Creationism in Schools?

[Jquestionmark]

and yes creationism is being studied as a science. it is presented as "Intelligent design".

Presenting Creationism with a different name does not make it something different. It is still myth, not science, and trying to study myth with science or as if it is science doesn't magically give it a free changeover to the realm of science.

the reason most people dont know this is that the people doing this are being silenced by close minded people.

First off, trying to present religion as something else is dishonest, so I should hope that people (closed-minded or not) are discouraging them from such a dishonest endeavor.

Second, from what I've seen, a lot of supporters of science are trying hard to make sure the public knows that "intelligent design" is just repackaged Creationism. Do you mean that the religious people (the closed-minded people in this potential explanation for what you said) are trying to keep it quiet that they are just renaming Creationism? I can see them wanting to keep that quiet.

In fact, why do they call it intelligent design? There's a lot of things about the design of humans, nature, reality that are unintelligent at best.

The mention of the possibility of the subject in some universities could get a professor fired.

I should hope so. Trying to teach religion in school is no joke, and maximum disciplinary measures should be taken.

 

[coffeecup]

Thread is too long. Did not read. Just throwing in my two cents into the fray, because I think I'm awesome like that.

First off, I'm assuming that this is with regard to public schools in the United States (or other Western democratic liberal rights-based society with a clear schism between church and state). Creationism (or intelligent design) cannot be reasonably termed as a science, it's more of a religion. I don't even know how it can be taught in a science class seeing as all its support comes from an ancient text that's about a few pages in Genesis (in terms of the actual "birth of humanity") and a few logical arguments in support. It wouldn't last anything more than one or two sessions anyway. I can see it coming up in a history, mythology, or philosophy class though. But science? Come on.

But to get back to my point, since it's termed as a religion it cannot be taught in a manner that implies that it is supported by the State (i.e., that it is being taught for its truth of the matter). This would be unconstitutional since public schools are generally arms of the state for these purposes which is governed by the good 'ol US Constitution. So a conversation on this point is really moot. (But it can still be taught in private schools or other schools in different nations which adhere to different rules of law).

But if we're talking about just "in general" of whether or not it would be a good idea. Well that really depends on how it's being taught. I don't think it should be taught as "science" because it'd be a black sheep to put it in such a category. I also don't think it should be put to "mythology" because it's a bit demeaning to place it there as well. To be honest, religious ideas shouldn't really even be taught in schools to begin with unless there is a course specifically designated for educating kids about "religion." It's not history or mythology or fiction...it's religion (or maybe an ethics course, but that's post-secondary education). This has traditionally been something taught from the home, not in secular schools. (Note the secular point to demarcate it from schools in christian leaning states or islamic states)


TLDR: here's my final comment
As a final comment to touch off my rambling, the main purpose of religion isn't the cosmology but the ETHICS underlying the system. And this is something that should come from the home rather than school. So to teach only creationism in school is going to really underemphasis religion's importance as a form of ethics and justice and overemphasize the "importance" of looking at just the factual points (of creationism). That's not the value of religion and should really never be the focus of looking at religion as a justifiable system of belief. So unless a school is going to recognize religion to its full extent (via a religion class), let's not encumber our already debilitating and failing education system with yet another inadequate subject. Let's just leave this at home for the parents to teach the kids. That's where it's supposed to start anyway.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

I also don't think it should be put to "mythology" because it's a bit demeaning to place it there as well.

The common use of myth, which is a fictional story, is misleading. When I took a course on mythology at my local college, the first thing the professor dispelled was the notion that the truth of the stories had anything to do with them being myths. A grabbed a good summation from Wikipedia:

"In the study of folklore, a myth is a sacred narrative explaining how the world and humankind came to be in their present form."

I think if we introduced a mythology class to public high schools and the teachers explained what myth really means, we could have an interesting and more in depth look into the stories told by religions instead of having some of them, like the Greek Dodekatheon or the Norse Eddas, shunted into history.

It's not history or mythology or fiction...it's religion (or maybe an ethics course, but that's post-secondary education).

Religion is really all of those things. Well, I'm sure many would argue the fiction part of their particular religion. But religion is intertwined with history, it's myth, and it imparts ethics of a particular culture. It has a place in all of those classes.

I suppose the biggest issue is Creationism itself. I'd argue that religions need to be examined and taught in schools as what they are, religions. But Creationism is rather unique. It's a specific interpretation of the Bible, which means it doesn't have much of a place in a mythology course and no place in an ethics course or even a history one, until you get to recent history. Unlike most of other religions, Creationism approaches science directly on its own terms, which means it's relevant in a twisted way.

I feel we should bring it up in science classes with a simple "This is not supported by any field of science and is contrary to many established theories and facts." I mean, good teachers don't allow students to keep incorrect views of natural events, so why does Creationism get a pass? Just because it's more common?

I suppose, in that manner, I support Creationism being taught in science courses.

the main purpose of religion isn't the cosmology but the ETHICS underlying the system.

I'd say that they are equally important to most people, and the cosmology is even more important when it comes to classifying something as religion. You can have ethics without religion, but you can't have a belief in god(s) without religion.

That's not the value of religion

I'd argue that religion doesn't really have much value at all, so what the value of religion is to people is highly subjective.

 

[coffeecup]

I'm not going to dissect your argument piece-by-piece because it's really disorientating to discuss matters in that format. So I'll just give you a general response. You can continue to dissect my arguments all you want, but it should really be taken as a general notion rather than some linear segmented argument. I'm just expounding a thought, not an actual argument.

First off, I know where you're coming from, and I sympathize with your view of religion as a general matter (your sig pretty much says it all). And I really don't disagree with your position. I'm not religious myself or believe in any deity controlling my life. I'm not Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or any similar denomination. However, despite whatever I may feel is true, I still need to have the proper discretion and tread carefully when it comes to religious issues. Even if you or me or someone else finds religion a "myth," other people do not. My problem with using "myth" is the underlying inference that the veracity of the given story isn't concrete. But with people who believe in religion, the underlying story is the truth. It's not some cute story or just a possibility out of the many, but the one and only truth. And this belief isn't just against some minor segment of our population but spreads far and wide throughout the majority of people living today.

So even if religion can be easily compartmentalized into some simple and little fiction in some people's mind (which I find to be very far from the actual true face of religion), it's a much more complex and significant matter to others. That's why I don't really support the idea of just throwing bits and pieces of religion into varying subjects of the current secular curriculum as opposed to teaching the subject in its entirety. I'm all about educating kids, but it shouldn't be done in such a haphazard manner.

Like you said, religion's value is subjective. So try not to treat it in an objective manner. It's better to leave this out of the school curriculum if it's just going to be treated in an incomplete piecemeal fashion. Religion needs to be given in its entirety rather than in parts. Some in science class, some in mythology, some in history, and the rest ejected from the general curriculum isn't the proper way to bring religion into a child's education (or life really). A failure to approach religion in a holistic manner doesn't do much justice to the kids being educated or the subject matter itself.

 

[der Astronom]

But what if you are teaching it as the people who lived in said civilization believed this stuff, rather than saying it's just plain false? I don't recall anyone ever telling me that those stories about Zeus and Hercules and so on were false; I just eventually decided they were because there was no evidence they existed. And who's telling anyone about myths being false? These are children we're talking about; if they don't know what a myth is, and at some point, they probably didn't, then it's the school's responsibility to teach it to them properly, which includes telling them that a myth isn't necessarily false. And if they end up agreeing with society's diluted idea of the myth, then they're just as deluded as every layman who misinterprets science, and you can't blame the school for actually trying to teach kids properly.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

coffeecup
You are still presenting an argument even if you don't realize it, and if the premises are flawed the whole things crumbles. But I can talk about the big picture, too.

If the issue is presenting it as fictional, then we just need to explain what myths are before we begin (like I said before). They're sacred stories, that's it. It has nothing to do with truth. And if we can present the Greek and Norse religions objectively in classes, why can't we do it with Judaism, Christianity, or Islam?

And another problem is that it IS only one among many different options. Just because a Muslim believes Allah is the only god, or a Christian believes that God is the only god, or even a Hindu that their pantheon are the only gods; it doesn't mean we can't teach the subject. People need to learn about other religions. But that doesn't mean they have to accept them as possible (and there's a slim chance they'd do that). You're presenting a false choice - we can educate on the subject and have people retain their personal beliefs.

Many sciences are also holistic, but we can't get everything about it in one class. So why should religion be taught any differently? It can be broken up a bit so that it can be taught in its entirety (or as near to it as we can manage). People aren't so stupid as to not be able to assemble the pieces.

Even if religion's value is subjective, it can still be taught objectively. We can objectively teach the history of the religion, the ethics of major groups of followers of the religion, and the stories of the religion. All of this can be done without making a judgment of the religion. Subjective matters are handled well all the time in anthropology, psychology, and sociology courses.

I've taken religion courses in college that handled it fine, and nobody's beliefs were challenged by the knowledge that other people believe something different. These things should be taught objectively earlier in schools so that people aren't so ignorant of what others believe.

 

[coffeecup]

It's pretty clear that we have very different views about religion in terms of its essential nature and how it should be portrayed. If you teach religion in that manner, in a formalized setting where all that is focused upon are base and segmented concepts, you're not going to be teaching religion to its full extent. Religion isn't a crude subject like physics, mathematics, or history. Simply by putting a disclaimer through a proper definition of "mythology" doesn't remedy this problem. You can teach its stories and rules. But you're always going to fall short of actually giving the subject its full effect. Like I said, I'm no believer; however, I have experienced enough in my lifetime to understand that religion isn't just about history and rules. It goes beyond any kind of easy formalized conceptualized idea that is prevalent in other subjects. If you've ever seen a true believer practice his faith (whatever it may be), you'll notice that there is some transcendental quality in his belief that goes beyond what's written in the text (and I'm not talking about blind faith). The only way I can even fathom a proper teaching of one religion is to dedicate a full semester course on it to its fullest extent. The history, the practice, the ethics, the everything. To just place bits and pieces in some introductory mythology course is too insubstantial. I've also taken college courses on religion, and the only "good" one was a full semester course that only covered a few books in the Bible (most of the Pentateuch). How you can fit Islam, Judaism, Christianity, etc... in one course is beyond me. Again, you can say you're just going to teach its parts, but then you've deteriorated the subject to such an extent that it's not even worth teaching.

So you can teach religion in a mythology class to get the basic stories and teachings across, but you're going to fall very short of giving religion its full quality. And this is obviously where our dispute lies. This deficiency in quality. Naturally the counterargument is that there is no deficiency of quality or it's substantial enough to be taught properly without diminution in value. But nothing can really change our opinion on this matter since understanding the essential nature of religion is more off of personal experience than some colloquial banter over the internet. So we're at a cross-roads and there's nothing that can be done about it. You live with your opinion, and I live with mine.


As an added bonus, here's an opinion from an expert mythologist on the matter. The guy's name is Joseph Campbell and he's not a religious man but understands the essential nature of religion and the problem of presenting it in a too formalized setting. I'm sure you'll take his opinion more seriously than mine:

"The mystery has been reduced to a set of concepts and ideas, and emphasizing these concepts and ideas can short-circuit the transcendent, connoted experience. ... You have to break past your image of God to get through the connoted illumination. ... You have to go past the imagined image of Jesus. Such an image of one's god becomes a final obstruction, one's ultimate barrier. You hold on to your own ideology, your own little manner of thinking, and when a larger experience approaches, an experience greater than you are prepared to receive, you take flight from it by clinging to the image in your mind. ... An intense experience of mystery is what one has to regard as the ultimate religious experience."

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Religion isn't a crude subject like physics, mathematics, or history. . . . You can teach its stories and rules. But you're always going to fall short of actually giving the subject its full effect.

Crude subject? What the fuck are you talking about? History is the record of the entirety of mankind, not only a piece of it like a specific religion or even all religions. Physics is beyond man - it is the fundamental operations of the entire universe. Mathematics is the ultimate rational language able to communicate otherwise incomprehensible ideas. And yet we can teach all of those, but not religion?

Whatever you've learned in school about physics, mathematics, or history is only scratching the surface of it. Rather, you probably haven't even broken the water tension on the vast ocean of knowledge of any of those subjects, unless that's what you are majoring in and devoting all of your studies to.

I'm not saying we need to educate people on every facet of religion, we can't, but there is worth in teaching what we can, just like any other religion. It is arrogant for you to assume religion is such a large and untouchable thing to be unable to be taught properly.

Simply by putting a disclaimer through a proper definition of "mythology" doesn't remedy this problem.

Only for imbeciles who are unable respect another religion when they're studying it.

It goes beyond any kind of easy formalized conceptualized idea that is prevalent in other subjects. If you've ever seen a true believer practice his faith (whatever it may be), you'll notice that there is some transcendental quality in his belief that goes beyond what's written in the text (and I'm not talking about blind faith).

Do you really think that's unique to religion? I've had such experiences with different things, and yet I am not so foolish as to expect people to need the same experiences to learn something.

And how is it not blind faith? Faith itself is blind. That's why it's faith and not knowledge.

Again, you can say you're just going to teach its parts, but then you've deteriorated the subject to such an extent that it's not even worth teaching.

That is a downside of education - you can't teach everything. But it's asinine to think there's no worth in learning what we can. Every avenue of your life can be improved by greater understanding. To support such willful ignorance: "We can't teach it all, so we shouldn't even try" is completely disgusting to me.

giving religion its full quality.

The 'full quality' of religion is believing in it wholeheartedly, which is something we can't teach.

Naturally the counterargument is that there is no deficiency of quality or it's substantial enough to be taught properly without diminution in value.

That's not actually my counterargument at all.

But nothing can really change our opinion on this matter

Maybe not your opinion, but if you presented something rational that defeated my argument, I would change my opinion.

Joseph Campbell

Campbell may be a famous mythologist, but what he's complaining about right there, simplifying things down and teaching them too formally, is something he does all the time. He goes farther than other mythologists by trying crack myths open and find their structure. I think it's worthwhile in some pursuits, but he's over-simplifying it way too much for it to be that useful in an over-arching mythological classification. It's just like those asinine number assignments to fairy tales that ignore the impact of details on a story. His Hero's Journey thing is good thing to learn when you're writing, but he's manhandling myths in exactly the manner he's criticizing right there.

 

[coffeecup]

One of the degrees I'm getting at the end of this semester is in mathematics (Bachelor of Science) at a reputable state university. I may have used "crude" in a rather poor context; however, I wasn't talking about the underlying method of analysis or theory. I was talking about the overarching idea itself. Mathematics is conceptually very different from religion, yet you continue to view it in the same manner. So an approach that may suffice from the standpoint of subjects like Mathematics (or related sciences like Physics) cannot be readily mirrored for religion. Mathematics taught in segmented parts doesn't deteriorate the subject to an extent that its value is lost. But with religion, it's a different story.

What bothers me with your approach (and view on the subject) is the lack of recognition that something essential isn't being lost with your method of instruction. Your method turns religion into something that it is not. You stop teaching religion and it turns into something else. You can call it "mythology" or "religious studies" or even "religion," but it's no longer a proper teaching of religion since you've undermined its essential nature. And this nature is not an easy 1-2 theory you can write in a sentence or two or even a short treatise. Only through a more expansive study of the subject can you really begin to understand the underlying purpose and truth of the given religion. That's why it needs to be studied in its entirety.

No need to get heated though, and I'm not invested in changing your opinion. Even if this is a debate thread, I'm just a passing voice in a discussion. I was just trying to show you religion in the context that I've come to value the subject. Even though I don't believe in a religion, I've come to really respect and appreciate its inherent value. And I used to despise it, and I've read a lot of arguments against it (e.g., old stuff like Nietzsche to contemporary stuff like the God Delusion), but things change when you award the subject a more comprehensive meaning than the facial stories and teachings that it provides.

 

[der Astronom]

But actually, value in math is lost precisely because the people teaching it hate it. Lots of kids go through school, and they never find out what's so great about it. I personally think more kids should be learning about number theory, combinatorics and probability in class, and despite all the things you could teach them in math, they never learn that it's actually a highly abstract subject that no longer concerns itself with concrete numbers, but variables, set notation and proving. Only people who make it to upper level math classes get to see this side of math. I think the problem here is that we're demanding people teach things right; if you're going to teach math, make it interesting for kids so they don't grow to hate it. If you're going to teach religion, teach it in a way in which kids understand that they're under no obligation to believe it, and if they believe it, it's because they choose to. Teach it as if it is something which people from a specific faith believe.

And religion means different things to different people. Just because you've chosen to see it a different way doesn't mean anyone is obligated to view it your way. The problem with meaning in religion is that it's not falsifiable. It's like literature; if I like Hamlet, no one else is obligated to like it. If I find the messages behind Ayn Rand's writings are useful, no one else is obligated to find them useful either.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Non-sciences should never be taught in a science class; it's a no brainer, in my opinion. As Dragonbyte stated above, we don't teach Geocentricism in our science classes, so why should we teach Creationism or Young Earth Creationism? Sure, teach it in R.E Classes, under the 'This is what some people believe' category, but it should never be masqueraded as scientific fact because push comes to shove, there's no physical evidence for YEC. Weren't Kansas pushing to teach YEC alongside Evolution?

 

[Drachnon]

I think teaching creationism and other religious stuff can be taught as long as its explicitly stated that it doesn't contain any factual basis and equal time is given to all for different types of religions, of course not in science class. What bothers me the most about when people try to push creationism and claim that they want "equal time for alternative theories" is that they they actually mean equal time for the christian version of the Mesopotamian 6 day creation myth.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I think teaching creationism and other religious stuff can be taught as long as its explicitly stated that it doesn't contain any factual basis and equal time is given to all for different types of religions, of course not in science class. What bothers me the most about when people try to push creationism and claim that they want "equal time for alternative theories" is that they they actually mean equal time for the christian version of the Mesopotamian 6 day creation myth.

So biased. But okay, yeah they should be explicitly that there is no evidence.
Creationism shouldn't be the course, it should be the historical significance and the pitfalls of evolution.
No bias should enter a classroom period.

 

[der Astronom]

So biased. But okay, yeah they should be explicitly that there is no evidence.
Creationism shouldn't be the course, it should be the historical significance and the pitfalls of evolution.
No bias should enter a classroom period.

What is so biased about not allowing a non-scientific idea to be taught in a science class? What I find biased is giving time to creationism as a non-scientific idea while ignoring other non-scientific ideas, which are equally as irrelevant in a science class anyways.

If you want historical significance, then you must also include the Scopes trial, and it should be done in a history class, not a science one. And if you want to include the "pitfalls" of evolution, so far as I am aware, these so called pitfalls are simply the ignorance of creationists who are not well versed enough in science or logic to understand why the things they think are pitfalls for evolution are not in fact actually pitfalls, but cleverly disguised fallacies and ignorance. And they deserve no attention, because anyone who has studied and understood evolution would probably understand why most of these arguments fail, and even if they don't, there's more than enough discussion of it outside of classrooms anyways.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

What is so biased about not allowing a non-scientific idea to be taught in a science class? What I find biased is giving time to creationism as a non-scientific idea while ignoring other non-scientific ideas, which are equally as irrelevant in a science class anyways.

If you want historical significance, then you must also include the Scopes trial, and it should be done in a history class, not a science one. And if you want to include the "pitfalls" of evolution, so far as I am aware, these so called pitfalls are simply the ignorance of creationists who are not well versed enough in science or logic to understand why the things they think are pitfalls for evolution are not in fact actually pitfalls, but cleverly disguised fallacies and ignorance. And they deserve no attention, because anyone who has studied and understood evolution would probably understand why most of these arguments fail, and even if they don't, there's more than enough discussion of it outside of classrooms anyways.

There are plenty of pitfalls in the theory of evolution. Take beneficial mutation, for instance. It's meant to explain everything adaptation cannot, yet is so barely prevalent that it hardly could account for anything, even over 3 billion years.
That is not much logic, and wondering minds should be aware of the original hypothesis that our ancestors believed.
Theology is not some demon that many atheistic viewpoints try to project. In a classroom, it ensures that science, in fact, does not become the misleading assembly. I fully support the idea that science should stay within it's bounds.
That's really the irony of it, in my opinion.

90% of what is taught in a science class is useless to the average Joe anyways, we might as well open their minds to the genre of science and human inquiry as a whole along with it all.

 

[Drachnon]

Interesting I never heard about that research. Would you be so kind to link me the science journal in which this was published?

And no atheist don't think religion is some sort of demon, we don't think the existence of demons has been proven after all. I just think that religion has a detrimental effect on society and the human race in general.
Also science does stay in its bounds, and those bounds include all of reality, which I think religion should stay out of.

 

[der Astronom]

There are plenty of pitfalls in the theory of evolution. Take beneficial mutation, for instance. It's meant to explain everything adaptation cannot, yet is so barely prevalent that it hardly could account for anything, even over 3 billion years.

Actually, there's plenty of evidence that it has explained life before. Just because our current model of the biological world doesn't involve so much beneficial mutation now doesn't mean it didn't work before. And there's actually a simple reason for that--it's because the environment was completely different then, which would allow for beneficial mutations to work. Now it's been largely overshadowed by genetic recombination, which is the driving force behind natural selection. That's the reason why you don't see those mutations. It's not because they don't work; it's because it's not nearly as good at providing genetic variation as genetic recombination is.

That is not much logic, and wondering minds should be aware of the original hypothesis that our ancestors believed.

Actually, it makes sense, and if you bothered to research it in any amount of detail, you would see that as well. There's no reason to dispense with those fairytale notions talked about in the bible or any other holy book quite simply because no scientific study that's been well studied and peer reviewed by other scientists supports them.

Theology is not some demon that many atheistic viewpoints try to project. In a classroom, it ensures that science, in fact, does not become the misleading assembly. I fully support the idea that science should stay within it's bounds.
That's really the irony of it, in my opinion.

Theology and science are completely separate subjects, and for good reason. One of them encourages sound validation of hypotheses, and fairness in controlled experiments in order to arrive at something that is both meaningful and as true as humanly possible. The other is only concerned with personal beliefs, which has no place in science. It does not, in any way or form or in principle, help the accuracy of scientific findings at all. If science were helped along by introducing personal beliefs from something like theology, then we end up with all sorts of personal biases, which do not further science at all, but would cloud our working knowledge of all the things we have discovered in science.

90% of what is taught in a science class is useless to the average Joe anyways, we might as well open their minds to the genre of science and human inquiry as a whole along with it all.

And if it were not for science, we would not have modes of transportation that allow us to travel longer distances in a matter of moments.

If it were not for science, we would not have medicine that helps us live healthier, longer lives.

If it were not for science, we would not even be communicating over the Internet.

If it were not for science, we could not even predict the weather forecast.

If it were not for science, our economic growth would be stunted.

There are lots of reasons why science is worth learning about, and just because the average joe doesn't need them isn't a reason not to learn about them. The reason the average joe doesn't need to learn about science is for the same reason we don't need to see your brain in order to know you have one; a car works, not because you know how it works, medicine does not heal you because you know what chemicals went into making it, you can type messages on this forum, not because you understand how the wireless signals in your modem are transmitting messages over miles, and miles and miles to a server in a location you don't even know about, and we as consumers, use science, even though we don't know much science, but that these things even exist at all at our convenience and well being is because there are people who can understand and use science. A certain percentage of the population should know science, or else we wouldn't be having all of these benefits. That's why it's worth teaching.

And I additionally argue that it's useful to know at least some science because it's useful in debates like this because you can distinguish between the things that falsely represent science or scientific ideas, and things that are genuinely discovered by scientists, and are considered scientific fact.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

Beneficial mutation is actually quite a sore spot for ToE. Though scientists will beat around the bush about it, you will see how quickly it willingly takes a back seat to other intrigues within the theory

Science explains the 'system', not the 'system' itself. In other words, if science brings with it light bulbs, computers, and rockets, then why is theology seem so threatening when it only speculates on what science cannot?
Science has done many things, but me specifically knowing about Relativity doesn't really do anything for me. Ironically, I think a lot of people are more interested in speculation rather than atoms anyway. It would surely be a bad day on Earth if we found out that half the things in science are going in a totally wrong direction. This has already been a threatening thought with physics for the past few decades. I think adding an agnostic twist will open up some minds to all these things in general.

 

[Drachnon]

If you don't cite your source to me I'll have to assume that this whole problem of "beneficial mutation not happening fast enough and therefore disproving evolution" is something you came up with yourself. I tried googling for it but couldn't find any reliable sources.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

If you don't cite your source to me I'll have to assume that this whole problem of "beneficial mutation not happening fast enough and therefore disproving evolution" is something you came up with yourself. I tried googling for it but couldn't find any reliable sources.

I'm not citing or discussing, because my aim is not to prove to you anything.
It's only something one can find out if they actually want to find out.
All I will say is that if you wish to learn it, you have to study ToE for yourself, and God forbid, with an unbiased approach. Masquerading your assumption as truth bears no meaning to me.

Perhaps this is why they should add an agnostic approach to classrooms lol.