Re: Teaching

From: Terry M. Gray <>
Date: Fri Aug 05 2005 - 01:05:13 EDT


But don't we believe that our faith impacts every area of life. Life
IS religion. Religion isn't just one compartment of life-- the way
culinary skills are.

That's what I believe, at least. Therefore, it IS a problem to say
that religion is NOT important for understanding math.

To do science without acknowledging the creator is to not do science
properly. (This is NOT to say that science done in such a way
produces illegitimate results.)

Check out my discussion of this at
Physical%20Science/Gray1999.html in the section entitled "The
Similarity of the Christian's and Non-Christian's Science".

This is one of the reasons I am in favor of a pluralistic education
model--where a school teaches from a particularly well-defined world-
and-life view. And there are multiple options for community members,
perhaps each publicly funded.

As you must know, this is not in any way an endorsement of Creation
Science or even Intelligent Design Theory.


On Aug 4, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Carol or John Burgeson wrote:

> Terry wrote: "The problem here is that whatever is taught is always
> taught from
> some perspective.
> From what perspective is the science class being taught now? To
> teach a-religiously says something about religion--that it's not
> important for the topic at hand."
> Agreed. To teach math a-religiously says that religion is not
> important
> for understanding math. Similarly science.
> Likewise to teach math without referencing culinary skills says that
> culinary skills are not important for understanding math.
> Note that the above does not say that math may not be important in
> understanding both religion and culinary skills! <G>
> Burgy

Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80523
(o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
Received on Fri Aug 5 01:07:23 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Aug 05 2005 - 01:07:24 EDT