Is it a Bad Idea for Children to Learn About Religion in School?


If you put a giant ass warning label on something, a portion of the consumers will believe it regardless if its true or not.

As a result of those evolution is a theory stickers, many children in the south don’t become educated in science at all.


Therefore there is no problem with saying that evolution is not 100% fact as it has not been 100% proven yet.

Name one example of Macro Evolution that is 100% true. And do not dare say Darwin’s finches as they still remained finches, they did not turn from finches into fish, or anything like that. Remember, MACRO evolution, not micro.

That would be the equivalent of saying “sharks are fish, and angel fish are fish, so they are the same thing.”


A scientific theory can never be “proven”, only disproven. In science, it’s constantly questioned & tested. That’s why it’s called a “theory”.

The theory of gravity still hasn’t been technically “proven” …


If two predominantly white people breed a white child the parents genetic combination will be born

100% true fact of basic evolution - children are born with a combination of their hereditary ancestry’s genetic materials.

Regarding intelligent design at the very least watch this;

Its straight up junk. Their “belief” is that Earth is 6,000 years old, which we know 100% is false and that the earth is 4.4 billion years old not 6000, hell we have cave paintings and artifacts older than 6000 years.

To the point made by @pfunky2222 - I just disproved creationism - so stop arguing about it as being relevant within an educational setting.


If you put a giant ass label on something saying that it’s good to keep an open mind and that evolution is still a developing theory, then it’s quite clearly encouraging people to keep an open mind and acknnowledge that there are things we haven’t discovered yet.

This would require a study to establish, you seem to just be creating causal links post-hoc without any real reason to do so. Especially given the content of the stickers.

I would also encourage you to read the sticker before talking about it, bud.

Final section:

There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including:

Fact check so far? True. There are many unanswered questions about the origin of life. Nor does this sticker posit God or A Creator as the answer to them. In fact as we will see later on it encourages the opposite.

Four examples of things which are examples of topical debates in the evolution community

Study hard and keep an open mind. Someday, you might contribute to the theories of how living things appeared on Earth.

Fact check again, true. Keep an open mind and question it, you may grow up to contribute to gray areas in theories of the origin of life

You are literally twisting the words of the sticker to suit your own argument @Darth


You are basing those dates off of carbon dating, which becomes HIGHLY inaccurate after 2,000 years. Which has been proven with your so-called artifacts. As well as the 6,000 year thing being complete BS and has no where in any religious book been stated that, and there are actual religious groups that believe in quite the opposite, as well as the day-age theory and the apparent-age theory. Also cross species genetics among the same species is not proof of evolution in the slightest, and is the equivalent of a Caterpillar developing in a cocoon.


Why are you even debating this point?


Now we get to the crux of your entire progressive thesis… I think that if we are going to talk about religions that are being taught in public school and the elements of those philosophies that led us to where we are today, then that should be true of all religions be they secular or supernatural in nature.

Below is an excerpt of a book called Liberal Fascism by Johan Goldberg… I’m just not sure where this segment should be taught… in biology perhaps… or maybe sex ed… as it relates to the nature and substance of American progressivism. Keep in mind that this is but a short out take of this particular part of progressive history, but it is enough to see just how devious this secular religion can be:

Indeed, the population explosion, and in particular the explosion of the “wrong” populations, were of a piece with Darwinian thought from the outset. Darwin himself admitted that his ideas were merely an extension of Malthusianism to the natural world. (Thomas Malthus was the economic philosopher who predicted that a natural human tendency to overbreed, coupled with finite natural resources, would yield persistent misery.) Intellectuals feared that modern technology had removed the natural constraints on population growth among the “unfit,” raising the possibility that the “higher elements” would be “swamped” by the black and brown hordes below.

Not only was America no exception to this widespread panic among the intellectual and aristocratic classes; it often led the way. American progressives were obsessed with the “racial health” of the nation, supposedly endangered by mounting waves of immigration as well as overpopulation by native-born Americans. Many of the outstanding progressive projects, from Prohibition to the birth control movement, were grounded in this quest to tame the demographic beast. Leading progressive intellectuals saw eugenics as an important, and often indispensable, tool in the quest for the holy grail of “social control.”

Scholarly exchanges between eugenicists, “raceologists,” race hygienists, and birth controllers in Germany and the United States were unremarkable and regular occurrences. Hitler “studied” American eugenics while in prison, and sections of Mein Kampf certainly reflect that immersion. Indeed, some of his arguments seem to be lifted straight out of various progressive tracts on “race suicide.” Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his Case for Sterilization–which called for the forcible sterilization of some ten million Americans–and later sent him another note thanking him for his work. Madison Grant’s Passing of the Great Race also made a huge impression on Hitler, who called the book his “bible.” In 1934, when the National Socialist government had sterilized over fifty thousand “unfit” Germans, a frustrated American eugenicist exclaimed, "The Germans are beating us at our own game."6
Of course American progressives are not culpable for the Holocaust. But it is a well-documented fact that eugenics lay at the heart of the progressive enterprise. The eugenic crusade, writes the historian Edwin Black, was "created in the publications and academic research rooms of the Carnegie Institution, verified by the research grants of the Rockefeller Foundation, validated by leading scholars from the best Ivy League universities, and financed by the special efforts of the Harriman railroad fortune."7 German race science stood on American shoulders.

It would be nice to say that liberals’ efforts to airbrush eugenics from their own history and fob it off on conservatives are unacceptable. But of course they have been accepted. Most intellectuals, never mind liberal journalists and commentators, don’t know much about either conservatism or the history of eugenics, but they take it on faith that the two are deeply entwined. One can only hope that this wrong can be made right with a dose of the truth. A brief review of the progressive pantheon–the intellectual heroes of the left, then and now–reveals how deeply imbued the early socialists were with eugenic thinking.

Just as socialist economics was a specialization within the larger progressive avocation, eugenics was a closely related specialty. Eugenic arguments and economic arguments tracked each other, complemented each other, and, at times, melted into each other. Sidney Webb, the father of Fabian socialism and still among the most revered British intellectuals, laid it out fairly clearly. “No consistent eugenicist,” he explained, “can be a ‘Laissez Faire’ individualist [that is, a conservative] unless he throws up the game in despair. He must interfere, interfere, interfere!” The fact that the “wrong” people were outbreeding the “right” ones would put Britain on the path of “national deterioration” or, “as an alternative,” result "in this country gradually falling to the Irish and the Jews."8

Indeed, British socialism, the intellectual lodestar of American Progressivism, was saturated with eugenics. The Fabians Sidney and Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Harold Laski, and H. G. Wells were devoted to the cause. John Maynard Keynes, Karl Pearson, Havelock Ellis, Julian and Aldous Huxley, Eden Paul, and such progressive publications as the New Statesman (founded by Webb) and the Manchester Guardian were also supporters of eugenics to one extent or another.

As discussed earlier, Wells was probably the most influential literary figure among pre-World War II American progressives. Despite his calls for a new “liberal fascism” and an “enlightened Nazism,” Wells more than anyone else lent romance to the progressive vision of the future. He was also a keen eugenicist and particularly supportive of the extermination of unfit and darker races. He explained that if his “New Republic” was to be achieved, “swarms of black and brown, and dirty-white and yellow people” would “have to go.” “It is in the sterilisation of failures,” he added, “and not in the selection of successes for breeding, that the possibility of an improvement of the human stock lies.” In The New Machiavelli, he asserts that eugenics must be the central tenet of any true and successful socialism: “Every improvement is provisional except the improvement of the race.” While Wells could be squeamish about how far the state should go in translating this conclusion into policy, he remained a forceful advocate for the state to defend aggressively its interest in discouraging parasitic classes.9


I’m not saying we shouldn’t have open minds and that we shouldn’t question a groups findings or results, I do understand that. I’ve read the stickers before, I’ve spent 3 years in Oklahoma, 6 months of which was in Texas for graduate studies in psychology, I was in personal contact with roughly 150,000 people on a longer than one week basis in that time. In that time I found out approximately 60% had no interest in science, I asked them why and they stated it went against God - literally, that was the response I got from 40% of the 60% - not interested in science. Allegory or not - it was a valid study of persons, and I am not the only one who has participated such a study at the graduate or doctoral level. Shared more about myself online than I wanted to - but there you go.


I dont care about your anecdotes - lol

Here’s why: can you prove to me that you’re not lying to suit your purpose?


Well as you will see he is steeped in liberal higher education… psychology is definitely one of those soft sciences like economics… Freud showed us just how misleading those people can be. But the fact that he goes to the south with a preconceived notion of God and religion says enough that he would extract negatives from anyone who had a strong faith. The thing that really kills me about this subject is that except for the parable nature of the writings in the bible, it is all historically accurate… at least every time they excavate a new document or scroll it seems to validate the historical accuracy of the Bible… yet… it contains no science… and least no science that aligns with present day progressive thinking.

@Darth - Say… Tell me… just what can you personally gleen from a group of 150,000 people in the span of one week… I would think that getting a reasonable grasp of say 10 or 15 would be a trick…


Ha! - Using my MGIB to get an education makes me a liberal. Gimme half an hour and I’ll snag some studies on the detrimental sides of religion > science in US schools.

(though thats kinda why I linked the PBS nova special on intelligent design tbh)


I’m sure you will… I’m saying that just as you have a rather colored view of the faith people place in God, I have similarly colored views of the dark arts of physiology and I would say, although I can’t say for certain, most psyc professors are liberal in nature and as you supposed about the ‘southerners’ steeped in their religion and lack of interest in science… probably your professors have similar blind spots in their thinking… The unfortunate thing is that most social sciences as opposed to the hard sciences tend to be staffed by … those of a progressive nature… No, you degree doesn’t make you liberal but rubbing up against so many in the course of your education might…and if I was in Vegas…


Even if this is true it can’t be attributed to stickers if they are similar in what they are saying, given that the stickers don’t say they go against God. Its their personal decision to reject or accept it.


Still waiting. That’s been a long 30 minutes.

You are yet to site a single public school detrimentally teaching children about creationism as fact and evolution as fake.


I woke up this morning thinking that I had allowed the discussion to sidetrack the point I was trying to make.
Firstly the outtake that I posted above wasn’t just some random thing I found on the Internet, it was in fact a book that I had mentioned on this forum at sometime or another.

The point that I was attempting to make is that progressive politics works day in and day out to shape our political, economic, social and cultural future in this country and indeed around the world. That progressivism is an ideology. Fragmented and incoherent as it is, it advocates for its supreme god as being government. Progressivism has a long history… some of it good, which progressives are immediate and loud about pointing out and some bad which they are tireless in trying to bury or better yet deflect to someone else.

The words we use to describe political factions change meaning over time… like Fascist. A difficult word to put an absolute definition to… so today, progressives have managed to tag the conservative right with the word. While it is disingenuous as fascists, Nazis, communists and progressives have the same end game in their manifestos; we will call it fair play in political gaming. But what can’t be deflected is history. My post above wasn’t intended to sully the progressive movement but to point out that it has a past that they not only want to distance themselves from but instead, because it is a subject that just can’t be made to disappear, they try to tie it to the right and at the same time, make modern birth control and abortion somehow benevolent.

Academia and government of the early 1900’s created institutions and societies around social engineering and ridding society of ‘unwanteds’. They have a direct and unquestionable with Margaret Sanger’s ‘Black Project’ and the creation of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood may have changed advertising agencies and marketing techniques but the bottom line is that the same objectives still exist and if you read the words used back then about alleviating the poor, unwanted … it is the same program attempting to achieve the same results today by adding the words ‘woman’s freedom’.

Joseph Goebbels was a master of making people believe one thing while leading them to demise… If a discussion in public schools about the values put forth by a supernatural God is so egregious to talk about, then we should apply those same rules to the very progressive ideas that infest our primary and secondary education… and written by those who teach the more ‘advanced’ subject of social engineering. I think that we should talk a lot about progressivism because it is pretty damned important to our society and ultimately to our representative republic… we should also, even if it grates your sensibilities, talk about the values and virtues that created this national construct that progressives have been trying to destroy for the last 100 plus years…


This one almost got expelled for talking about it


Two things I noticed about that. Had Alfred, during the course of the discussion that led to this exchange, brought up some Old Testament punishment of the Christian faith, he would have been recommended for placement on the ‘Behavour Intervention Team’ … and but for one simple letter… the professor would have been Eva Brown…ing :blush:


Learning about white privilege is more to your liking I guess . :laughing::laughing:


No, I’d prefer they stuck to academics.