Educational Religious Comments Made In School

Have you ever picked up a textbook and found some negative comment about God or religion? This is what I am referring to in the title.

It is common knowledge that the education system does not allow religion to be talked about in school. The sad part is that textbooks do mention God in usually negative ways but never allows for the voice of religion to be heard. I don’t think this is fair. If the religious voice can not be heard in school then the educational system should not be allowed to make a reference about God in school or in their textbooks in any context.

A class in philosophy or a class in the history of religions might be the only exceptions that I can think of. The religious institutions of the world need to take a stronger stance regarding this. If a teacher mentions God in a positive way we have the liberals wanting the teacher to be removed from the school.

It seems that this should work the other way around also and if textbooks mention God in any negative way then those textbooks should be banned and if teachers make negative comments about God then they should also be removed from the school.

People who believe in religion should stand up against the educational systems and sue these educational systems when they don’t abide by their own rules.

I don’t need to have my son or daughter hearing negative comments about God or religion when the educational institution is trying to make some kind of a point in putting down the religious viewpoint in favor of science. The teachers can still teach science without interjecting any comments about God or religion. God and religion are areas that they know little or nothing about.

Teach the science and let it stand on its own merit meaning they need to teach the students where the laws of nature came from and if they can not answer these tough questions, then they just need to say nothing about it. It needs to be remembered that scientists did not create the laws of nature, they are only making an attempt of explaining them. It also needs to be remembered that the scientific theory of today will be replaced by the scientific theories of tomorrow. This is especially true when you hear people exclaim that this or that theory is more than a theory.

I would appreciate hearing any stories related to the above subject.




Tags: , , , ,

The Blending of Human Beings

Large Group of Happy People standing together.I believe there is hope for human beings as if we focus less on our differences and more on our similarities. It is interesting to note that religion suggest that we came from one set of parents and so does the schools where are children are taught. This is the joining of the  religious thought process with the scientific thought process.  They may come to this conclusion for different reasons but nevertheless they came to the same conclusion.

It needs to be emphasized that these two areas of thought do not cover the same set of knowledge. The religious set addresses the creation of the laws of nature and the scientific set addresses the functioning of the laws.

The geographical boundaries have not changed but have effectively been reduced with means of travel, modern telecommunication and language translators embedded in our computers and mobile devises. It is amazing that through the internet we are communicating with the world.

The areas of differences that is still forcing us apart are man-made items such as nationality and religion. These differences for now are not going away soon but changing. Each countries population is changing and with that each countries population is becoming more blended both from a nationality concept and a religious viewpoint.

In my opinion this trend is good but it can not happen too quickly as individual nationalities will feel threatened.


Tags: , , , ,

Why Did Humans Evolve?

We as humans get hung up on the question did man descend from apes?  I think a more important question that does not get as much publicity is, Why did humans evolve? I have only read one  reading that suggested why humans evolved. The theory talks about a void that may exist and the change comes about randomly in order to fill the void.

The following is a thought that the scientist Ernst Mayr suggest in his book,  “What Evolution Is?” The situation may have been that the chimpanzees were perhaps having a shortage of food as the African environment was changing.  The trees were not as dense and fruit became less plentiful therefore the chimpanzees had to come down out of the trees in order to diversify their food supply. This perhaps led to the bipedal stance that they adopted.

The longer periods of time being on the ground put the chimpanzees at risk. The chimpanzees  could not out run their predators.  It is this thought of trying to outsmart their predators that may have  caused the brain size to increase as the chimpanzees were struggling to survive.  This situation of survival may be the greatest impetus for causing genetic change in living organisms.

The summation is that perhaps it was an environmental change which caused the evolution of man as it has for some many other changes that we have seen in the living organism.  It is fascinating to keep in mind that the same DNA strand is the building block for both plants and animals.  It just depends on which switches are triggered.

The difference between humans and all the other animals is that man has a conscience and this can be thought as your soul. Animals do not have a conscience. This is the decisive difference between man and animals.

This thought process makes this scenario more acceptable to a believer for two reasons.  First the creation process occurs through the laws of nature and the idea of man being different from the rest of the animal kingdom is defined as a conscience. This allows me to be a creationist and still accept the idea of evolution.




Tags: , , , , , ,

Reductionism, What it Means and An Alternative.

The word means what you would expect.  It means to reduce something to its most simple state.  The analogy is made of reducing something to peeling back an onion.  As you peel off each layer it reveals the supporting layer underneath.  Reductionism is the concept underlying the scientific explanation of how the world is built.

It is difficult to fault this concept because it has produced many of the discoveries of how things work in our universe. However it suggests that our being is only a combination of electric impulses and nothing more.  In the mind of the scientists that is the end of the story.

This argument is short-sighted as all these discoveries are based on laws of physics, or laws of chemistry or laws of evolution. This can be thought as the age-old debate which came first the chicken or the egg. The French philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes said, “I think therefore I am”. This is an attempt to say that my existence is based on my ability to think and not the other way around.

The question then is what are these laws, are they a combination of excited brain neurons? The laws are conceptual and not anything physical. They are not of a material world but rather from a non-substance state. It is this state that is outside the realm of science except perhaps the area of quantum physics.

The idea that thought creates things may be the underlying foundation of our universe. It is an idea that allows for one to interpret more meaning into life. This idea is a continuation of the idea that science defines the physical world and religion defines the non-physical world.

This thought process has been popularized by authors such as Mike Dooley. This idea ties in with religion but also allow one to feel that they have more control over their future.

Hopefully you at least have a better understanding of what is meant when scientists talk about reductionism and that it applies to the physical world but not to the non-physical world.  A whole different thought process opens up in the non-physical world.





Tags: , , , , , ,

Our Education System has Failed Teaching Evolution

Education is a reoccurring theme in our society today.  There is continuous conversations about education, whether the days are long enough, should we have class all year round  and if we should eliminate standard testing. The success of education is measured on coming up with new ideas to resolve old issues.

The basic issues that the human being faces is two fold, food and shelter.  This is rather basic but that is all that we need.  Everything else that we consider as issues are man made issues.  Therefore the logic is, if we created these issues, then we should be able to resolve the issues.  This is where education comes into play.

The purpose of education is to give us an understanding of how things work. Part of that understanding is problem solving. The question then is what is one of the major issues in our society today.  I believe one of the major issues in our society today is racism. The word racism is not a scientific word and should be eliminated from the English language.  There is no such thing as a race in the teaching of biology.  There is a classification of living animals and Homo is the class that is used for humans. Biology does not break Homo down into races.  We humans are all the same and that is the point that is not being taught or we would not have the issues with differences that we have.

This is where our educational system has failed. The educational establishment has determined that they want to teach Darwinism in school, but the question arises, what are they teaching? If they are teaching the ideas of Darwinism, then it should be very clear to each individual that we all had one set of parents which means we are all related. I want to reemphasize that we are all humans and there is no such thing as a race of humans.

The blame has to be shared with the Church. All Church going persons that that have been taught about Eve and Adam have been taught that these are our one set of parents. This is the same what evolution is teaching, one set of parents. Why then, do we have Christians who are bigoted and bias towards other human beings?

If the school and church were teaching the ideas of Darwinism and Christ, I would think by now we would all be more tolerant towards our fellow humans.

Think about what you were taught and try to understand what evolution and or Sunday school teachings really mean and how you have interpreted what you have learned through your personal educational experience. I don’t remember it being addressed as I have above. It took for me independent searching outside of the regular educational system to deduce what Darwinism and Christ is teaching and that is every human being is our brother and sister. We need to treat them as such.

Please share your thoughts and comments.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 25, 2015 in Biology, Philosophy, Religion, teachers


Tags: , , , ,

Laws, Kinds and Origin?

It is puzzling sometimes to think about laws as there are several different kinds.  There are legal laws, scientific laws and religious laws. Each of us expresses our own philosophy depending on how we respond to laws.

When we think of legal laws initially we think of common laws that we may be required to abide by such as “No speeding”.  Legal laws come from our government. Does the government make the law or is the law already a reality and the government is only verbalizing the law?  No speeding could be called a common sense law. The law of not speeding is common sense because if you speed you may injure or kill some innocent person or you may kill yourself. Speeding is a relative concept and the laws related to speeding are man-made laws. All the legal laws are man-made laws as they were not here before man was here.  These laws forces one to make a decision to either abide by the law or break the law. If you break the law then you may have to suffer the consequences such as a fine or larger consequences such as death in an accident.

Next there are scientific laws which can also be thought of as rules. Scientific laws are discovered by scientists based on their observations and experiments. In this case the law is already in existence and the scientist is discovering it. These laws are different from man-made laws as these scientific laws have been here before man. It is interesting to note that they have been here since the beginning of the Universe. The interesting thing about these scientific laws is that they are expressed in measurements that man has created but the key is the relationships. These laws are different from the stand point that you can not break these laws.  One does have the choice of either accepting them or rejecting them.  If one rejects the laws of science, then one has to have a better explanation. Where did these laws come from? From a philosophical viewpoint if they were always here since the beginning, then  they had to be created by the same force that provided the energy for the big bang.

Lastly there are religious laws.  These laws are believed to have been passed down from God through either His son or through enlightened persons who were chosen by God to interpret the word of God. These laws such as the ten commandments are basically for man. Again these laws can be accepted or rejected by man. They are primarily rules by which a person is encouraged to live their life. They only have meaning since the evolution of man.

The question is left unanswered, where did the scientific laws come from? I suggest that the creator of the universe created the natural laws which we call scientific laws. This is the underlying philosophy that allows one to embrace God and science. This is the underlying philosophy that allows one to embrace evolution.

The comment above regarding how we respond to laws is based on our philosophy of the laws and our accepting or rejecting them expresses our interpretation of the laws and how they affect us. We have to understand that accepting or rejecting laws is a conscious decision which has consequences.  Our individual philosophy on life will help us make those decisions. We as individuals play a very important role in the power of the laws. This concept is the underlying basis of our societal ethics.


Tags: , , , , , ,

Darwin vs. Creationists

I read an article a couple days ago about a professor at Bethel College in Indiana who has decided to leave the school to ease tension at the college.  The issue is that the college is sponsored by the Missionary Church and they take a hard line in the interpretation of the word of God specifically as it addresses the creation of Adam.  They do not agree with the idea as some Creationists do that if you believe that God created the laws of nature then in effect God has created everything.

I don’t think that the Missionary Church is wrong because the whole idea of religion is to try to interpret the word of God and live ones life accordingly.  This raises some interesting points for Creationists and one is do we need to use a more descriptive term or terms so one knows what we believe.

I have used the term creative evolutionists as a more descriptive term to imply that I believe that the laws of evolution and all the laws of nature were created by God.  This is why I have said that one can embrace science and still believe in your religion.  I may have to modify what I say because those who believe in the strict interpretation of the bible can not embrace evolution but that is their choice and right.


Tags: , ,