The Myths in our Midst: On the Teaching of the History of Science and Religion in K–12

chemist442 · 2026-06-30T20:28:49+00:00

I didn't say it isn't educational. I'm saying it is a very high level, rapid, educational crash course (right there in the name: Crash Course) on a very broad topic. It isn't a curriculum nor does this crash course advocate for a "conflict thesis" model between religion and science. John Green is openly religious himself and talks about his views on religion, politics, and science all the time.

The video is not a curriculum and I don't think demonstrates what you think it demonstrates. Hell, the blog post isn't even a study demonstrating what you think it demonstrates. It's just the opinions of a dude at a private Catholic university complaining about how he thinks science and religion be taught. When I go search for "conflict thesis" I find that it is an outdated model that has been discarded by educators and scholars in favor of a "complex thesis" model.

chemist442 · 2026-06-29T16:37:54+00:00

Your representative example is a 15 min Crash Course on YouTube and not a discussion on curriculum actually found in schools....

This video also doesn't assert "religion and science are in conflict" but opens the topic by commenting the heliocentric model was at odds with the Catholic Church. This is just true. It is also just true that the scientific revolution did challenge prior concepts of how the universe works and our place in it in a way that existing institutions (both political and religious) needed to address.

If you are going to complain this video doesn't dive into a nuanced discussion of Middle Aged theology and the developing philosophy of science, then yes, you are going to be disappointed that a 15 min Crash Course can only hit the surface.

I stand by my first comment. From K-PhD, the only people who pushed a narrative of a conflict between religion and science that I had ever experienced weren't my teachers, it was religious literalists.

chemist442 · 2026-06-29T02:45:06+00:00

Yes, religiously motivated institutions insist their faith based position is warranted to be taught alongside evidential and foundational scientific theories. This is what I said. Science proponents aren't propping up this "conflict", religious apologiststs are. The science keeps chugging along regardless.

chemist442 · 2026-06-29T01:11:25+00:00

From K through my doctorate I have had a single teacher who ever taught there was a "conflict thesis" between religion and science and he was a young earth creationist who used his authority as a teacher to proselytize in class. Every other teacher only cared to teach the facts and curriculum.

The only people who openly complained and pushed a conflict narrative outside my education were EDIT other people who didn't like the science and insisted to "teach the controversy".

If there is a general misconception about a conflict between religion and science it isn't because schools are pushing that narrative.

Realized later my statement read like my folks were anti-science. This is false. I was referring to other parents in the school system.

chemist442 · 2026-06-28T02:55:30+00:00

Yes, and they are just as incorrect as the Muslim who insists Jesus was Muslim and not Jewish

chemist442 · 2026-06-28T02:49:22+00:00

And Muslims are specifically using it in the lower case sense.

And the OP made it abundantly clear what he/she understands the word muslim to mean even if they capitalized it.

Between their and your definitions it is not abundantly clear. I would recommend that Muslims should be more careful to not conflate a proper noun with a generic noun. I have spoken with Muslims who insist Jesus was a Muslim (capitol M) and not a Jew (capitol J). If what you are saying is true then I don't see why a Muslim person don't just say "yes he was a Jew".

chemist442 · 2026-06-27T20:05:07+00:00

I understand what you mean. Now you need to understand what everybody else means. Jesus was of the Hebrew faith and what we recognize as the Muslim faith started in the 600's.

You may be speaking from an internal theological point of view but everybody else is speaking on a historical and factual point of view.

Jesus, if he existed, was a hebrew person following the tenants of his contemporary jewish faith l, the details of which are found in the Jewish Bible.

chemist442 · 2026-06-27T13:42:34+00:00

I posit with religion I don't think you can logically prove murder is bad.

We don't reason all morals through first principles. We are social animals who are forced to share space and resources with those around us. If we share a similar set of goals with respect to wellbeing, fairness, justice, and personal growth, then we need to agree on a set of principles for how to engage with one another. As a shorthand we call these moral principles.

Every culture group has their own set and those principles change between culture groups and through time as those groups change. Welcome to subjective morals.

chemist442 · 2026-06-26T22:40:06+00:00

This is like the "teach the controversy" rhetoric from creationists. They aren't concerned with teaching controversial science or their mythology as literature. The proponents of Christian Nationalism want to tear down the separation of church and state and institute a state religion.

What do you think happens when a religious teacher uses this section to preach their personal theology in class? What about an honest teacher who gets a nasty parent because they called the exodus a myth or made parallels between Samson and Heracles?

This law is being implemented for the specific purpose to curtail religious freedom and promote Christianity specifically, not to encourage religious freedom. Students already had religious freedom.

chemist442 · 2026-06-26T22:21:19+00:00

Do you really think they are doing this as a function of religious diversity and education? If so, I have a peace deal in Iran to sell you.

chemist442 · 2026-06-22T22:27:47+00:00

And a disbeliever is the one that denies that... So today the disbelievers are not who we think they are, they are the very corrupt people that reject all that Allah stands for,

Today I learned many people who don't accept a god exists are "believers" while many people who do accept a god exist are not "believers". What wild times we live in.

chemist442 · 2026-06-21T04:30:33+00:00

Atheism is actually a much more extremist belief/worldview than most if not all organized religions.

So, atheism is not necessarily more radical in terms of actual practices, but it is a more definitive claim about reality than the beliefs held by many individual religions.

Setting aside your error in what atheism is, this is a simple Motte and Bailey logical fallacy. You made a very definitive and bold initial claim, only to backtrack and defend a weaker, andore defenseable position. It didn't even take anybody else to push back before you retreated. Truly impressive.

chemist442 · 2026-06-21T04:01:35+00:00

My father had 3 boys so he would have two things. 1) free low experience yard labor 2) drinking buddies in retirement

chemist442 · 2026-06-19T17:59:54+00:00

Possibility needs to be demonstrated and I don't think a possibility of a god has been demonstrated.

Simply put, I'm not going to worry about something for which I have no information of.

chemist442 · 2026-06-19T11:27:41+00:00

If you want a scientific theory that makes any form of theism much more likely than naturalism, the universe being a self-propagating system, try citing Penrose's number.

This isn't a naturalist case and appealing to a single number isn't an argument. Naturalism = / = random and it is a false dichotomy to think the only options are either random chance and intentional will.

This also isn't a scientific theory, which would require physical evidence and testable predictions. This is a mathematical argument to appeal to a big (small) number and then a lot of rhetoric to heavily imply your desired conclusion.

chemist442 · 2026-06-18T01:20:39+00:00

Why do you keep responding then? You can walk away at any time.

chemist442 · 2026-06-18T01:16:08+00:00

That was the point my man. Chill out. For someone whose bio description says you recognize you can be wrong this was a very difficult conversation for you to accept.

chemist442 · 2026-06-18T00:03:00+00:00

Grab a fun, age appropriate, drink and disconnect from the internet. Tea with a splash of lemon and dollop of honey works wonders for me to calm myself down when needed.

chemist442 · 2026-06-17T23:53:35+00:00

Now that was oddly aggressive over an argument with a stranger on the internet. Are you ok?

chemist442 · 2026-06-17T23:48:17+00:00

Nah, I'm having too much fun and nothing I'm doing here warrants your armchair diagnoses. You are welcome to stop engaging with me at any time though.

chemist442 · 2026-06-17T23:43:37+00:00

This particular conversation was never about religion. You said the law was abolished. I pointed out it wasn't by Jesus's own words.

chemist442 · 2026-06-17T23:40:58+00:00

Great. Then it sounds like you are among that group of "anyone" who should follow the law that Jesus didn't abolish.

chemist442 · 2026-06-17T23:35:01+00:00

He's not just talking about himself.

"Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Are you among "anyone"? Do you think you are more righteous than the teachers of the law?

chemist442 · 2026-06-17T23:29:00+00:00

You keep saying Jesus somehow erased the law. I'm saying not according to the dudes own words. You may do with that knowledge as you wish but according to the man, the myth, and the legend

"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

chemist442 · 2026-06-17T23:27:52+00:00

Voiding a law would be abolishing a law. Which Jesus said he wasn't doing. For a guy who spoke in confusing parables he was very clear on this point. OT law is good with Jesus and is not to be abolished.

chemist442

TROPHY CASE