Comment1

3m(2)-GM

1)

In her writing on the debate of evolution and education, Martha Nussbaum (2008) offers insight on how the theory of evolution can be taught in schools in a way that does not create more conflict and controversy between science and religion.The first step Naussbaum suggests is that public discourse on evolution needs to eliminate misunderstandings about what evolution is and is not. She points out that many people do not have an understanding of what theory is in science, and she stresses the importance of the general public to understand how much more evidence in support of evolution in comparison to ideas like Intelligent Design.

Nussbaum also highlights a popular misconception that upsets creationists in regards to evolution, which is the idea that human beings come from animals like apes. This goes against the biblical teaching that we are made in God’s image. Believers in Darwin’s theory of evolution do seem to respect the dignity of animals, but this does not mean evolution reduces the value of human life. The debates on this aspect of the theory do not invalidate evolution as a theory, because within the scientific community there are always a range of different ethical viewpoints because evidence is often up to interpretation.

A third step Nussbaum mentioned here is the importance of not associating evolution with being anti-religion. There are scientists and teachers who believe in evolution who also believe in God. Although certain fundamentalis Christians cannot trust in evolution because of their literal interpretation of the Bible. Here, the author also points out the other side of this issue- if atheists would refrain from speaking condescendingly about religion, it would moderate conflict. It is unwise for atheists to blame all the world's problems on religion, because history shows that both subjects have been taken out of context by extremists and misused to their advantage to cause human suffering. I agree with the importance of taking the steps mentioned here, and that an adherence to this will help moderate controversy. It is especially important to eliminate the association of evolution as being anti-religion. If instructors taught students this theory in an unbiased way, perhaps parents and other educators would be more open to this theory being taught. But bias is often present in some form within education.

Although these steps are important to this topic, there will always be parents and leaders in education who do not want the next generation to be taught purely from an evolutionary perspective. Nussbaum writes, “to substitute a religious viewpoint for science is to jeopardize our future” (2008, p.6). This is vital, because for society, technology, and medicine to advance we need to value science and contribute to scientific discovery. It would also be wrong to let the religious beliefs of one group dictate the material students are learning across the nation. As brought out by Martha Nussbaum here, science can be taught in schools in a way that does not disregard religion, but informs students of a theory that has stood a considerable amount of testing and collecting of evidence.

Comment: (200 words)

3m(2)-SG

2)

The steps that Nussbaum suggests would help to moderate the controversy around teaching evolution is that, “opponents of evolution did not associate it with irreligiosity. Proponents of evolution have a wide range of different views… religious people have many ways of making sense… of their beliefs” (Nussbaum 326). Nussbaum suggests that people should have respect with religion and science when it comes to teaching it to other students. Nussbaum claims that if scientific people call themselves atheist they should not mimic religion and disrespect it. The reason for all the bad an evil happening in the world is not due to religion or science instead it has to do more with extremists. The same thing goes for religious doctrines that favor peace but it often leads to violence and that is because of the different ideologies and religions aren’t to blame for violence. Overall what Nussbaum believes is the study of both religion and science to children because it will broaden their views. I agree with this because one cannot hold back knowledge to children about religion and science. It is best for them to learn everything and make judgements for themselves in the future. They should be allowed to form their own personal opinions and have both sides be presented to them. The author makes a great point because if it wasn’t for the liberal thinking in school then children would be brainwashed to believe in one thing and that one side is the correct one. People are allowed to have their own freedom of believing in what they want. The government shouldn’t deny children the right to learn about theories and possibilities. Having an open minded school system will allow for critical thinking in classrooms and open many new ideas to those children who one day will invent something new that could be a great innovation for the world. Nussbaum also states, “The classroom strongly encourages the use of imagination to come to grips with the variety of people who live together in our country” (327). This means that throughout history children have learned about many topics such as disability, gender, racial conflicts, etc. and that is is because it is part of history and in science there are a lot of events that lead to modern science thinking which children have the right to learn about as well.

Comment: (200 words)

1m(1)NY

3)

In August 2016, Neil deGrasse Tyson's tweet took twitter by storm. His proposed that Earth need a virtual country: Rationalia, govern by a one-line constitution where all policy shall be based on the weight of evidence. In Rationalia, everything could be based on observations, experiments and studies of human bevoirs and where one will be trained at an early age on making logical and sensible conclusions.

Based on the weight of evidence, one could be allowed to be irrational, make life-changing decisions on areas as capital punishments and to even donate, chose a profession or to alter cultures. However, although free to practice their religious belief, it is not allowed for any policy making in this regard nor is there freedom of speech for newscasters who base their opinions on facts, not on evidence and all are welcome to create an office of morality.

Although in the world of make-believe, Rationalia will never be a real world where all people will be able to think clearly and logically. Interesting, while people are able to be free to any religious practice, yet are unable to apply any rules and policies which are by far how a capitalist country operates. Rationalia encourages freedom to be irrational, yet policies can't be made which could be very problematic and chaotic for there is no balance in rational or morality.

The human DNA will be altered, people brainwashed and at an early age trained to analyzed evidence which is unjustified. They will be treated as scientific lab rats with altered behaviors, yes everyone is allowed to create an office of morality, but with this altered and controlled state of mind knowing the difference is debatable.

Unlike Rationalia, in Stephen Jay Gould's Nonoverlapping Magisteria, people are free to explore both science and religion to make decisions based on spiritual, scientific or moral beliefs based on the assumption of morality and the origins of life with the help of the Catholic Church. Although many believe in creationism and science as to the topic of evolution with the help of Pope Pius Xll in his book Humani Generis, assist the scientific world in the belief of evolution, that life can be developed from a more complex form, but in order for the church to accept it God had to infuse the soul into such a creature. Science and religion can be incorporated but to what extend to

Comment: (200 words)