't' even know how our own moon formed. they're only theories (stories/myths) if you may

0|0
5|24

Most Helpful Girl

  • Science is a logical conclusion derived from factual data. From that theories are drawn. Religion won't help you find a job outside of the church. It is also entirely based on subjective material and folk stories. It is not based on empirical data.

    3|5
    0|0
    • But we don't' know for sure how the moon was created, they're only theories

    • Yes, that is what I said. Theories based on empirical data. Religion is all theory, it's just fanatical philosophy.

Most Helpful Guy

  • Ugh...

    Science is things, That have been tested and proven, Some things science does not know, Things such as the formation of our universe, Or how it ends, It can only achieve logical and mathematically possible results.

    Whereas religion, Is nothing more then a book, Which contains stuff that is complete and utter magical fantasy bullshit (I. e the bible has talkng snakes and magic boats of near infinite mass that can hold all animals? Pfft.. please...)

    It basically boils down to, What would you rather your kids learn in school?
    A) Stuff that modern day man has tried and tested for logical results and answers
    B) A book written by some middle eastern cave dweller thousands of years ago who was a misogynistical, racist, un-educated fool that tries to claim talking snakes were a real thing...

    Exactly... I know which one i would pick.

    Religion has its places, For example, When i got told my mother had hours to live, I Sort of hoped there would be a god/afterlife to take care of her and maybe see her again (And im an Agnostic Atheist by the way...), And, Momentarily that gave me comfort in that time, THATS where religion can be used, As a form of morale boost in tough times.

    But, It has no place in education, The Bible and other holy books for that matter, Contain complete illogical things that would only dellude children into a false sense of reality where children believe in magic and other bullshit.

    Keep religion in morale, Keep science in education.

    The two not need oppose one another, a lot of scientists are religious. But they DO NOT use their religion as a means of education, They use there religion as a form of purpose in such a otherwise meaningless universe, Science to them, Is something that allows them to learn what holy books cannot teach. That being logical and rational explanations for things.

    I mean, Our own personal beliefs aside here, From a completely neutral perspective, Which one of these options, Seems more realistic, logical and rational

    A) A magic space man created everything as it is right now instantly
    B) Everything we see today is the result of billions of years of mind numbingly slow evolution, And as a result, Such complex creatures developed, And, In their prime, were not knoweldgeable of their creation, So created ''Religions'' to try and explain things, And as the specie grew wiser over time, They crushed many ideas of religion and made NEW theories.

    0|0
    0|0

What Girls Said 4

  • I was raised a Christian but I also don't deny evolution. Science is not just "theories (stories/myths)" they are proven facts. I think that different theologies and religions should be addressed in school (the basics of some religion and how it relates to different cultures) but no one should be forced to partake in the practices of another religion against their will.

    0|3
    1|0
  • If you want to learn more about religions you could just attend different churches. I'm sure they would be more than willing to teach you there. Sunday school is a thing you know?

    0|1
    0|0
    • Religious people want to stuff their religion (their cruel fairy stories) down everyone's throat, the younger the better. (If they try it with older children it's much more difficult.)

  • 1. Science is proven
    2. Religion are opinions of fairy tails

    0|6
    0|0
  • Religion isn't taught in schools because not everyone has the same religion and shoving religion at people isn't very good. Evolution is taught because it's a theory of how people came to be.

    0|1
    0|0
    • But that's what's atheist believe in, so why should Christians have to go through the same lessons

    • Show All
    • *people not put sorry

    • @Rocky19 Read about Georges Lemaitre, the Roman Catholic priest who proposed the Big Bang theory: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

      www.amnh.org/.../p_lemaitre.html
      Thus stop calling it an atheist 'belief'. It's *not* a belief, it's science and it's *not* atheist.

What Guys Said 23

  • It's difficult to answer your question because you don't even understand the meaning of "theory" in a scientific context. "Theories" in science are something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to what non-scientists (laymen) call "theory" in every-day life speech. In colloquial, every-day life speech, a theory is a synonym for "an interesting idea" or "a suggestion". Or in other words: something you simply pull out of your ass. A scientific theory is something utterly different.
    A scientific theory is a cohesive, logically explainable and empirically tested and verified set findings. A scientific theory is NOT an idea, it is a FACT. In science "theory" is the highest rank and achievement any finding can reach. Scientific findings are only given the name "theory" if they have been tested hundreds of times by numerous, independent and neutral researchers and time and again found to be correct in their predictions or explanations. As an example, we can take the theory of gravitation. This is not simply some bullshit-believe (like "I believe in god") that Isaac Newton pulled out of his ass. It's a mathematically concise finding that has been tested and verified both on the papers with calculations and in reality with experiments in the field. And like with most scientific theories, you can even feel this in real life. When you a drop an apple from a building, it will fall to the ground. But not only that, it will also fall in the precise angle and with the precise speed that Newton's calculations predict. The same is true for all other scientific theories. Be it the theory of relativity, the theory of quantum physics or the theory of evolution. All of these theories are FACTS. A scientific theory only loses its VIP-status as a fact when a scientist can rationally prove that it is not true or at least partially untrue. For the theory of evolution, this has not been the case since Charles Darwin introduced it. In other words: Since Darwin published his book "On the origin of species" over 150 years ago, no single scientist has been able to rationally and academically disprove him and his theory of evolution.

    So before you claim that science and religion are the same thing, please at least do some basic reading-up on the subject. Saying that these two things are the same is like saying that a play by William Shakespeare and a shopping list written by some random dude have the same literary value.

    1|1
    0|1
  • It's very simple, it's because evolution is a FACT whether you agree with it or not. Honestly, if you don't believe in evolution you are either completely ignorant which I feel bad for you because it means you got a shit education or you have the brains of a monkey, seriously I never ever take anyone seriously if he/she doesn't believe in evolution if he/she has had a proper education. I don't care how harsh it sounds or whatever, because I frankly could not care any less if I offend someone with what I'm saying, especially if his/her IQ is bellow 80 or that of a 5 year old's.

    Science is strictly based on observation and recorded data, while religion is all hypothetical, there is nothing in religion which is a provable fact, ABSOLUTELY nothing. It's like arguing why math is taught in schools and religion isn't?

    0|0
    0|0
    • We don't know how the moon was created, it's just theories. We'll never know

    • I don't get why you're bringing the moon into this? That's geology, another branch of the many branches of science. You're right we will never 100% undoubtedly know how the moon was created unless we witnessed it, that's why there are several theories on how it was fromed. Some theories have stronger supporting evidence than others. The theories are strictly made up from observable and measurable data. The difference between how the moon was formed and evolution is that evolution has been proven, observed, and recorded countless times, there are so many examples. The entire field of biology would make ZERO sense if evolution was not a fact. It's like arguing that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, it's literally equivalent to that.

  • You have a solid point. Science is not much different than other beliefs.

    The major difference, though, is that science is dictated by humanity and is unanimous in its decisions.

    One Christian might have different beliefs than another Christian, but science is the same throughout the world.
    If science is ever wrong, the instinctual thought is to ask "why?"
    But if religions are wrong, the usual answer is "you do not faithful enough". Humans, for the most part, will not evolve very much. Any changes that happen to us will happen from our culture, not our universe.

    Science is an evolving culture, constantly trying to become stronger. Other religions believe they are already perfect, and will remain stagnant for the rest of their existence, and humanity refuses to be stagnant.

    0|0
    0|0
    • So why do some scientists say the moon was created though one way, and some say it was created another?

    • Part of science is accepting that you're going to be wrong, so that you can find the truth.

      Some people use this reasoning to find why other people are wrong, in order to find a better answer.

      I might say your meatloaf needs salt, and one person might say it needs pepper. Your meatloaf might be perfect, but it's still natural to seek something better. Science is about multiple different answers, all potentially true, with some more true than others. Every possibility is considered and then filtered out when it's wrong.
      We don't have the means to prove the moon was made one way versus another way. Not yet, anyway. Until then, both answers are acceptable.

  • your question title and description details are misleading, science and evolution are not the same thing, they correlate to each other within the field of science, but that is not al that they are. science is broad and we can learn many things in a science class, not just evolution.

    0|1
    0|0
    • I know, but you get my point

    • Show All
    • "Although Eisenhower embraced religion, biographers insist he never intended to force his beliefs on anyone. " ROTFLMAO!

    • @jacquesvol ahh so he had long term plans printing those on currency.

  • because of the separation of church and state.
    evolution is science... religion is religion.

    non public schools can and often do have some sort of theology class

    0|1
    0|0
  • Science is needed. And Americans should learn more than just the 2nd. Amendment of their Constitution:

    www.freedcareahomesearch.com/.../...-amendment.jpg

    0|1
    0|0
    • lol, you mean 1st amendment, think you made a typo

      But even this argument is flawed. Just because it's constitutional, doesn't make it "moral". Just makes it legal

    • "should learn more than just the 2nd. Amendment". I did not make a typo. the 2nd Amendment is the one the GOP brandish to permit mass shootings in schools. That's the one which is rammed deep down everyone's throat.
      Morality has nothing to do with the Bible: it's full of murder, rape, it contains even pornography. (yes!)
      If the Bible was an unabridged movie it would be R-rated.

  • ahh the stupidity of souther conservatives you know i used to talk to "y'all" all the time i quit that job becuase i can't bare listen to "y'all's" ignorance if you paid me to quite literally anyway science is truth it is not a religions it is not something that recquires faith to see it is provable and has evidence to conclude that it is indeed TRUE that's why it is allowed in schools because it is academic just like we know that 2+2= 4 we know that science explains the physical unverse around us you have confused the word theory with stories/myth sorry but are you confusing it with the bible? hahahahaha joking aside the word theory in the scientific field means a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. in other words practically fact unlike the story/ myth that jesus walked on water see you southerners need a dictionary more than you need jesus

    0|0
    0|0
  • Something being a theory does not mean it isn't proven. k12science.wordpress.com/.../

    The mythical events of the Bible aren't testable, and don't hold up to scrutiny. We don't have any evidence that life forms were created independently from one another, as the Bible claims. We do have a *lot* of evidence that life forms share DNA.

    To be fair, I think a study of religions is a very good thing, nearly on par with other subjects. Religious thinking exists in most people; even secular people like myself have habits that could be interpreted as reverence, ritual, or worship. I don't think people should be indoctrinated to believe one specific religion, though.

    How old was this beauty contest?

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think religion SHOULD be taught in school. *Not* as dogmatic fact, but it should be taught as:
    (1) a cultural reference point or touchstone, like part of "social studies" in grade school, or as part of Basic Law / Civics in high school. Examples would be the origins of expressions like "robbing Peter to pay Paul", or the 10 Commandments as a foundation of Law as we know it.
    (2) a Comparative Religions or Mythologies class. Huston Smith's "The Religions Of Man" would be good here, or a Judeo-Christian version of Edith Hamilton's Mythology reader.

    A truly *intelligent* Intelligent Design class might be possible. We evolved. From what? And exactly how? Or the Big Bang theory. Prior to discovery of echoes of a "Big Bang" by radiotelescope, it was just presumed that the Universe was always there. Now we theorize a beginning. If anything, that is an argument against atheism.

    0|0
    0|0
  • You wouldn't want to teach religion in public schools because it would be teaching only one religion , which excludes those of another religious background, the thing is, if you teach science and evolution, its one thing that the entire world, as a whole, believes to be fact, its a globally unified idea that almost every country backs, if you don't teach evolution, you exclude those who want to be scientists, since they have a much larger disadvantage to others across your country. In Britain, we teach no religion in schools, as to maintain a truly neutral ground on the schools part, each school teaches evolution and we keep school away from religion, since one is learning fact, and the other is learning about a specific belief system. we do teach about other religions, but keep a fair and balanced view on all religions, as to maintain our tolerant society

    0|0
    0|0
    • @VictoriousSausage " if you teach science and evolution, its one thing that the entire world, as a whole, believes to be fact, its a globally unified idea that almost every country backs"
      Not really, no: there are still 'Muricans believing Earth was created 6000 years ago, in 7 days by some old man in the sky. And lots of Muslims have also their view on it, as do Hindus.
      According to the Quran, the universe was created by God in six days.
      Hindus talk about Purusha who created Viroj, the 'mundane egg'. Then Purusha seems to have been born again out of Viroj. ^~^. Buddhists seem to have three different theories or beliefs.

    • well yes there are those who don't believe in evolution, but i'm more talking about science of any kind as a whole, unifies the world

  • Evolution is taught in schools as part of science curriculum, which is appropriate. Evolution is an observable fact, it's a documentable process that affects all living things.

    Religion can be taught in public schools from an academic perspective, if it's taught in something like a comparative religion class. What is unacceptable is injecting religious dogma into classes that have nothing to do with religion in order to indoctrinate students and impede their learning.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Science is based on axioms, theorems, proofs, research and data

    Religion is based on stuff that people used to think 3000 years ago

    0|1
    0|0
  • Yes it should be but religion should not be since there are different types and then too many different denominations for example Christianity has many different types like Baptists, Lutheranism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Roman Catholicism etc. They teach Christianity a little different from one another.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Religion is and should remain a personal choice.

    0|1
    0|0
  • yes it should, why wouldn't it be?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Good question!

    0|0
    0|0
  • Wow great question man, I can't wait to read me some comments.

    0|0
    0|0
    • oh yes great question why teach science in science classrooms if religion is not allowed just like why teach English in English classrooms if religion isn't taught can't wait to read me some comments on why we shouldn't teach science in school

  • it is in the uk

    0|0
    0|0
  • It's important to note that science does not contradict religion.
    And that "religion" does not soley refer to Christianity.

    As an example of how science does not contradict science, the big bang theory was fatherd by Georges Lemaître, a priest.

    We should learn about science and about religions and cultures from around the world.
    Too many Americans are ignorant about both as it stands.

    0|0
    0|0
    • *science does not contradict Religion*

  • Because without science you wouldn't be asking this question on this website or wouldn't be able to watch your favourite TV shows or wouldn't be able to do almost everything you like.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Science is based on evidence; religion isn't. In fact, religion depends largely on faith (belief in something despite the absence of evidence). For example, the Noah's Ark / flood story is actually disproved by the evidence we have discovered; watch the video below for more information.

    Do we know the answers to every question about everything? No, we don't, but we're making new discoveries all the time, and we're teaching what we actually know.

    https://youtu.be/F4OhXQTMOEc

    0|1
    0|0
  • Because the difference between science and religion is the difference between Euclidean geometry and telling ghost stories. It's true both require you to accept certain assumptions but science makes only the minimum assumptions required to operate on reality. Namely that the material universe objectively exists and that phenomena have material causes. Religion requires any number of unverifiable assumptions (many of which fly in the face of all verifiable observed phenomena) to be taken as facts and unlike science, which is universal, religions flatly contradict one another. In short science is as close as we can get to objective truth, religion is not objective at all. Imagine if we applied the standard of truth found in religion in our courts?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Because science is based on facts and evidence that can 100 percent prove something true or show that something has a really high chance of being true. Religion is something that based on faith and nothing really can prove any of it true or false. The individual gets out of it what they want to get out of it.

    1|2
    0|1
    • Isn't evolution a "theory" though

    • Show All
    • There's more to science than evolution anyway. Evolution is like the tiniest part of science.

    • A hypothesis is not an educated guess, that's a poor layman's crude analogy. A guess is saying "fuck if I know, might as well be X." A hypothesis is a formal proposition designed in such a way that it can be tested in a scientifically rigorous way, and then either confirmed or rejected based on the results.

      A theory is a proposed explanation for a thing that is supported by a preponderance of evidence. A theory is designed in such a way that it can be modified or refined to incorporate new evidence as it comes to light.

Loading...