Changes

::::: Interesting question.  Schools do not say outright that the Bible or any other scripture is wrong.  They do teach things that cannot possibly be consistent with all world views, and that is all the more reason to refrain from taking a position on any one religion or on non-belief.  They never say, for instance, that "Atheists are right and you're a bozo if you are not an atheist."  In science classes, they teach scientific consensus.  Science is a self-correcting discipline and that is its major strength.  If there is sufficient scientific evidence for something, then that becomes consensus.  Scientific and other scholarly conferences frequently are scenes of mini-battles of researchers positing and refutings over and over, gradually allowing a field to advance.  To the extent the Young Earth Creationists make inroads in the mainstream scientific discourse based on their scientific studies, the consensus will shift.  Now, to look at the reverse of your question, it would also be inappropriate for schools to say that the Bible is correct, either by saying so directly or by the implication that prayers support a Christian worldview.  So schools remain silent on the issue.  It is not the responsibility of schools to help children deal with the relationship between their personal beliefs and the state of science or other topics (philosophy, history, ethics, etc.).  In other words, they can teach about the predominating scientific consensus, but not indoctrinate about that consensus being absolutely and permanently correct.  Scientists don't even do that.  Likewise, they can (and should) teach about religion and even the Bible, but should not indoctrinate or lead worship.  Not understanding the nature of science or the nature of religion or the relationships of both to history and modern culture is the same as not being an educated person.  To get to an issue that is hiding here a little bit, it is much more difficult to teach students about what a "religious consensus" would be, after all, even different Christian denominations differ from each other and from the Catholic Church -- and all of those from Islam, other religions, or non-belief.  So, in a culture as varied as ours in the U.S., the best solution is generally to omit religious education completely from the schools.  Even a course on comparative religion could be taught from any number of perspectives (as an anthropology course, as a kind of atheistic "world mythology" course, as an introduction to Christian apologetics, etc.), which would likely not be equally well received by parents of children in any given institution.  For instance, when I took a world religion course in high school (it was a Catholic school), we learned how our religion was the best and what the faults of the others were.  While I see the logic of teaching such an apologetics approach in a religious school, in retrospect, I also feel that I was cheated out of a more objective expression of the histories and tenets of the other world religions.  Maybe because I'm more mature now, I can and want to handle a subject like that on my own, while children being taught within a specific religious tradition should have more "direction" about why one religion is superior to others.

::::: Interesting question.  Schools do not say outright that the Bible or any other scripture is wrong.  They do teach things that cannot possibly be consistent with all world views, and that is all the more reason to refrain from taking a position on any one religion or on non-belief.  They never say, for instance, that "Atheists are right and you're a bozo if you are not an atheist."  In science classes, they teach scientific consensus.  Science is a self-correcting discipline and that is its major strength.  If there is sufficient scientific evidence for something, then that becomes consensus.  Scientific and other scholarly conferences frequently are scenes of mini-battles of researchers positing and refutings over and over, gradually allowing a field to advance.  To the extent the Young Earth Creationists make inroads in the mainstream scientific discourse based on their scientific studies, the consensus will shift.  Now, to look at the reverse of your question, it would also be inappropriate for schools to say that the Bible is correct, either by saying so directly or by the implication that prayers support a Christian worldview.  So schools remain silent on the issue.  It is not the responsibility of schools to help children deal with the relationship between their personal beliefs and the state of science or other topics (philosophy, history, ethics, etc.).  In other words, they can teach about the predominating scientific consensus, but not indoctrinate about that consensus being absolutely and permanently correct.  Scientists don't even do that.  Likewise, they can (and should) teach about religion and even the Bible, but should not indoctrinate or lead worship.  Not understanding the nature of science or the nature of religion or the relationships of both to history and modern culture is the same as not being an educated person.  To get to an issue that is hiding here a little bit, it is much more difficult to teach students about what a "religious consensus" would be, after all, even different Christian denominations differ from each other and from the Catholic Church -- and all of those from Islam, other religions, or non-belief.  So, in a culture as varied as ours in the U.S., the best solution is generally to omit religious education completely from the schools.  Even a course on comparative religion could be taught from any number of perspectives (as an anthropology course, as a kind of atheistic "world mythology" course, as an introduction to Christian apologetics, etc.), which would likely not be equally well received by parents of children in any given institution.  For instance, when I took a world religion course in high school (it was a Catholic school), we learned how our religion was the best and what the faults of the others were.  While I see the logic of teaching such an apologetics approach in a religious school, in retrospect, I also feel that I was cheated out of a more objective expression of the histories and tenets of the other world religions.  Maybe because I'm more mature now, I can and want to handle a subject like that on my own, while children being taught within a specific religious tradition should have more "direction" about why one religion is superior to others.

::::: I would advise parents of children in public schools to asses their own understanding of the teaching of science, reconcile it with their religious beliefs, and communicate to their children their family's stance.  In other words, one might tell a child, "Look, in public schools, as in the secular world in general, we are exposed to things that directly contradict our own understandings.  It is important to understand worldly (secular) views but to also know that we don't always agree with them."--[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 11:51, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

::::: I would advise parents of children in public schools to asses their own understanding of the teaching of science, reconcile it with their religious beliefs, and communicate to their children their family's stance.  In other words, one might tell a child, "Look, in public schools, as in the secular world in general, we are exposed to things that directly contradict our own understandings.  It is important to understand worldly (secular) views but to also know that we don't always agree with them."--[[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 11:51, 1 April 2008 (CDT)

::"Secular" means separate from religion. It does not imply public. Also there is no prohibition of prayer in school. That is also protected by the first amendment. Students can pray any time without disrupting the school. What the critics are against is being forced to attend the prayer or the prayer being led by an authoritative figure like teacher. So it is not atheistic , just secular.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:22, 1 January 2008 (EST)

::"Secular" means separate from religion. It does not imply public. Also there is no prohibition of prayer in school. That is also protected by the first amendment. Students can pray any time without disrupting the school. What the critics are against is being forced to attend the prayer or the prayer being led by an authoritative figure like teacher. So it is not atheistic , just secular.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 13:22, 1 January 2008 (EST)