You are under the assumption that teaching that God exists is damaging, which firstly isn't true, and secondly, your opinion.
that's not the criticism. The problem is teaching,
specifically, Creationism (also known as "ID") as an equal, competing theory to Evolution. It is patently absurd. One is observable, testable, and disprovable. The other rejects the scientific method at all levels. This is the problem. I honestly don't give a shit if people want to teach creationism in schools--but it belongs in the Philosophy curriculum, or some religious studies elective
Concepts that reject Science do not belong in the Science classroom, as equal partners. Period.
I've personally always have believed that God exists, based on proof, and that we are created. Hasn't done a hint to damage to me... in fact, it gives me meaning to life. I am not burdened with the inconsistencies and ever-changing scientific opinion when it comes to the topic of creation v evolution.
We obviously have different standards of "proof." For me, my life is determined by evidence, proof doesn't really exist, to be honest. And more than anything else, there simply can be no proof, whatsoever, of God. Otherwise, you reject the concept of faith.
There are n inconsistencies in scientific opinion. That is simply how science works. We poke around and strive endlessly to find problems with the solutions that we have raised. When we find these problems, we raise new questions. The outsider thinks that science is the quest for answers. The scientist sees science as the quest for more questions. When we stop asking questions, we no longer accept science. This is why religion fails for so many people.
Hmmm.. what changed your mind?
Oh, nothing changed my mind. The ghost stories and false morality were always horseshit in my mind, but it was a good community of good people, and those in church that I grew up with remain my core group of best friends to this day. You would consider none of us religious, but if you know us, would not likely consider us immoral sinners. (well...maybe)
Church time was church time. Learning was reserved for the classroom. I never once likened what was taught in Sunday school to any kind of history or reality that had any bearing or consequence on anyone whatsoever. In fact--I never thought that was the intent. It seemed so silly, so hilarious.
Short answer: I did it for the boobs. (let's go back to the math theme to describe this time of my life: high school + hormones + church = AWESOME!)
Personally, I think Churches are for religious education, not schools/colleges. However, kids are berated for having religious beliefs. Even on their personal lunchtime, reading a Bible... ON THEIR PERSONAL LUNCH TIME, is social suicide.
You have to realize (you prolly do) is that it doesn't have to be vocally conveyed for people to hate it. You can just say you have a religious affiliation and that's it for your social life in school.
That's the problem.
Well, the solution is private schools. This is why they exist, also why homeschooling exists.
But if you look at where I grew up in North Carolina, despite my part of the state having a rather liberal bent to the general attitude of the community, there wasn't a public high school (including my own), that wasn't god friendly--and this is considered the best education in the state, and one of the better in the south east. There were at least 6 highly-popular Christian-themed clubs at my school. Not a damn person would ever consider attacking you for walking around with a bible, or criticizing you for it. Not one. (about 3k kids at the time)
Hell, even in the most impoverished, ignorant backwater part of the state where I first grew up (up until 3rd grade), you'd be hard-pressed to find someone berating you for reading a Bible. (but, you
would get teased and abused for reading, though. "Learnin'" was simply uncool, and largely unacceptable. Belief in God is generally impervious to any such assaults, though.)
Facebook
Twitter