Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
public schools and religion issues
religion in science development
public schools and religion issues
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: public schools and religion issues
In the summer of 2008, the state of Louisiana passed a controversial bill, dubbed “LouisianaScience Education Act”. High school student Zack Kopplin was a sophomore who eventually launched a campaign to repeal the law. (Allman) The bill in question allows supplementary textbook to be used in the school as well as “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner...” (ncse) of course this only applies to controversial topics like the theory of evolution, Abiogenesis, global warming, and cloning (ncse). Why only limit to those topics? Why not include gravitation, germ theory of disease, heliocentricism or atomic theory? Why did the Louisiana Family Forum proposed this bill in the first place? Senator Ben Nevers explained that the Louisiana Family Forum “believe that scientific data related to creationism should be discussed when dealing with Darwin's theory. This would allow the discussion of scientific facts. I feel the students should know there are weaknesses and strengths in both scientific arguments.” (Schon)
Kopplin initially assumed the Louisiana State Governor Bobby Jindal would not sign the bill because he majored in biology at Brown University. It turned out that the Louisiana State Governor was in favor of the bill, much to the dismay of Kopplin. Kopplin did not take any action for two years because he did not know how to address the issue through the proper legal channel. During his senior year in High School, he wrote an email to Dr. Barbara Forrest. Dr. Forrest is a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University; she was an expert witness for the plaintiff during the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District in 2005 (McGuinness). Joining Zack Kopplin in ...
... middle of paper ...
...4. Web. 8 Apr. 2014. .
"Pennsylvania Constitution - Article 1." Pennsylvania Constitution - Article 1. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Apr. 2014. .
Schon , Sylvia. "Bill allows teaching creationism as science." Hammond Star. N.p., 6 Apr. 2008. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. .
"Theistic evolution." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 4 May 2014. Web. 8 Apr. 2014. .
"The Scientific Method - Science Bob." The Scientific Method - Science Bob. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2014. .
"Young Earth creationism." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 4 Aug. 2014. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.
Stanley Kramer's film, Inherit the Wind, examines a trial based on the 1925 Scopes trial in Dayton, Tennessee. Often referred to as "The Trial of the Century" (Scopes Trial Web Page), the Scopes trial illuminated the controversy between the Christian theory of creation and the more scientific theory of evolution. John Scopes, a high school biology teacher, was arrested for illegally teaching evolutionism to his class. "The meaning of the trial emerged because it was seen as a conflict of social and intellectual values" (Scopes Trial Web Page). Kramer's film dramatizes this conflict between the Christian believers and the evolutionists in "Hillsboro, heavenly Hillsboro, the buckle on the Bible belt" (Inherit the Wind). Prosecutor Matthew Brady represents the values of fundamental Christianity while defense attorney Henry Drummond is the voice of reason and science. Although the two men have been good friends and partners in the past, the case in Hillsboro illuminates the difference in their values. Through the scene on the porch with Matthew Brady and Henry Drummond, director Stanley Kramer illustrates the incessant tug-of-war between religion and science. More specifically, camera angle and Drummond's metaphor of the "Golden Dancer" help deliver Kramer's belief in evolutionism.
Ross, H. (1997c). The Shell Game of Evolution and Creation. [Online]. Available: http://www.reasons.org/resources/papers/shellgame.html. [Oct. 1997].
Any hypothesis, Gould says, begins with the collection of facts. In this early stage of a theory development bad science leads nowhere, since it contains either little or contradicting evidence. On the other hand, Gould suggests, testable proposals are accepted temporarily, furthermore, new collected facts confirm a hypothesis. That is how good science works. It is self-correcting and self-developing with the flow of time: new information improves a good theory and makes it more precise. Finally, good hypotheses create logical relations to other subjects and contribute to their expansion.
Messenger, E., Gooch, J., & Seyler, D. U. (2011). Arguing About Science. Argument! (pp. 396-398). New York, NY: Mcgraw-Hill Co..
As said by Yale professor of psychology and cognitive science, "Religion and science will always clash." Science and religion are both avenues to explain how life came into existence. However, science uses evidence collected by people to explain the phenomenon while religion is usually based off a belief in a greater power which is responsible for the creation of life. The characters Arthur Dimmesdale and Roger Chillingworth in Nathaniel Hawthorne 's novel, The Scarlet Letter, represent religion and science, respectively, compared to the real world debate between science and religion. Roger Chillingworth is a physician who is associated with science. (ch. 9; page 107) "...made [Roger Chillingworth] extensively acquainted with the medical science of the day... Skillful men, of the medical and chirurgical profession, were of rare occurrence in the colony...They seldom... partook of the religious zeal that brought other emigrants across the Atlantic." The people of the Puritan community traveled across the Atlantic for religious reasons, and because men affiliated with medical science did not tend to practice religion, they rarely inhabited this community. Chillingworth, falling under the category of "skillful men of the medical and chirurgical profession," would not be expected to reside in this community. The narrator through emphasizes this with his rhetorical questioning, "Why, with such a rank in the learned world, had he come hither? What could he, whose sphere was in great cities, be seeking in the wilderness?" These questions demonstrate that it was so strange for Chillingworth to appear in this community because of his association with science. Perhaps, the phrase "with such rank in the learned world" could yield the narra...
"Open Letter To Kansas School Board." Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Nov 2010. .
In 2004, Sharpes and Peramas report that “nearly two-thirds of all Americans surveyed favored teaching creationism together with evolution in schools,” according to a poll organized by CBS Broadcasting (qtd. in Costley and Killins). Thus, it seems as if the public has bought into the fair play argument proposed by creationists. After all, why not have a place to teach equally credible theories of the origin of life in schools? (Eldredge 634). Chet Raymo, a noted science professor of physics and astronomy at Stonehill College, rejects this notion, stating, “one might as well give equal billing to those who believe the Earth is flat” since creationism stands on little factual ground (156). At any rate, the U.S. Supreme Court illustrates that teaching creationism puts pressure on minorities to conform to the obviously favored religion when the power of the government backs up the theory (qtd. in Anti-Defamation League ...
Since the time that teaching evolution in public schools was banned as heresy and taboo for contradicting the Bible, most public school systems today take an opposite approach in which creationism is seldom ta...
Conflict between science and religion has been around way before Charles Darwin’s published book, Origin of the Species, came to be (“The Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Controversy”). Which is a book that is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology, featuring the idea of ‘natural selection.’ Some people believe that we as humans have evolved as the most intelligent and advanced species on the planet, while others think we have been placed here and designed for a reason. Many debates and court cases have come to be because of these two ideas of science versus religion. Although there are many debates between the two, the ideas overturn when the parties overlook the distinction between that which cannot be proven (faith), compared with that which has not been proven (theory) (Lipman, Robert M.). Theories, including evolution, can and should be investigated with appropriate scientific diligence (Lipman, Robert M.).
Since the beginning of human history there have been many explanations for events that seem out of human control. In recent civilized history, religious and since the beginning of human history there have been many explanations for events that seem out of human control. In recent civilized history, religious and scientific views have often clashed with one another. Religious ideas are usually presented first and then enough scientific evidence accumulates to dare religious beliefs. These findings of science are met with incredulity and most are considered a heresy.
Demarcation between science and non-science or pseudo science is particularly important in scientific education, as it determines, for almost every member of our society, what they will accept as true regarding science, particularly creationism and evolution. Having public ...
The views of both religion and science are of such importance to study in today’s society because of their differing conclusions as to how the world was formed, and how they are able to give clarity and meaning to one’s life. The scientific view of the creation of Earth involves the Big Bang Theory. Scientists believe that one hundred billion years ago the Earth, the Sun and all the planets of the solar system were cold dust particles until these particles were attracted to one another. This came to form a huge spinning disk, with the centre of the disk becoming the sun, and the particles that had separated into rings turned into the planets (Lunsford, 2010). In contrast to this, the religious view of the creation of earth involves Creationism, the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are a creation of God (Williams, 2010). Both definitions can be differentiated into the fact that science is unable to understand religion, however similarities are evident is that both fields study the same world and same reality. Since both religion and science contain quite controversial opinions into the creation of earth, is it possible for there to be a connection?
Throughout history, conflicts between faith and reason took the forms of religion and free thinking. In the times of the Old Regime, people like Copernicus and Galileo were often punished for having views that contradicted the beliefs of the church. The strict control of the church was severely weakened around the beginning of the nineteenth century when the Old Regime ended. As the church's control decreased, science and intellectual thinking seemed to advance. While the people in the world became more educated, the church worked harder to maintain its influential position in society and keep the Christian faith strong. In the mid-nineteenth century, the church's task to keep people's faith strong became much harder, due to theories published by free thinkers like Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, David Friedrich Strauss, and others. These men published controversial theories that hammered away at the foundation on which the Christian church was built. As the nineteenth century progressed, more doubts began to arise about the basic faiths of the Christian church.
At first glance, many facets of science and religion seem to be in direct conflict with each other. Because of this, I have generally kept them confined to separate spheres in my life. I have always thought that science is based on reason and cold, hard facts and is, therefore, objective. New ideas have to be proven many times by different people to be accepted by the wider scientific community, data and observations are taken with extreme precision, and through journal publications and papers, scientists are held accountable for the accuracy and integrity of their work. All of these factors contributed to my view of science as objective and completely truthful. Religion, on the other hand, always seems fairly subjective. Each person has their own personal relationship with God, and even though people often worship as a larger community with common core beliefs, it is fine for one person’s understanding of the Bible and God to be different from another’s. Another reason that Christianity seems so subjective is that it is centered around God, but we cannot rationally prove that He actually exists (nor is obtaining this proof of great interest to most Christians). There are also more concrete clashes, such as Genesis versus the big bang theory, evolution versus creationism, and the finality of death versus the Resurrection that led me to separate science and religion in my life. Upon closer examination, though, many of these apparent differences between science and Christianity disappeared or could at least be reconciled. After studying them more in depth, science and Christianity both seem less rigid and inflexible. It is now clear that intertwined with the data, logic, and laws of scien...
The relationship between science and religion has been debated for many years. With strong personal opinions and beliefs, it is not surprising that no progress has been made in this argument. In my opinion, I feel as though religion and science have to be related in some way. There is no possible way people can separate two things that attempt to prove the same facts. My belief is that a metaphorical bridge has to be formed to connect the two. Personally, I feel as though science can be a compliment to religion, and that the scientific discoveries can and should be used to prove that God exists, not disprove it. If science did this, then the relationship between science and religion could be a friendly one. If that happened, people could stop debating and fighting over the two, allowing priests and scientists to talk and work together peacefully.