Teaching Evolution in the Church?

[AV1611VET]

Then stop trying to get science teachers to peddle your belief in a creator!

I wouldn't trust a "science" teacher to teach my child about the Creator.

 

[Servant222]

But what if that Science teacher was also a devote Christian, teaching in a Christian school, who had no artificial constraints on what they could or could not cover in their curriculum?

I presume you've seen this thread on the topic: http://www.christianforums.com/t485...-in-science-classes-in-christian-schools.html

Personally, I always like having dedicated Christian scientists explain how they see God's hand in their scientific endeavors.

 

[AngryWomble]

I wouldn't trust a "science" teacher to teach my child about the Creator.

Science teachers don't want to teach about a creator, they want to teach science, if they wanted to teach about creators they would have done RE as their subject specialism.

Your own little thing about science being wrong if it doesn't match up to some edited version of the bible is just that, your thing. No one other than a small minority of "christian" fundamentalists think that way it doesn't stop science valid.

 

[Upisoft]

I wouldn't trust a "science" teacher to teach my child about the Creator.

I don't believe what I'm going to say. I agree with AV1611VET. That is no job for a scientists. Let then keep the ID out of the schools. All we want this.

BTW, I don't mind if USA start to lack good scientists. My children, if they become scientists, will have good jobs and USA will pay solid bills for their work. Anyway, I just hate lies more, so calling the religion "science" and trying to sneak it into classroom is what makes me mad.

 

[AngryWomble]

I don't believe what I'm going to say. I agree with AV1611VET.

Does that mean you also agree with the undertone he's included by putting quotation marks around science?

 

[AV1611VET]

But what if that Science teacher was also a devote Christian, teaching in a Christian school, who had no artificial constraints on what they could or could not cover in their curriculum?

That would be different then. I would have no problem with that. I was talking more about public schools.

I presume you've seen this thread on the topic: http://www.christianforums.com/t485...-in-science-classes-in-christian-schools.html

No, I hadn't seen that; but now that I have, let me say this:

I have problems with the term Intelligent Design; and if I was the dean of that Christian school, and the teacher was teaching Creation as Intelligent Design, we would have a serious discussion.

Personally, I always like having dedicated Christian scientists explain how they see God's hand in their scientific endeavors.

That's fine, but in a public school, their textbooks say otherwise; and the teacher would be teaching Creation in spite of what the textbooks say.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science teachers don't want to teach about a creator, they want to teach science...

I wouldn't want to teach about a creator either.

Instead, I would want to teach about the Creator.

Your own little thing about science being wrong if it doesn't match up to some edited version of the bible is just that, your thing. No one other than a small minority of "christian" fundamentalists think that way it doesn't stop science valid.

Where science disagrees with the Bible - science is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does that mean you also agree with the undertone he's included by putting quotation marks around science?

I put quotation marks around the word "science" to differentiate it from true science, which includes God in the picture.

Paul did the same thing:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

science falsely so called = "science"

 

[FishFace]

I put quotation marks around the word "science" to differentiate it from true science, which includes God in the picture.

Science deals with the observable, the testable, and the natural. Anything else is left out, because it fits into the set of things including pixies and flying spaghetti monsters. Why should science include God in the picture, if God is not a conclusion at which we arrive through the scientific method?

 

[FishFace]

Where science disagrees with the Bible - science is wrong.

And where the Bible disagrees with the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - the Bible is wrong.

Don't just say it ain't so, give a justified reason.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science deals with the observable, the testable, and the natural.

Observe, test, and naturalize all you want; but if you purposely don't factor in the miraculous, then don't tell me later the Bible is wrong. (I don't mean YOU, I mean all "scientists".)

Anything else is left out, because it fits into the set of things including pixies and flying spaghetti monsters.

And that's a shame. Saying something has never existed because you haven't found it yet is junk science.

Why should science include God in the picture, if God is not a conclusion at which we arrive through the scientific method?

Because God is more than worthy to be included in science manuals and textbooks.

And as far as the Scientific Method goes --- I'll post this link for about the fourth time:

[URL="http://amasci.com/miscon/miscon4.html#meth"]SCIENTISTS USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD? [/URL]

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Observe, test, and naturalize all you want; but if you purposely don't factor in the miraculous, then don't tell me later the Bible is wrong. (I don't mean YOU, I mean all "scientists".)

How could we factor in the supernatural? Name one scientific theory that would benefit from doing so.

And that's a shame. Saying something has never existed because you haven't found it yet is junk science.

No, that's called skepticism, and it's the very foundation of good science. Should we start thinking of unicorns as existing, because we haven't found them yet?

Because God is more than worthy to be included in science manuals and textbooks.

And as far as the Scientific Method goes --- I'll post this link for about the fourth time:

SCIENTISTS USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

And you'll be told for the fourth time that this article does nothing to prove your point.

 

[Split Rock]

I wouldn't trust a "science" teacher to teach my child about the Creator.

That's why they don't teach about "The Creator"

Where science disagrees with the Bible - science is wrong.

You mean where science disagrees with your interpretation of the bible - you believe science is wrong.

I am going to continue correcting you on this, until you can tell us how to reconcile all the different interpretations of scripture esposed by Bible "Literalists."

I put quotation marks around the word "science" to differentiate it from true science, which includes God in the picture.

Paul did the same thing:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

science falsely so called = "science"

That would be Creation "Science" and I.D.

 

[Upisoft]

Does that mean you also agree with the undertone he's included by putting quotation marks around science?

Well, yes. If he wants to call science - "science", I don't mind. After all, we're talking about the same thing, but he happens to have different definition.

 

[AngryWomble]

I wouldn't want to teach about a creator either.

Instead, I would want to teach about the Creator.

Where science disagrees with the Bible - science is wrong.

What makes the christian creation myth any more or less valid than say the norse of eqgyptian creation myths?

I put quotation marks around the word "science" to differentiate it from true science, which includes God in the picture.

Paul did the same thing:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

science falsely so called = "science"

This just goes to show how truely ignorant you are of science. It deals with the natural world only, god(s) are in the realm of the supernatural so science doesn't go there.

And where the Bible disagrees with the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - the Bible is wrong.

Don't just say it ain't so, give a justified reason.

RAmen to that my Noodley brother!

 

[AngryWomble]

Well, yes. If he wants to call science - "science", I don't mind. After all, we're talking about the same thing, but he happens to have different definition.

Well i mind, seeing as i'm one of the people he's so flagrantly insulting. Being both a scientist and a budding teacher.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am going to continue correcting you on this, until you can tell us how to reconcile all the different interpretations of scripture esposed by Bible "Literalists."

You do that, Split Rock.

But in the meantime, go back and re-read this quote.

It's up to ME to reconcile all the different interpretations? I'll do that if YOU reconcile all four forces of the universe into the Theory of Everything?

Fair enough?

The more I debate with people, the more I'm starting to notice they do one of two things - (or both):

1. Either put the Bible in a Catch 22, no-win situation.
2. Or they raise the standard of evidence so high, discussion is futile.

 

[AV1611VET]

What makes the christian creation myth any more or less valid than say the norse of eqgyptian creation myths?

The Jews.

This just goes to show how truely ignorant you are of science. It deals with the natural world only, god(s) are in the realm of the supernatural so science doesn't go there.

Then explain to me how a major prophecy was fulfilled in 1948, using "science" only.

Explain to me how Jesus fulfilled 109 of 333 prophecies, which is mathematically impossible to do?

And using "science" only.

I don't want to hear "didnthappen" like everyone else says.

 

[Upisoft]

Well i mind, seeing as i'm one of the people he's so flagrantly insulting. Being both a scientist and a budding teacher.

I don't know why you're insulted. The guy thinks that science = theology. So his statement should be read like:

I wouldn't trust a "theology" teacher to teach my child about the Creator.


Are you theology teacher? I guess not. So you don't have to be insulted. As I said, the guy has different definitions for the words.

The point is that the whole meaning of the sentence is that religion has no place in the classroom. Otherwise only "scientists" (read theologists) would have the right to lecture the students.

 

[AngryWomble]

The Jews.

Then explain to me how a major prophecy was fulfilled in 1948, using "science" only.

Explain to me how Jesus fulfilled 109 of 333 prophecies, which is mathematically impossible to do?

And using "science" only.

I don't want to hear "didnthappen" like everyone else says.

Why do the Jews make your myth real?

What "prophecy" are you on about from 1948?

......109 out of 333 is mathematically impossible?? There's a list of 333 things....they guy only gets 109 of them done. Very simple really.