Yes. I think it is important for people to understand the different belief systems of the world, in order to better understand others. rimnet00Take Comparative Religion in college.
Creation: Should it be taught in schools?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flavort"]that is such a crock, Macroevolution cannot be proven as fact either. It is a science that is just as worthy of investigation as macroevolution.
DeeJayInphinity
Macroevolution can be proven as fact through fossils and by examining the species that are still around today.
Creationism relies on misinformation... The eye is too complex to happen "randomly," DNA is too complex to happen "randomly," how did lungs appear? And all of that other BS. That and most creationists just ignore anyevidence that's put up by the real scientific community or they move on to another subject.
Science is not about ignoring evidence and data when it doesn't fit your religious beliefs.
it is not my religious beliefs that lead me to that conclusion, it was the lack of evidence to support macroevolution. There is not enough fossil evidence, there should be tons of fossils that show constant transitions but there are not. There are new species being found all the time and there is no evidence to show that Macroevolution is responsible for them. You are just dead set biased on the thought that the scientist are the final answer, like the earth is flat. There is no reason that other ideas should be dropped from scientific research.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
I'm not dead set on scientists being the final answer. I know they can be wrong and I'm not afraid of taking out evolution once there's enough proof against it
I have read that and take it into account along with refutes to it. This is the thing. You can teach evolution but it is not solid. I understand people think that creation and intelligent design means God. I dont think you canscientifically proveGod. I do think that people that dont believe in God would think that evolution disproves God. That is not true though the Christian God is my only God but that is not the case with everybody that believes in God. I have a problem with people that believe that because it is scientifically decided to be the answer, even though it is far from solid, would not want other scientific theories investigated. It would make sense to look for alternative answers. Science always changes with new findings and it is because of different research. At the same time if you teach only one side of a theory that has not been solidified, is that not indoctrination? Why not give other possibilities for them to consider. It is not like you are teaching the Bible to kids, you are opening the door to other perspectives that deserve thought.
[QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="NearTheEnd"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="Viviath"]Creationism should have no place in a Science Agenda. If these parents want their kids to grow up thinking the world is only 6000years old and that Evidence isnt important, with enough faith anything is true...then they should take em to a private school and thus successfully cut out their job prospects by 50%+ because almost every non religion related job relies on evidence. I remember reading sumones sig that i thought was really good. It said "If god made the universe, he sure went out of his way to make it seem as if he didn't"The_Ish
you need to understand that there are old earth creationists not just young earth, and it does not involve God
I'm actuallyinterested in this.
How does one present a creationist idea without a god?
it is not out to prove God. It is a scientific look into other optionsof thecreation of the universe and all things in it.
It was created with the mindset: Hey, this book gives a conclusion, lets find a evidence supporting it.
Creationism is not a valid scientific theory, so it should not be anywhere near a science class. If you want to teach it in some sort of history teaching class, fine, but even then its a waste of time since there are more omportant things to learn.
according to you it is not a valid scientific theory. Other scientist that reasearch it say otherwise.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"]are we talking about the idea that god created the earth in 6 days, or are we talking about some other creation idea?CptJSparrow
Six days does not actually mean six days of 24 hours....it's symbolic. Why does everyone want to take the OT literally.:|
Because nobody has proven that it was meant to be taken allegorically.Incorrect...that is an established fact among theologians and religious scholars.
[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="NearTheEnd"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="Viviath"]Creationism should have no place in a Science Agenda. If these parents want their kids to grow up thinking the world is only 6000years old and that Evidence isnt important, with enough faith anything is true...then they should take em to a private school and thus successfully cut out their job prospects by 50%+ because almost every non religion related job relies on evidence. I remember reading sumones sig that i thought was really good. It said "If god made the universe, he sure went out of his way to make it seem as if he didn't"flavort
you need to understand that there are old earth creationists not just young earth, and it does not involve God
I'm actuallyinterested in this.
How does one present a creationist idea without a god?
it is not out to prove God. It is a scientific look into other optionsof thecreation of the universe and all things in it.
It was created with the mindset: Hey, this book gives a conclusion, lets find a evidence supporting it.
Creationism is not a valid scientific theory, so it should not be anywhere near a science class. If you want to teach it in some sort of history teaching class, fine, but even then its a waste of time since there are more omportant things to learn.
according to you it is not a valid scientific theory. Other scientist that reasearch it say otherwise. there is no "science" proving creationism. the only science about creationism is trying to prove evolution wrong, and not actually "proving" creationism.[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="mig_killer2"]are we talking about the idea that god created the earth in 6 days, or are we talking about some other creation idea?LJS9502_basic
Six days does not actually mean six days of 24 hours....it's symbolic. Why does everyone want to take the OT literally.:|
Because nobody has proven that it was meant to be taken allegorically.Incorrect...that is an established fact among theologians and religious scholars.
They sure did a poor job of saying that when I went to church. Linkitize me, LJ. Something before the publication of Origin of the Species, please.[QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="NearTheEnd"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="Viviath"]Creationism should have no place in a Science Agenda. If these parents want their kids to grow up thinking the world is only 6000years old and that Evidence isnt important, with enough faith anything is true...then they should take em to a private school and thus successfully cut out their job prospects by 50%+ because almost every non religion related job relies on evidence. I remember reading sumones sig that i thought was really good. It said "If god made the universe, he sure went out of his way to make it seem as if he didn't"mig_killer2
you need to understand that there are old earth creationists not just young earth, and it does not involve God
I'm actuallyinterested in this.
How does one present a creationist idea without a god?
it is not out to prove God. It is a scientific look into other optionsof thecreation of the universe and all things in it.
It was created with the mindset: Hey, this book gives a conclusion, lets find a evidence supporting it.
Creationism is not a valid scientific theory, so it should not be anywhere near a science class. If you want to teach it in some sort of history teaching class, fine, but even then its a waste of time since there are more omportant things to learn.
according to you it is not a valid scientific theory. Other scientist that reasearch it say otherwise. there is no "science" proving creationism. the only science about creationism is trying to prove evolution wrong, and not actually "proving" creationism.+1
I don't think creationism should be classified as a scientific theory, but it seems silly to me for scientists to try to pretend like it's not a vialble position, given that the majority of all people on earth worship some deity or another.
I don't think creationism should be taught in a science class. But it's relelvant to bring it up within the discussion of evolution, even if only as a contrary belief to the theory.
I have read that and take it into account along with refutes to it. This is the thing. You can teach evolution but it is not solid. I understand people think that creation and intelligent design means God. I dont think you canscientifically proveGod. I do think that people that dont believe in God would think that evolution disproves God. That is not true though the Christian God is my only God but that is not the case with everybody that believes in God. I have a problem with people that believe that because it is scientifically decided to be the answer, even though it is far from solid, would not want other scientific theories investigated. It would make sense to look for alternative answers. Science always changes with new findings and it is because of different research. At the same time if you teach only one side of a theory that has not been solidified, is that not indoctrination? Why not give other possibilities for them to consider. It is not like you are teaching the Bible to kids, you are opening the door to other perspectives that deserve thought.
flavort
"this is the thing", creationism does not deserve to be in a science cl@ss Ever. It is not a scientific theory, and before you respond with "its' just a theory", I might remind you that gravity is a theory, and some scientists agree that there is enough evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of gravity.
If you want to believe God guided evolution, thats fine. But know that is not scientific. If you want to believe that God created life, fine, but again, thats not scientific, because it can't be proven through observation and emperical data/research.
And no one says evolution disproves God, not unless you like to take the Bible literally.
[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flavort"]that is such a crock, Macroevolution cannot be proven as fact either. It is a science that is just as worthy of investigation as macroevolution.
flavort
Macroevolution can be proven as fact through fossils and by examining the species that are still around today.
Creationism relies on misinformation... The eye is too complex to happen "randomly," DNA is too complex to happen "randomly," how did lungs appear? And all of that other BS. That and most creationists just ignore anyevidence that's put up by the real scientific community or they move on to another subject.
Science is not about ignoring evidence and data when it doesn't fit your religious beliefs.
it is not my religious beliefs that lead me to that conclusion, it was the lack of evidence to support macroevolution. There is not enough fossil evidence, there should be tons of fossils that show constant transitions but there are not. There are new species being found all the time and there is no evidence to show that Macroevolution is responsible for them. You are just dead set biased on the thought that the scientist are the final answer, like the earth is flat. There is no reason that other ideas should be dropped from scientific research.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
I'm not dead set on scientists being the final answer. I know they can be wrong and I'm not afraid of taking out evolution once there's enough proof against it
I have read that and take it into account along with refutes to it. This is the thing. You can teach evolution but it is not solid. I understand people think that creation and intelligent design means God. I dont think you canscientifically proveGod. I do think that people that dont believe in God would think that evolution disproves God. That is not true though the Christian God is my only God but that is not the case with everybody that believes in God. I have a problem with people that believe that because it is scientifically decided to be the answer, even though it is far from solid, would not want other scientific theories investigated. It would make sense to look for alternative answers. Science always changes with new findings and it is because of different research. At the same time if you teach only one side of a theory that has not been solidified, is that not indoctrination? Why not give other possibilities for them to consider. It is not like you are teaching the Bible to kids, you are opening the door to other perspectives that deserve thought.
I'm aware of all of that. Creationism was brought about by religion and there's really no evidence to support it. I do think that they should examine the possibilities of a higher power that created everything but it's not science, so it belongs outside the classroom.
If you can go out there and find real evidence that supports creationism, then sure, maybe it will be taught in a science class.
Usually, the only reason people continually talk about the Christian God being behind the creationist movement is because some of the creationists will cite the bible as their evidence. One example is the grand canyon and the flood in the bible.
Those are the people ruinning your creationist hypothesis. Even if they weren't around, there's still no proof to support it so scientists would still object to teaching in the science classroom but those people really make it that much harder to teach it as science.
I don't think creationism should be classified as a scientific theory, but it seems silly to me for scientists to try to pretend like it's not a vialble position, given that the majority of all people on earth worship some deity or another.
CheddarLimbo
This isn't about how most people believe in some sort of diety. Science does not aim to reinforce religion, nor does it aim to discredit it either. Science is about finding answers through observation and research using emperical data. Just because most of the world believes in a diety doesn't mean that there is one, and it does not give credit to any "theory" they come up with that is not scientifically supported.
They sure did a poor job of saying that when I went to church. Linkitize me, LJ.CptJSparrow
Which church? Mine has always taught that....
[QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]Under one condition: every creation story is taught, including the 300+ currently practiced religions, as well as mythological and dead religions, equally. I know this is impossible, so my answer is no.LJS9502_basic
Technically, both Greek and Roman mythology are taught. Hmm...I think they should be banned.
Thats completely utterly different.. When we are talking about religon of the way people are talking about is how we can be.. Not the study of literature elements and styles done in mythology.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]They sure did a poor job of saying that when I went to church. Linkitize me, LJ.LJS9502_basic
Which church? Mine has always taught that....
A Baptist church. I won't say where on the forum. But if you have a link or two by theologians published before Origin of the Species, by all means share.
[QUOTE="CheddarLimbo"]I don't think creationism should be classified as a scientific theory, but it seems silly to me for scientists to try to pretend like it's not a vialble position, given that the majority of all people on earth worship some deity or another.
The_Ish
This isn't about how most people believe in some sort of diety. Science does not aim to reinforce religion, nor does it aim to discredit it either. Science is about finding answers through observation and research using emperical data. Just because most of the world believes in a diety doesn't mean that there is one, and it does not give credit to any "theory" they come up with that is not scientifically supported.
/thread[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]Under one condition: every creation story is taught, including the 300+ currently practiced religions, as well as mythological and dead religions, equally. I know this is impossible, so my answer is no.sSubZerOo
Technically, both Greek and Roman mythology are taught. Hmm...I think they should be banned.
Thats completely utterly different.. When we are talking about religon of the way people are talking about is how we can be.. Not the study of literature elements and styles done in mythology.
You are aware mythology WAS their religion are you not? There is literature elements and style in various Bibles and religious philosophies...your point?
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]Under one condition: every creation story is taught, including the 300+ currently practiced religions, as well as mythological and dead religions, equally. I know this is impossible, so my answer is no.LJS9502_basic
Technically, both Greek and Roman mythology are taught. Hmm...I think they should be banned.
Thats completely utterly different.. When we are talking about religon of the way people are talking about is how we can be.. Not the study of literature elements and styles done in mythology.
You are aware mythology WAS their religion are you not? There is literature elements and style in various Bibles and religious philosophies...your point?
Are they teaching what the Greeks believed, or were they presenting them as valid theories about existence?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]They sure did a poor job of saying that when I went to church. Linkitize me, LJ.CptJSparrow
Which church? Mine has always taught that....
A Baptist church. I won't say where on the forum. But if you have a link or two by theologians published before Origin of the Species, by all means share. does it have initials? what is the last name of the pastor of that church? cuz I think I know which you are talking about[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]They sure did a poor job of saying that when I went to church. Linkitize me, LJ.mig_killer2
Which church? Mine has always taught that....
A Baptist church. I won't say where on the forum. But if you have a link or two by theologians published before Origin of the Species, by all means share. does it have initials? what is the last name of the pastor of that church? cuz I think I know which you are talking about I seriously doubt it's a church you've heard of. It's not famous.[QUOTE="CheddarLimbo"]I don't think creationism should be classified as a scientific theory, but it seems silly to me for scientists to try to pretend like it's not a vialble position, given that the majority of all people on earth worship some deity or another.
The_Ish
This isn't about how most people believe in some sort of diety. Science does not aim to reinforce religion, nor does it aim to discredit it either. Science is about finding answers through observation and research using emperical data. Just because most of the world believes in a diety doesn't mean that there is one, and it does not give credit to any "theory" they come up with that is not scientifically supported.
Yeah you have to look at the facts, most of the world does not have clean water, has terrible schools if any, a lot can't read, I mean they really don't have much, then most of us that do think we have been blessed by our god (christians) so really its a lot of people believing in god because they don't know anything else and those that believe in god out of fear.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]Under one condition: every creation story is taught, including the 300+ currently practiced religions, as well as mythological and dead religions, equally. I know this is impossible, so my answer is no.LJS9502_basic
Technically, both Greek and Roman mythology are taught. Hmm...I think they should be banned.
Thats completely utterly different.. When we are talking about religon of the way people are talking about is how we can be.. Not the study of literature elements and styles done in mythology.
You are aware mythology WAS their religion are you not? There is literature elements and style in various Bibles and religious philosophies...your point?
Yes but no one worships it now a days, so there is absoulty no reason not to have it.. The Mythology is nice to have because it some what goes into religion but has nothing to do with religions of today thus not making it contrversial.
A Baptist church. I won't say where on the forum. But if you have a link or two by theologians published before Origin of the Species, by all means share.CptJSparrow
Do you have evolution theory before Origins of the Species? No..of course not. I know what they teach during my lifetime...I didn't live back then and my time machine is broken. Naturally, man was more primitive. In the future we will be thought of as primitive as well. However, various phrases and symbols in the OT would have been understood as symbolic to those familiar with that particular culture. There are various links on the internet explaining what things mean...though I'd have to search too many links to find the one that I think best fits. Most of the ones I've come across are concerned with linking the OT to the NT...
Sam Harris said that in Letter to a Christian Nation and received dozens of hate mails from Poseidon worshipers.Yes but no one worships it now a days, so there is absoulty no reason not to have it.. The Mythology is nice to have because it some what goes into religion but has nothing to do with religions of today thus not making it contrversial.
sSubZerOo
[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="CheddarLimbo"]I don't think creationism should be classified as a scientific theory, but it seems silly to me for scientists to try to pretend like it's not a vialble position, given that the majority of all people on earth worship some deity or another.
mark4091
This isn't about how most people believe in some sort of diety. Science does not aim to reinforce religion, nor does it aim to discredit it either. Science is about finding answers through observation and research using emperical data. Just because most of the world believes in a diety doesn't mean that there is one, and it does not give credit to any "theory" they come up with that is not scientifically supported.
Yeah you have to look at the facts, most of the world does not have clean water, has terrible schools if any, a lot can't read, I mean they really don't have much, then most of us that do think we have been blessed by our god (christians) so really its a lot of people believing in god because they don't know anything else and those that believe in god out of fear.
Beleiving in God also gives people strength and comfort, two things most poor people would lack due to terrible living conditions.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]Under one condition: every creation story is taught, including the 300+ currently practiced religions, as well as mythological and dead religions, equally. I know this is impossible, so my answer is no.LJS9502_basic
Technically, both Greek and Roman mythology are taught. Hmm...I think they should be banned.
Thats completely utterly different.. When we are talking about religon of the way people are talking about is how we can be.. Not the study of literature elements and styles done in mythology.
You are aware mythology WAS their religion are you not? There is literature elements and style in various Bibles and religious philosophies...your point?
So you're calling me religion, alongside billions of others' religions fake and totally mythological?
You would be hung for that outside the US.
Are they teaching what the Greeks believed, or were they presenting them as valid theories about existence?CptJSparrow
Doesn't matter.....as to thereason I posted that initial comment was in response to someone's comment about religion in schools. It was an accurate observation...nothing more,nothing less.
It wasn't in response to the thesis of this topic...just one poster. You guys read far too much into it. I haven't stated an opinion vis a vis creationism in school for the record.;)
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"] A Baptist church. I won't say where on the forum. But if you have a link or two by theologians published before Origin of the Species, by all means share.LJS9502_basic
Do you have evolution theory before Origins of the Species? No..of course not. I know what they teach during my lifetime...I didn't live back then and my time machine is broken. Naturally, man was more primitive. In the future we will be thought of as primitive as well. However, various phrases and symbols in the OT would have been understood as symbolic to those familiar with that particular culture. There are various links on the internet explaining what things mean...though I'd have to search too many links to find the one that I think best fits. Most of the ones I've come across are concerned with linking the OT to the NT...
John Lamarck's theories of naturalism? Aristotle (or was it Archimedes?)? I'd still like a few links before Darwin if you have time to PM them someday.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShuLordLiuPei"]Under one condition: every creation story is taught, including the 300+ currently practiced religions, as well as mythological and dead religions, equally. I know this is impossible, so my answer is no.CptJSparrow
Technically, both Greek and Roman mythology are taught. Hmm...I think they should be banned.
Thats completely utterly different.. When we are talking about religon of the way people are talking about is how we can be.. Not the study of literature elements and styles done in mythology.
You are aware mythology WAS their religion are you not? There is literature elements and style in various Bibles and religious philosophies...your point?
Are they teaching what the Greeks believed, or were they presenting them as valid theories about existence?Exactly, it's totally different.
[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"]Are they teaching what the Greeks believed, or were they presenting them as valid theories about existence?LJS9502_basic
Doesn't matter.....as to thereason I posted that initial comment was in response to someone's comment about religion in schools. It was an accurate observation...nothing more,nothing less.
It wasn't in response to the thesis of this topic...just one poster. You guys read far too much into it. I haven't stated an opinion vis a vis creationism in school for the record.;)
I must have read too far into the other person's post, or interpreted it differently.[QUOTE="CheddarLimbo"]I don't think creationism should be classified as a scientific theory, but it seems silly to me for scientists to try to pretend like it's not a vialble position, given that the majority of all people on earth worship some deity or another.
The_Ish
This isn't about how most people believe in some sort of diety. Science does not aim to reinforce religion, nor does it aim to discredit it either. Science is about finding answers through observation and research using emperical data. Just because most of the world believes in a diety doesn't mean that there is one, and it does not give credit to any "theory" they come up with that is not scientifically supported.
My point is, since most of the people on the planet believe in some form of religion or other it is relevant to mention that not everyone believes in evolution the way they believe in most other scientific theories. I'm not saying a science class should promote the discussion of it, or try to take sides one way or the other against organized religion. I'm just saying that it's futile to create this environment where scientists pretend like religion is totally irrelevant just because it doesn't immediately impact the scientific theory.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Sam Harris said that in Letter to a Christian Nation and received dozens of hate mails from Poseidon worshipers.Yes but no one worships it now a days, so there is absoulty no reason not to have it.. The Mythology is nice to have because it some what goes into religion but has nothing to do with religions of today thus not making it contrversial.
CptJSparrow
Ha..I was just going to bet him that somewhere someone believes....I'd have won the bet. Curses you being so fast....:x
[QUOTE="flavort"]I have read that and take it into account along with refutes to it. This is the thing. You can teach evolution but it is not solid. I understand people think that creation and intelligent design means God. I dont think you canscientifically proveGod. I do think that people that dont believe in God would think that evolution disproves God. That is not true though the Christian God is my only God but that is not the case with everybody that believes in God. I have a problem with people that believe that because it is scientifically decided to be the answer, even though it is far from solid, would not want other scientific theories investigated. It would make sense to look for alternative answers. Science always changes with new findings and it is because of different research. At the same time if you teach only one side of a theory that has not been solidified, is that not indoctrination? Why not give other possibilities for them to consider. It is not like you are teaching the Bible to kids, you are opening the door to other perspectives that deserve thought.
The_Ish
"this is the thing", creationism does not deserve to be in a science cl@ss Ever. It is not a scientific theory, and before you respond with "its' just a theory", I might remind you that gravity is a theory, and some scientists agree that there is enough evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of gravity.
If you want to believe God guided evolution, thats fine. But know that is not scientific. If you want to believe that God created life, fine, but again, thats not scientific, because it can't be proven through observation and emperical data/research.
And no one says evolution disproves God, not unless you like to take the Bible literally.
You are so mixed up here. I am talking about atheist think that macroevolution disproves God. Creation, intelligent design are science wether you acknowledge it or not. Scientist study these things. Just because the theory of evolution is factual does not grant truth to other theories. The fact that you say "some" scientist says a whole lot. Also if you would just read what I said you would know that I said that science will not prove God. Pay attention.
It, could be taught in class, but definitely not in a science class, due to the fact that the theory has never been tested under the Scientific Method. If your going to teach creationism, you need to teach it in a Social Science class, due to that it has no relevance to science and it shouldn't be taught in public schools. Its the child's choice to look up such theories on their own time. Just to throw out there:
Creationism: the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
So to prove a fact, Creationism is NO LONGER OCCURRING. So why are new species appearing? Until this theory is proved by correct by scientific method, I would prefer to believe in the theory of evolution over creationism.
[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="CheddarLimbo"]I don't think creationism should be classified as a scientific theory, but it seems silly to me for scientists to try to pretend like it's not a vialble position, given that the majority of all people on earth worship some deity or another.
CheddarLimbo
This isn't about how most people believe in some sort of diety. Science does not aim to reinforce religion, nor does it aim to discredit it either. Science is about finding answers through observation and research using emperical data. Just because most of the world believes in a diety doesn't mean that there is one, and it does not give credit to any "theory" they come up with that is not scientifically supported.
My point is, since most of the people on the planet believe in some form of religion or other it is relevant to mention that not everyone believes in evolution the way they believe in most other scientific theories. I'm not saying a science class should promote the discussion of it, or try to take sides one way or the other against organized religion. I'm just saying that it's futile to create this environment where scientists pretend like religion is totally irrelevant just because it doesn't immediately impact the scientific theory.
Any proposed theory comes under heavy scrutiny by the scientific community, and so far, nothing that proves a religion's validity is scientific. Religion, by it's nature, is not really concerned with truth from a philosiphical/emperical perspective, so it has no viability withing science.
[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="flavort"]I have read that and take it into account along with refutes to it. This is the thing. You can teach evolution but it is not solid. I understand people think that creation and intelligent design means God. I dont think you canscientifically proveGod. I do think that people that dont believe in God would think that evolution disproves God. That is not true though the Christian God is my only God but that is not the case with everybody that believes in God. I have a problem with people that believe that because it is scientifically decided to be the answer, even though it is far from solid, would not want other scientific theories investigated. It would make sense to look for alternative answers. Science always changes with new findings and it is because of different research. At the same time if you teach only one side of a theory that has not been solidified, is that not indoctrination? Why not give other possibilities for them to consider. It is not like you are teaching the Bible to kids, you are opening the door to other perspectives that deserve thought.
flavort
"this is the thing", creationism does not deserve to be in a science cl@ss Ever. It is not a scientific theory, and before you respond with "its' just a theory", I might remind you that gravity is a theory, and some scientists agree that there is enough evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of gravity.
If you want to believe God guided evolution, thats fine. But know that is not scientific. If you want to believe that God created life, fine, but again, thats not scientific, because it can't be proven through observation and emperical data/research.
And no one says evolution disproves God, not unless you like to take the Bible literally.
You are so mixed up here. I am talking about atheist think that macroevolution disproves God. Creation, intelligent design are science wether you acknowledge it or not. Scientist study these things. Just because the theory of evolution is factual does not grant truth to other theories. The fact that you say "some" scientist says a whole lot. Also if you would just read what I said you would know that I said that science will not prove God. Pay attention.
Here's a little thing about science: it's not scientific just because it's studied by people who call themselves scientists, its science if it is observable and supported by empirical data, and guess what? Creationism/Intelligent design fails to be observable and is not supported by empirical data. I don't know what "scientists" you think actually takes this seriously, but they are clearly not real scientists, since they are trying to hammer something that can't be proven into the scientific community as a valid theory.
Also, I never said the theory of evolution grants truth to other theories, you're just putting words in my mouth. I said the theory of evolution has a lot of evidence going for it.
And why atheists think macroevolution disproves God has nothing to do with the validity of the theory of Evolution or Creationism. They believe something that can't be proven, just like how creationists believe something that can't be proven. Science does not approach such things.
[QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flavort"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flavort"]that is such a crock, Macroevolution cannot be proven as fact either. It is a science that is just as worthy of investigation as macroevolution.
DeeJayInphinity
Macroevolution can be proven as fact through fossils and by examining the species that are still around today.
Creationism relies on misinformation... The eye is too complex to happen "randomly," DNA is too complex to happen "randomly," how did lungs appear? And all of that other BS. That and most creationists just ignore anyevidence that's put up by the real scientific community or they move on to another subject.
Science is not about ignoring evidence and data when it doesn't fit your religious beliefs.
it is not my religious beliefs that lead me to that conclusion, it was the lack of evidence to support macroevolution. There is not enough fossil evidence, there should be tons of fossils that show constant transitions but there are not. There are new species being found all the time and there is no evidence to show that Macroevolution is responsible for them. You are just dead set biased on the thought that the scientist are the final answer, like the earth is flat. There is no reason that other ideas should be dropped from scientific research.29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
I'm not dead set on scientists being the final answer. I know they can be wrong and I'm not afraid of taking out evolution once there's enough proof against it
I have read that and take it into account along with refutes to it. This is the thing. You can teach evolution but it is not solid. I understand people think that creation and intelligent design means God. I dont think you canscientifically proveGod. I do think that people that dont believe in God would think that evolution disproves God. That is not true though the Christian God is my only God but that is not the case with everybody that believes in God. I have a problem with people that believe that because it is scientifically decided to be the answer, even though it is far from solid, would not want other scientific theories investigated. It would make sense to look for alternative answers. Science always changes with new findings and it is because of different research. At the same time if you teach only one side of a theory that has not been solidified, is that not indoctrination? Why not give other possibilities for them to consider. It is not like you are teaching the Bible to kids, you are opening the door to other perspectives that deserve thought.
I'm aware of all of that. Creationism was brought about by religion and there's really no evidence to support it. I do think that they should examine the possibilities of a higher power that created everything but it's not science, so it belongs outside the classroom.
If you can go out there and find real evidence that supports creationism, then sure, maybe it will be taught in a science class.
Usually, the only reason people continually talk about the Christian God being behind the creationist movement is because some of the creationists will cite the bible as their evidence. One example is the grand canyon and the flood in the bible.
Those are the people ruinning your creationist hypothesis. Even if they weren't around, there's still no proof to support it so scientists would still object to teaching in the science classroom but those people really make it that much harder to teach it as science.
Those people may hinder the idea to others that assume creation and God go hand in hand, but that does not make it obsolete toresearch. There is a good amount of support for researching creation, andby scientist,it is just not given attention. It is just stigmatised by others as being associated with religion only.
Those people may hinder the idea to others that assume creation and God go hand in hand, but that does not make it obsolete toresearch. There is a good amount of support for researching creation, andby scientist,it is just not given attention. It is just stigmatised by others as being associated with religion only.
flavort
You are either lying or have been lied too.
teach me both...isnt that what they are suposed to do?fireemblemsThey can't teach you belief as science. Thats the role of the church and family. I wouldnt want my kids going to a school that tells them science is all smoke and mirrors and there may be other reasons based on one groups personal beliefs.
[QUOTE="fireemblems"]teach me both...isnt that what they are suposed to do?DarthmattThey can't teach you belief as science. Thats the role of the church and family. I wouldnt want my kids going to a school that tells them science is all smoke and mirrors and there may be other reasons based on one groups personal beliefs.
They can teach philosophy....
Those people may hinder the idea to others that assume creation and God go hand in hand, but that does not make it obsolete toresearch. There is a good amount of support for researching creation, andby scientist,it is just not given attention. It is just stigmatised by others as being associated with religion only.
flavort
Oh and which is that? The good old "look at the eye; it can't possibly have just been created by chance, that's like a hurricane blowing through a junk yard and assembling a jumbo jet!"
[QUOTE="flavort"]Those people may hinder the idea to others that assume creation and God go hand in hand, but that does not make it obsolete toresearch. There is a good amount of support for researching creation, andby scientist,it is just not given attention. It is just stigmatised by others as being associated with religion only.
The_Ish
You are either lying or have been lied too.
yeah, there is no evidence for creationism.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment