Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Code Project
  1. Home
  2. Other Discussions
  3. The Back Room
  4. Evolution and Stickers Revisted

Evolution and Stickers Revisted

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved The Back Room
learningcomgame-devquestion
93 Posts 22 Posters 1 Views 1 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • B brianwelsch

    I honestly can't remember specifically studying modern religions in school outside of a few passing remarks or ancient religions when discussing the Greeks and Romans. I may have forgotten the lectures(not out of the question), but either way it wasn't in enough detail that the info stuck with me. Also, a lack of coverage in my education doesn't mean that all schools neglect this topic, just that it wasn't deemed important where I grew up (New England). What knowledge I have is due mostly to my own reading or talking to others. Which touches on Christianity, Judiasm, Muslim, Taoism, Buddhism, Wiccan, Native American, Sikh and Hinduism. I assume by your response then that an in depth coverage of world religion is mandatory in the UK. How detailed do they get? As an aside, how much Asian/African/American History is covered? BW


    "Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
    Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
    Today"
    -Days of the New

    D Offline
    D Offline
    David Wulff
    wrote on last edited by
    #81

    First some age group definitions: - Primary school is ages 4-10 - Secondary school is ages 11-16 - College is ages 17-18/19 - Univeristy is 18-19 + (We also have First and Middle schools where demand for schooling is high, which are ages 4-7 and 8-11 respectively.) Up to middle scool age we are taught, loosely, Christian beliefs and values. As far as I can remember we didn't have any specific Religious Education (RE) classes. From 8 to 15 we are taught about the six main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism). Emphasis is of course given to Christianity still because on paper England is a Christian country, and we go into a lot of detail on the various teachings and ideas presented in the Christian history and beliefs, but maybe a third of the secondary education is dedicated to other religions. The only shortcoming from memory was that we barely touched Judaism (I know more about Sikhs than I do Jews). In my experience the first two years of high school RE was almost exclusively looking at Christianity with only passing mention of other beliefs, with about a third then looking at the other main religions. Then at 15 we have two years preperation for our GCSE qualifications - as part of this course we are required to take certain subjects. Maths, English, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, a foreign langauge etc. One of the requirements is also either a short course or long course religious education. I believe the short course is called Religious Studies (RS), where you look at religions in general and none in particular. I opted to go for the full course Religious Education myself because I found it an interesting subject. In the RE course we looked at Christianity and one other main world religion that we as a class/group decided on, which in our case was Islam. I think in those two years we looked majoritively at Islam, including studying their beliefs systems, their teachings, their links with world history and the personal history of a number of important people in their faith. This wasn't just academic study - we visited local mosques, talked with local Imam's, took part in Islamic medidation, looked at historical items, etc. At the end of the course we had to prepare coursework and take a series of written exams that were on par with those we took relating to the Christian faith. Regarding history, I stopped taking it as a subject at 15 (before my GCSEs) so I don't have a full education on that. I personally don't recall anything relating to Asian hi

    B C 2 Replies Last reply
    0
    • R Richard Stringer

      Chris Maunder wrote: Either we teach children how to think and judge for themselves or we tell them "this is true and this is false". I don't think one or the other is exclusive. There are some things that are true and some that are false. Teaching students to "think and judge for themselves" is not a solution - its really part of the problem. We have a body of knowledge that all students should learn dogmatically and we have a body of knowledge that is concrete enough to use although its correctness cannot be proven 100% and we have a body of knowledge that is fragmental and evolving in nature. We must not confuse one with the other nor must we let a student think that all knowlede is equal: its not Richard "Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer --Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

      A Offline
      A Offline
      Andy Brummer
      wrote on last edited by
      #82

      I think that is the point. When you are presented with information in the real world, nobody is going to tell you how correct it is, you had better be able to judge for yourself. In your words, you need to be able to add new facts to each of the 3 different catagories. That judgement, along with the ability to reason about new facts, and to communicate well with others are the core of what a high school graduate should know. Unfortunately, in the US that isn't taught until college. High school is geared to produce assembly line workers. Everybody must ignore everyone else with their heads down while they all complete the same task, regardless of their abilites.


      I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon

      1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • D David Wulff

        First some age group definitions: - Primary school is ages 4-10 - Secondary school is ages 11-16 - College is ages 17-18/19 - Univeristy is 18-19 + (We also have First and Middle schools where demand for schooling is high, which are ages 4-7 and 8-11 respectively.) Up to middle scool age we are taught, loosely, Christian beliefs and values. As far as I can remember we didn't have any specific Religious Education (RE) classes. From 8 to 15 we are taught about the six main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism). Emphasis is of course given to Christianity still because on paper England is a Christian country, and we go into a lot of detail on the various teachings and ideas presented in the Christian history and beliefs, but maybe a third of the secondary education is dedicated to other religions. The only shortcoming from memory was that we barely touched Judaism (I know more about Sikhs than I do Jews). In my experience the first two years of high school RE was almost exclusively looking at Christianity with only passing mention of other beliefs, with about a third then looking at the other main religions. Then at 15 we have two years preperation for our GCSE qualifications - as part of this course we are required to take certain subjects. Maths, English, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, a foreign langauge etc. One of the requirements is also either a short course or long course religious education. I believe the short course is called Religious Studies (RS), where you look at religions in general and none in particular. I opted to go for the full course Religious Education myself because I found it an interesting subject. In the RE course we looked at Christianity and one other main world religion that we as a class/group decided on, which in our case was Islam. I think in those two years we looked majoritively at Islam, including studying their beliefs systems, their teachings, their links with world history and the personal history of a number of important people in their faith. This wasn't just academic study - we visited local mosques, talked with local Imam's, took part in Islamic medidation, looked at historical items, etc. At the end of the course we had to prepare coursework and take a series of written exams that were on par with those we took relating to the Christian faith. Regarding history, I stopped taking it as a subject at 15 (before my GCSEs) so I don't have a full education on that. I personally don't recall anything relating to Asian hi

        B Offline
        B Offline
        brianwelsch
        wrote on last edited by
        #83

        I think we would do well to require some type religious education, even if only something like your short course. Especially today with the increase in globalization and greater likelihood of having to interact with other cultures, etc. History courses seem to be similar. We covered Asia and Africa only as far as their histories crossed paths with Europe and later the US. Which basically means Ghengis Kahn, WWII, slavery, imperialism, and early man. Thanks for the details. BW


        "Get up and open your eyes. Don't let yourself ever fall down.
        Get through it and learn how to fly. I know you will find a way...
        Today"
        -Days of the New

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • 7 73Zeppelin

          Stan, the year is 2005. We are no longer in 1005, the ninth century. We have science, technology, no fear of the dark and a legal code that isn't controlled by the papacy. Welcome to it... ;P John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]

          S Offline
          S Offline
          Stan Shannon
          wrote on last edited by
          #84

          John Theal wrote: and a legal code that isn't controlled by the papacy. The sad fact is that this judge represents the papacy of New Age . The left has returned us intellectually to an age when morality is dictated to us from on high. As with all true believers, you are comfortable with it merely because it happens to also be your morality. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."

          7 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • J Jorgen Sigvardsson

            You're a crazy man Stan. And your posts reflect that. :) -- Komm tu mir langsam weh, leg mir die Ketten an und zieh die Knoten fest, damit ich lachen kann I blog too now[^]

            S Offline
            S Offline
            Stan Shannon
            wrote on last edited by
            #85

            Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: You're a crazy man Stan. And your posts reflect that. I won't argue that point, but that don't mean I'm wrong... ;P "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."

            1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • L Lost User

              I'm an agnostic and believe evolution as "fact". The argument I've heard most often from creationists is this: While evolution does a nice job explaining change over time it says nothing about that initial "spark" that created life in even it's simplest form. Until science can create life in a petri dish their argument seems valid. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick

              J Offline
              J Offline
              Jorgen Sigvardsson
              wrote on last edited by
              #86

              Mike Mullikin wrote: Until science can create life in a petri dish their argument seems valid. Uhm. Why? It's as valid as the idea of walking on water (liquid state ;P) I do hope the scientists will be able to create life. Life which can sustain itself. Then, and only then, will we be able to answer the question "Who am I?" - the only question that makes all other questions seem so trivial. -- Komm tu mir langsam weh, leg mir die Ketten an und zieh die Knoten fest, damit ich lachen kann I blog too now[^]

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • Q QuiJohn

                Stan Shannon wrote: David Kentley wrote: Judges, in my view, are here to protect what is right, public will be damned. I find that statement to be absolutely incredible and so anti-American as to be beyond belief. If I had written "Judges are here to protect the law" would it make you feel better? They also make sure the laws that are made are constitutional, all of which is why I say they are here to protect what is right. The laws are written by elected officials, the judges are appointed by those officials or in many cases elected directly. It's still ultimately the will of the people at work. However, when it comes to specific issues like this, it is the judge's duty to follow what they believe is right and lawful. Do you not understand the ingenious checks and balances system this country employs? It sounds like you want to strip the judicial branch of its power by giving the executive branch iron fisted control over it. Presidents and senators bow to the will of the masses (or lobbyists); judges impose the will of the law, and the constitution, and are required to ignore the will of the masses, or else they are not doing their job. You talk about hurling society back in time, but that is exactly what would happen if fanatics, even large groups of fanatics, are allowed to run amok and impose superstition on our science classes. If these people's faith is so flimsy that observation of the real world around them theatens it, it's time for them to get a new faith, not stick their heads and the heads of their children in the sand. The judge in this case did absolutely the right thing according to the law, and proves once again that this country's system usually works. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forego their use." - Galileo Galilei

                S Offline
                S Offline
                Stan Shannon
                wrote on last edited by
                #87

                David Kentley wrote: However, when it comes to specific issues like this, it is the judge's duty to follow what they believe is right and lawful. Which is precisely what we would have if the government was, in fact, controlled by the church. Judges are there to merely interpret the constutitionality of a law. There is absolutely notihng in the constitution which gives the federal government even the least little bit of authority over how children are educated. It is not there. This judge forced his own personal opinion upon the people without regard for the inherent intent of the constitution. Your defense of this judge proves beyond doubt who the true fanatics are, and why the people of this country have every right to be concerned about the federal judiciary's refusal to recognize any constitutional limitations upon its powers at all, and why the left is to be feared for its loathsome attempt to reshape the social and legal structure of this nation into something more akin to a European social welfare state. The left, via the courts, has succeeded in destroying the most fundamental and important achievments of the American experiment in liberty and freedom. And this decision is yet more proof of that. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • L Lost User

                  I'm an agnostic and believe evolution as "fact". The argument I've heard most often from creationists is this: While evolution does a nice job explaining change over time it says nothing about that initial "spark" that created life in even it's simplest form. Until science can create life in a petri dish their argument seems valid. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick

                  J Offline
                  J Offline
                  John Carson
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #88

                  Mike Mullikin wrote: I'm an agnostic and believe evolution as "fact". The argument I've heard most often from creationists is this: While evolution does a nice job explaining change over time it says nothing about that initial "spark" that created life in even it's simplest form. People who say this are not creationists as that term is normally used. They are 99% evolutionists, even if they are also Christians. Mike Mullikin wrote: Until science can create life in a petri dish their argument seems valid. They are closer than you appear to believe: One[^] Two[^] Three[^] The last is a Google cache, since the website is unreachable at the moment. The original link is http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2004/3/30/64612/5378[^] John Carson Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious. Oscar Wilde

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • S Stan Shannon

                    John Theal wrote: and a legal code that isn't controlled by the papacy. The sad fact is that this judge represents the papacy of New Age . The left has returned us intellectually to an age when morality is dictated to us from on high. As with all true believers, you are comfortable with it merely because it happens to also be your morality. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."

                    7 Offline
                    7 Offline
                    73Zeppelin
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #89

                    Stan Shannon wrote: As with all true believers, you are comfortable with it merely because it happens to also be your morality. 1. I certainly do not ascribe to religion in any form. 2. My code of morality is not known to you in any way, shape or form whatsoever. 3. The important bit here is to stress the fact that it took a judge to put a halt to the idiotic antics of an apparently significant sized group of uneducated country bumpkins who didn't know when to quit. 4. The only thing I am happy about is that finally someone took the bull by the horns and put an end to the endless stream of crap that inevitably seems to dribble out of the bible-belt... John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]

                    S 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • 7 73Zeppelin

                      Stan Shannon wrote: As with all true believers, you are comfortable with it merely because it happens to also be your morality. 1. I certainly do not ascribe to religion in any form. 2. My code of morality is not known to you in any way, shape or form whatsoever. 3. The important bit here is to stress the fact that it took a judge to put a halt to the idiotic antics of an apparently significant sized group of uneducated country bumpkins who didn't know when to quit. 4. The only thing I am happy about is that finally someone took the bull by the horns and put an end to the endless stream of crap that inevitably seems to dribble out of the bible-belt... John Theal Physicist at Large Got CAD? http://www.presenter3d.com[^]

                      S Offline
                      S Offline
                      Stan Shannon
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #90

                      John Theal wrote: 1. I certainly do not ascribe to religion in any form. Yes you do. John Theal wrote: 2. My code of morality is not known to you in any way, shape or form whatsoever. It could not be more obvious. John Theal wrote: . The important bit here is to stress the fact that it took a judge to put a halt to the idiotic antics of an apparently significant sized group of uneducated country bumpkins who didn't know when to quit. No, it took a priest of your belief system to enforce the moral authority of your cult upon an unwilling populace. John Theal wrote: 4. The only thing I am happy about is that finally someone took the bull by the horns and put an end to the endless stream of crap that inevitably seems to dribble out of the bible-belt... I'm sure you are happy about it. Most true believers are joyous as competitive belief systems are ground into the dust beneath the heel of those they empower to do their bidding. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • D David Wulff

                        First some age group definitions: - Primary school is ages 4-10 - Secondary school is ages 11-16 - College is ages 17-18/19 - Univeristy is 18-19 + (We also have First and Middle schools where demand for schooling is high, which are ages 4-7 and 8-11 respectively.) Up to middle scool age we are taught, loosely, Christian beliefs and values. As far as I can remember we didn't have any specific Religious Education (RE) classes. From 8 to 15 we are taught about the six main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism). Emphasis is of course given to Christianity still because on paper England is a Christian country, and we go into a lot of detail on the various teachings and ideas presented in the Christian history and beliefs, but maybe a third of the secondary education is dedicated to other religions. The only shortcoming from memory was that we barely touched Judaism (I know more about Sikhs than I do Jews). In my experience the first two years of high school RE was almost exclusively looking at Christianity with only passing mention of other beliefs, with about a third then looking at the other main religions. Then at 15 we have two years preperation for our GCSE qualifications - as part of this course we are required to take certain subjects. Maths, English, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, a foreign langauge etc. One of the requirements is also either a short course or long course religious education. I believe the short course is called Religious Studies (RS), where you look at religions in general and none in particular. I opted to go for the full course Religious Education myself because I found it an interesting subject. In the RE course we looked at Christianity and one other main world religion that we as a class/group decided on, which in our case was Islam. I think in those two years we looked majoritively at Islam, including studying their beliefs systems, their teachings, their links with world history and the personal history of a number of important people in their faith. This wasn't just academic study - we visited local mosques, talked with local Imam's, took part in Islamic medidation, looked at historical items, etc. At the end of the course we had to prepare coursework and take a series of written exams that were on par with those we took relating to the Christian faith. Regarding history, I stopped taking it as a subject at 15 (before my GCSEs) so I don't have a full education on that. I personally don't recall anything relating to Asian hi

                        C Offline
                        C Offline
                        Colin Angus Mackay
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #91

                        Just to add that I found the RE lessons (I didn't take the standard grade [Scottish equivalent to GCSE] so I stopped at 14) to cover the world's major religions. I recall an exercise where the teacher handed everyone a bible and went round the class with the wastepaper bin. It was interesting the number of people who couldn't bring themselves to throw a bible in the bin. (To my mind it is just a book) I also remember everyone nealing on the floor in a similar fashion to the way muslims do in mosques. David Wulff wrote: Overall though I am happy with the religious education I recieved. Not once was anything forced onto me but rather I was always encouraged to take the time to look at things and decide for myself if it was the best way. Same here. However, I do remember in Primary School being forced to take part in ceremonies that, at the time, I didn't understand and now I am horrified that I did. Over the last few months I am increasingly of the opinion that I am an athiest rather than just being indecisive and sitting on the wall as an agnostic. However, I think that the rounded RE course that I got all those years ago has made me appreciate that everyone has their own set of beliefs that should be respected as much as possible.


                        Do you want to know more? WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums


                        Upcoming talk: SELECT UserName, Password FROM Users -- Getting unauthorised access to a SQL Server, and how to prevent it.

                        C 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • C Colin Angus Mackay

                          Just to add that I found the RE lessons (I didn't take the standard grade [Scottish equivalent to GCSE] so I stopped at 14) to cover the world's major religions. I recall an exercise where the teacher handed everyone a bible and went round the class with the wastepaper bin. It was interesting the number of people who couldn't bring themselves to throw a bible in the bin. (To my mind it is just a book) I also remember everyone nealing on the floor in a similar fashion to the way muslims do in mosques. David Wulff wrote: Overall though I am happy with the religious education I recieved. Not once was anything forced onto me but rather I was always encouraged to take the time to look at things and decide for myself if it was the best way. Same here. However, I do remember in Primary School being forced to take part in ceremonies that, at the time, I didn't understand and now I am horrified that I did. Over the last few months I am increasingly of the opinion that I am an athiest rather than just being indecisive and sitting on the wall as an agnostic. However, I think that the rounded RE course that I got all those years ago has made me appreciate that everyone has their own set of beliefs that should be respected as much as possible.


                          Do you want to know more? WDevs.com - Open Source Code Hosting, Blogs, FTP, Mail and Forums


                          Upcoming talk: SELECT UserName, Password FROM Users -- Getting unauthorised access to a SQL Server, and how to prevent it.

                          C Offline
                          C Offline
                          Chris Richardson
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #92

                          Sorry Colin, I don't have anything to add here, I just noticed a rare ocurrence: a mistake in your post. ;) The only reason I noticed it was because my brain had to think for a second to process what you really meant. Now I'm not trying to chide you, I just had to let you know: Colin Angus Mackay wrote: nealing Anyways, cheers and have a nice weekend! Chris Richardson

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • S Stan Shannon

                            jan larsen wrote: What kind of control would you suggest to avoid such situations if your idea of total autonomy was implemented? The kind that was put in place by the founders. The entire US system was predicated upon the ideal that people know what is in thier own best interest, and that, guided by moral principles acquired from a deeply rooted social appreciation for Judeo-Christian concepts, there would be no need for the government to concern itself with communites going towards extremes. If that did occur, than the constitution could be amended to deal with such unpredicatble contingencies as they occured. That is preciesly the way this country existed quite effectively for nearly 200 years. If our social fabric cannot exist within those parameters than the entire justification for our Revolution and our existence as a unique nation and culture is invalid. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."

                            J Offline
                            J Offline
                            jan larsen
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #93

                            Stan Shannon wrote: If our social fabric cannot exist within those parameters than the entire justification for our Revolution and our existence as a unique nation and culture is invalid. Heh, I just realized that you could actually apply the same rhetoric to a disillusioned Russian communist :-) "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            0
                            Reply
                            • Reply as topic
                            Log in to reply
                            • Oldest to Newest
                            • Newest to Oldest
                            • Most Votes


                            • Login

                            • Don't have an account? Register

                            • Login or register to search.
                            • First post
                              Last post
                            0
                            • Categories
                            • Recent
                            • Tags
                            • Popular
                            • World
                            • Users
                            • Groups