Creationism in School

[drich0150]

I don't mind it being taught in a religion class (but apparently you don't have them in the US?) but it isn't science, few scientists agree with it and so shouldn't be taught in a science class.

I did not say creationism Had to be taught as scientific principle nor did it have to be taught in a science class. The OP ask should this theory be taught. The answer to that question is yes.

Are these examples of historians disagreeing?

No. The Hitler/Stalin thing was an example of a society that does not allow but one singular view of science and history. A example of historians disagreeing would be in the discovery of America. Evidence is now being presented/taught in schools that Eric the Red was the first to discover America, and that those rumors (Of his discovery) were perhaps what inspired Columbus.

How much must something be verifiable before someone can be taught what is most likely true, rather than letting people pick what sounds good?

It depends on how much of your thinking, you want done for you by someone else.

If something is an absolute like 4x4=16 then I want to know that this is a universal truth. At the same time I do not want the same person or someone in the same position of authority taking the liberty to present what he thinks is true (Because someone smarter the he told him what to think) as a universal truth... (Like this popular theory.)

Some other recent popular theories.

Global warming's sole cause is the co2 emissions produced from civilization. (Now they say solar output fluctuates and out relative position from the sun are they primary determining factors. We do not have a concentric orbit.)

Hole in the Ozone produced by the usage of CFC's.
(The hole in the Ozone closed before all of our restrictions took effect. It was said it would take decades to see if we would ever recover. We recovered shortly after all of the levies and taxes passed.)

A mini Ice age was predicted by 2010 in the seventies because at that time we were experiencing global cooling.
Again solar output was the culprit.

And on and on and on. These are just a few examples where science is being used to sell you all on things like carbon credits, higher food prices, and higher energy costs. All because "we" have adopted a mentality to simply accept popular belief as an absolute truth.

Banning the Teaching creationism has far deeper implications than just the origins of the universe. At it's core it is censoring thought. Censoring thought is never a good thing for those who want to think for themselves.

Truthfully if it is all just a fairy tale then why is so feared? Why is it ban? Aren't fairy tales taught in school? Even in the later grades, I remember learning what they were about and the hidden meanings to some of them.

1Thess 5:21
Question ALL Things and hold on to what is Good.

 

[solarwave]

I did not say creationism Had to be taught as scientific principle nor did it have to be taught in a science class. The OP ask should this theory be taught. The answer to that question is yes.

Personally I would rather it was taught church rather than school. Will creation stories from other religions be included, and if not why not?

No. The Hitler/Stalin thing was an example of a society that does not allow but one singular view of science and history. A example of historians disagreeing would be in the discovery of America. Evidence is now being presented/taught in schools that Eric the Red was the first to discover America, and that those rumors (Of his discovery) were perhaps what inspired Columbus.

I don't think any one is says we should make certain beliefs illegal, just that some shouldn't be promoted in a secular school. If historians disagree over something then of course it makes sense not to take sides.

It depends on how much of your thinking, you want done for you by someone else.

Of course thinking critically about ones beliefs is good, but in alot of cases we have to accept the findings of others as the starting place of our own thinking. For example we ourselves can't date when parts of the New Testament were written, we have to try to figure out who is right out of those in that field.

Also I don't think alot of high school students are that critical yet. Some might be able to and care enough to figure out whether evolution is true or not, but alot probably don't have the abilities to look deeply into the issue and don't care enough to do that either.

Some other recent popular theories.

Global warming's sole cause is the co2 emissions produced from civilization. (Now they say solar output fluctuates and out relative position from the sun are they primary determining factors. We do not have a concentric orbit.)

Hole in the Ozone produced by the usage of CFC's.
(The hole in the Ozone closed before all of our restrictions took effect. It was said it would take decades to see if we would ever recover. We recovered shortly after all of the levies and taxes passed.)

A mini Ice age was predicted by 2010 in the seventies because at that time we were experiencing global cooling.
Again solar output was the culprit.

And on and on and on. These are just a few examples where science is being used to sell you all on things like carbon credits, higher food prices, and higher energy costs. All because "we" have adopted a mentality to simply accept popular belief as an absolute truth.

Of course the problem is that I don't know if all the above is correct simply because you said it or not.

Science can get things wrong, but on average I trust science to get it right.

Banning the Teaching creationism has far deeper implications than just the origins of the universe. At it's core it is censoring thought. Censoring thought is never a good thing for those who want to think for themselves.

People can be allowed to believe creationism without it being promoted in school. For the record in the poll I voted for it being taught in a religion class, as long as it didn't make it look like all Christians believed it.

Truthfully if it is all just a fairy tale then why is so feared? Why is it ban? Aren't fairy tales taught in school? Even in the later grades, I remember learning what they were about and the hidden meanings to some of them.

When fictions are taught in school they are taught as fiction though. The reason I dislike creationism isn't so much the belief itself, but what it stands for. It makes Christianity look irrelevant to the modern world (in the UK it is in more danger than the US), it makes us look like we believe myths to be real and so the resurrection could be just another myth Christians uncritically accept. If I didn't care about Christianity as a whole I wouldn#t care so much about creationism.

Still I respect your beliefs

 

[drich0150]

Still I respect your beliefs

We haven't discussed my beliefs yet. I honestly can say I do not believe that neither account is concise enough to carry any enough merit to spawn real faith. I believe that those who hang all of their faith on either account are only looking to be disappointed, or at the very least have their faith challenged.

My view is to understand both arguments and simply acknowledge that "I" do not know how creation happened. That way I am open to the possibility (how ever remote) that neither account is 100% correct or complete. That way if and when the truth is presented, my heart is free to accept it. And, I do not have to spend time arguing a system of belief even when it is shown to be incomplete, corruptible or flawed.

To me all who speak in an absolute to one form of belief or another are just like those who "knew" the earth was flat. Or that they "knew" that the sun revolved around the earth, or "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe... They "Knew" these things because someone they thought to be smarter, told them to think this way.. (Do you see a pattern?) It truly makes me wonder how much we "know" now, if we are so willing to condemn ourself to repeat the mistakes of our forefathers.

What is the point of your education if you have to sell your mind/independent thought to obtain it?

I respect your right to believe what you have been taught.

 

[If Not For Grace]

creationism, evolution and the big bang are all theories.

and should be taught as such

 

[solarwave]

We haven't discussed my beliefs yet. I honestly can say I do not believe that neither account is concise enough to carry any enough merit to spawn real faith. I believe that those who hang all of their faith on either account are only looking to be disappointed, or at the very least have their faith challenged.

Well you believe that creationism should be taught. Only Christian creationism?

For me to say that I believe the scientific account doesn't mean what they currently say is 100%, just that it is roughly correct.

To me all who speak in an absolute to one form of belief or another are just like those who "knew" the earth was flat. Or that they "knew" that the sun revolved around the earth, or "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe... They "Knew" these things because someone they thought to be smarter, told them to think this way.. (Do you see a pattern?) It truly makes me wonder how much we "know" now, if we are so willing to condemn ourself to repeat the mistakes of our forefathers.

But we do know that the earth is round now and the knowledge we have now of this fact is different from the 'knowledge' they had back then. They didn't say these things based on science but on religion or philosophy.

What is the point of your education if you have to sell your mind/independent thought to obtain it?

Unless you live for hundreds of years it would be hard to learn everything necessary to be able to understand everything to its deepest details. You should think, but also have faith that the experts arn't lying or idiots.

 

[mulimulix]

I don't believe that the idea of the universe just magically appearing out of nothing or fish becoming monkeys becoming men is the truth.

Now you are demonstrating your lack of understanding! You appear to know nothing about the thing you are arguing against if you believe the Big Bang states the universe magically appeared and fish turned into monkeys and monkeys turned into men. You need to look up about these two theories. And I say 'Theories' not in the term of an unverified hypothesis, but as a verified hypothesis; the evidence of which is clear, verifiable and easily accessible.

In fact, you are the one that believes the universe magically appeared out of nothing.

If your intent was not to insult her, then why did you speak to her in such a demeaning and condescending way?

What is funny is that she hasn't even said anything about this, so it can't have been that bad. The point is that you cannot argue against something if you do not understand it; like you are doing.

Examples, please.

Here you go:

Hudson River Fish Evolve PCB Immunity
Birth of New Species Witnessed by Scientists | Wired Science | Wired.com

Again, argumentum ad populum/ad verecundiam. Again, it doesn't not matter who believes something or how many of them believe it. That is not evidence nor a sign of truth.

I am not using a fallacy! It is not a fallacy because there is evidence for it. It is only a fallacy if the reason you believe it is ONLY because a lot of other people do. I point out that the vast majority of scientists believe it because they are specialised in the thing being discussed and are thus more qualified to make a judgment than we are.

Well, that's a nice cop-out. Why don't you use that big ol' brain of yours to try to explain it to us lil' ol' mortals?

What? I am not saying I understand it. I know much of the basics; enough to understand the fundamentals of it, but to truly understand it, one must be qualified in the field. If you think this isn't valid, that is like saying you don't believe a building can be built because you don't know how to build it.

OK. So how is something that happened billions of years ago, according to you, being observed now? How is it being recreated under laboratory conditions?

Did you even bother looking at the link I posted RIGHT NEXT TO WHAT I WROTE? I'm not going to bother arguing if you just ignore the links I send which explain it perfectly.

Evolution is science.

Creationism is not.

Creationism does not belong in a science class.

Completely agreed. Even if you believe in Creationism, you should understand it isn't a science and thus shouldn't be taught in a science class.

 

[drich0150]

Well you believe that creationism should be taught. Only Christian creationism?

no, I personally welcome the Jewish account as well.

However, As i said all major accounts or theories should be examined.

For me to say that I believe the scientific account doesn't mean what they currently say is 100%, just that it is roughly correct.

So it is more a matter of faith, than a belief in truth? If this is the case then why argue for the supremacy of "Science" In the class room?

But we do know that the earth is round now and the knowledge we have now of this fact is different from the 'knowledge' they had back then. They didn't say these things based on science but on religion or philosophy.

The actual facts, or their origins are of a secondary importance next to the mind set that has one simply believing a "theory" because it is the most popular understanding of a specific event or subject matter.

Unless you live for hundreds of years it would be hard to learn everything necessary to be able to understand everything to its deepest details. You should think, but also have faith that the experts aren't lying or idiots

-Or-
One simply does not represent all "facts/theories" as Absolutes/Truths.

You are arguing for a system that currently controls popular thought, understanding, and ALL non-God related beliefs. To which you are advocating that we simply hand over the keys to our minds to those who you have deemed "trustworthy, and/or Educated." (what if they are not?)

Why not retain those keys look at the all of the evidence for yourself and then decide? Why do you have such a reckless need to hand over your ability to think for yourself? It is like all of the mind controlling indoctrinating things people accuse the church of, can be found in the worship of science and history, and yet no one can seem to identify this form of indoctrination, or they risk being labeled the equivalent of a heretic.

Look bottom line, most of the worlds governments think as you have been taught to think, so in the end you prevail. I am only pointing to the cost. If you do not like the cost don't argue with the man holding the receipt, simply take back what you do not want or need.

 

[mulimulix]

But it should be taught in public school?

If there's no religion class, then creationism simply cannot be taught. If the parents have a problem with this, then send them to a Christian school or teach them yourselves; simple as that.

 

[drich0150]

If there's no religion class, then creationism simply cannot be taught. If the parents have a problem with this, then send them to a Christian school or teach them yourselves; simple as that.

And the veil falls closing the minds of all who do not have access to what you have suggested.. Those in the shadows will be lost to the whims and will of those whom claim to speak from a position of "science." Never knowing the depths of their own faith. In the end a faith in "facts and scientific theory" is still Faith. Making science class a religion in of itself.

I guess you can not see this as an indoctrination process.

 

[mulimulix]

Clearly, you do not understand what science is. I cannot fathom how science is a religion and how you can compare science class to religion class. Please explain how/why you believe science is comparative to religion and I will tell you how it is incorrect.

And the veil falls closing the minds of all who do not have access to what you have suggested.. Those in the shadows will be lost to the whims and will of those whom claim to speak from a position of "science." Never knowing the depths of their own faith. In the end a faith in "facts and scientific theory" is still Faith. Making science class a religion in of itself.

I guess you can not see this as an indoctrination process.

Well, the fact is that creationism is not a science and surely you can accept that fact. As long as this remains, which will most likely be forever, unless there is a religion class, creationism has no place in school. If religion class were to be added to the public schooling curriculum, I would not object as it is quite interesting and a very big part of our culture and history, however, as long as it is not, it cannot be taught as there is no relevant class to teach it in.

I.e. If creationism was to be taught in science class, then what other sorts of unrelated topics could be taught in subjects?

 

[drich0150]

Clearly, you do not understand what science is. I cannot fathom how science is a religion and how you can compare science class to religion class. Please explain how/why you believe science is comparative to religion and I will tell you how it is incorrect.

I think I have a firm grasp of what Science is, and what it is marketed as. I simply do not acknowledge the advertised understanding of it. This is what happens when one is free to think outside of the standard indoctrination that has consumed your mind. I do not have to show the faith you do to believe in the different aspects of "science."

I do not have to hold the facts or theories of science in place of a deity to the role of infallibility. For me things or theories of a scientific nature can be wrong. Because they often are i look for other explanations. in the case of Origins I open my self to the account of creationism. something that can not be done unless you are willing to admit the fallible nature in your current belief. The point here is thought beyond what you have been taught to believe. None of which is possible if you only hold to what or how you have been told how to think.
(I have in detail outlined how science is like a religion, However I have hidden this work somewhere deep in this thread, and leave it to you to find it.)

Well, the fact is that creationism is not a science and surely you can accept that fact.

science is a faith that apposes Creationism yes.

As long as this remains, which will most likely be forever, unless there is a religion class, creationism has no place in school.

It all depends on the true purpose of education. If we are building a mindless tax payer, a consumer, and/or automatons who jump when they are told the sky is falling (or warming) then you are correct! we want people to think how we instruct them to think. We can only do this through a "thinkers" faith. to that end religion will not have a place in public schools. Because we must give the illusion of superiority and free thought but somehow retain ultimate control. This can only be done if we infiltrate the school system and eliminate any competing way of thinking other than what "we" want to program in. Yet we must have an ultimate authority that the "thinkers" will yield to, that will move them in the direction "we" want to move them.

since that seems to be where we currently are, i would say you have made an accurate assessment. which is why i made my original comment.

...And the veil falls...

If religion class were to be added to the public schooling curriculum, I would not object as it is quite interesting and a very big part of our culture and history, however, as long as it is not, it cannot be taught as there is no relevant class to teach it in.

Apparently, no one is able to classify it as History and or culture even though it plays such a big role in it... Hmmm Wonder why that is???

I.e. If creationism was to be taught in science class, then what other sorts of unrelated topics could be taught in subjects?

Is the "Science" of Origins an absolute? Can you say with 100% certainty that Origins happened in accordance to the current or most popular Theory? No? So your taking it on Faith that what you have been told is true? So Science is more about Faith in Facts, than Belief in Verifiable reproducible absolute truth 100% of the time?

Kinda sounds like a "religious" belief to me. If we are sharing "Faith" in a Science class then why is not All faith welcome in your opinion?

 

[mulimulix]

I think I have a firm grasp of what Science is, and what it is marketed as. I simply do not acknowledge the advertised understanding of it. This is what happens when one is free to think outside of the standard indoctrination that has consumed your mind. I do not have to show the faith you do to believe in the different aspects of "science."

I do not have to hold the facts or theories of science in place of a deity to the role of infallibility. For me things or theories of a scientific nature can be wrong. Because they often are i look for other explanations. in the case of Origins I open my self to the account of creationism. something that can not be done unless you are willing to admit the fallible nature in your current belief. The point here is thought beyond what you have been taught to believe. None of which is possible if you only hold to what or how you have been told how to think.
(I have in detail outlined how science is like a religion, However I have hidden this work somewhere deep in this thread, and leave it to you to find it.)
science is a faith that apposes Creationism yes.

I just...I...could not disagree with you more. I cannot put it any other way than saying "You're wrong." You can believe what you want, that is your right, but saying that science is a religion which require faith is just...I cannot explain it; it is just so inaccurate. I have never actually comes across a paragraph more wrong about something in recent memory. Let me attempt to explain:

Science is not a belief system, nor a belief; it is simply a way of finding things out about existence i.e. the universe (Big bang or general astronomy), volcanoes, weather, medicine etc. To compare science to religion, you are saying that scientific theories have little or no evidence to back them up. Lets see what would happen if this were applied to real life:

• Round Earth Theory - Yes, the Earth being round is also a theory, does this mean it is unproven? Yes, in science it does mean it is unproven because NOTHING can ever be 100% proven. So, I suppose it is also an invalid theory just like the theory of evolution?
• Gravity - Yes, this is also another scientific theory; the hypothesis being that large astronomical masses have a force which attracts other objects to it.
• Medical Science - What do you think brought the technology to give heart transplants or anesthetics or bionic limbs? That's right, science did all those things. Does that mean if you were to have cancer, you would not get treatment? To have treatment would be to have 'Faith' in science, would it not?
• Transport - Do I guess right when I say you drive a car...or catch a train or bus or even get a plane? Well, once upon a time these things didn't exist and you know what brought them into existence...? SCIENCE! So don't get in a car next time you need to get somewhere because you would be putting your life in the hands of this unreliable thing called 'Science'.
• Weather - Did you watch the weather report this morning? Once again, guess what is responsible for the technology which tells you if the game of baseball will be on tomorrow or not...
• Construction - You live in a house or apartment, most likely. Well, guess what, architecture uses science. Every apartment building, every skyscraper, every stadium, every bridge you see is a testament to science's advancements.
• Appliances - And, of course, the t.v, refrigerator, washing machine, dishwasher, sound system, dryer, oven, microwave, dvd player, dvds, computer and of course light bulbs in your home. But, we don't need those things, do we?
• Space Exploration - Were you around for the moon landing? If not, I'm sure you've seen footage of it. This is probably the greatest achievement in man's history; and what got man to the Moon in the first place? You guessed it...science.
  

But I'm sure you don't credit science for any of those things do you...?

 

[drich0150]

I just...I...could not disagree with you more. I cannot put it any other way than saying "You're wrong." You can believe what you want, that is your right, but saying that science is a religion which require faith is just...I cannot explain it; it is just so inaccurate. I have never actually comes across a paragraph more wrong about something in recent memory. Let me attempt to explain:

Science is not a belief system, nor a belief; it is simply a way of finding things out about existence i.e. the universe (Big bang or general astronomy), volcanoes, weather, medicine etc. To compare science to religion, you are saying that scientific theories have little or no evidence to back them up. Lets see what would happen if this were applied to real life:

• Round Earth Theory - Yes, the Earth being round is also a theory, does this mean it is unproven? Yes, in science it does mean it is unproven because NOTHING can ever be 100% proven. So, I suppose it is also an invalid theory just like the theory of evolution?
• Gravity - Yes, this is also another scientific theory; the hypothesis being that large astronomical masses have a force which attracts other objects to it.
• Medical Science - What do you think brought the technology to give heart transplants or anesthetics or bionic limbs? That's right, science did all those things. Does that mean if you were to have cancer, you would not get treatment? To have treatment would be to have 'Faith' in science, would it not?
• Transport - Do I guess right when I say you drive a car...or catch a train or bus or even get a plane? Well, once upon a time these things didn't exist and you know what brought them into existence...? SCIENCE! So don't get in a car next time you need to get somewhere because you would be putting your life in the hands of this unreliable thing called 'Science'.
• Weather - Did you watch the weather report this morning? Once again, guess what is responsible for the technology which tells you if the game of baseball will be on tomorrow or not...
• Construction - You live in a house or apartment, most likely. Well, guess what, architecture uses science. Every apartment building, every skyscraper, every stadium, every bridge you see is a testament to science's advancements.
• Appliances - And, of course, the t.v, refrigerator, washing machine, dishwasher, sound system, dryer, oven, microwave, dvd player, dvds, computer and of course light bulbs in your home. But, we don't need those things, do we?
• Space Exploration - Were you around for the moon landing? If not, I'm sure you've seen footage of it. This is probably the greatest achievement in man's history; and what got man to the Moon in the first place? You guessed it...science.
  

But I'm sure you don't credit science for any of those things do you...?

Absolutely all of these thing can and rightfully so be attributed to science. But, there are many more "faith related" theories that can also be attributed to science. Your foolish assumption in your last post proves this point to a tee. You suppose because man was put on the moon, because we have electricity in our homes, and because you can list absolutes that have been labeled science, that all things that fall into this category are of the same caliber or deserve the same merit. when in fact they do not. Again your comparison proves this point far above and beyond anything i could possibly say, but I will try.

we are speaking about the FAITH you have in the "scientific" explanation of Origins. A topic by any measure is a faith based exercise. (Because nothing is documented, nothing is reproducible, nothing has been recorded.) So rather than address the direct amount of faith involved in accepting this theory as truth, you differ and point to all of the other absolutes science has provided.

How much self delusion does it take to glance over your own practice of faith to attack mine? Even in this attack you would have yourself believe that I writing on a computer (a marvel of Science math and electronics in of itself) posting to a world wide network of computers a greater undertaking of science electronics and mathematics That I can not see or recognize the absolutes found in these disciplines?

Perhaps the problem here is that you can not distinguish between the Absolutes of Science and the Faith one has to have in some science.. I know by the desperation in your argument, at this point you need me to be one of these people who look at all science is being bad or evil. Which is the furthest thing from the truth. as i have said in the beginning I am in a position to pick and choose what I want to believe or will accept what "science" tells me. I do not have to believe in the infallibility of all science, to believe in science as a whole. For example, I am most willing to accept the absolutes of science as scientific fact or a measure of truth. But at the same time just because someone associates themselves with those who put man on the moon does not mean their "science" is of the same caliber. Not all Science is an Absolute. Some of it is just a best guess based on available information, that happens to be packaged as "Scientific fact."

It is this belief or the effort (as in your last post) to associate theory with scientific truth, and the pawning off of a theory as scientific truth, that i have identified as a "religious effort." Do not be ashamed this is how we are taught to perceive "science." Without anything to counter balance this indoctrination you have no way of discerning your beliefs or actions.

How else do you think they can sell us on environmental taxes, carbon credits, Ozone safe refrigerants, alternative energies, when they cost 10xs the conventional stuff? You are caught up in a multi trillion dollar world wide industry. This stuff makes our world economies work. It also makes us completely dependent on the powers that be. So Yes, you are right we should not allow anything in the public schools that does not promote pre approved thought! If and when that happens we should teach our children to chastise and mock all that is not familiar to them. We need more drones to pay these new taxes and buy our new products without thought or question!

 

[novembermike]

science is a faith that apposes Creationism yes.

Science is a method of evaluating a hypothesis. Creationism is a hypothesis that can be evaluated this way, and it usually fails (geological evidence implies that plants (Gen 1:11) came after the moon (Gen 1:16), and that the Earth is more than 4000 some odd years old). The other major problem with creationism is that it isn't particularly useful as a prediction tool, but that isn't a problem as far as scientific validity goes.

Also, Evolution is a pretty strong scientific theory (I hate using that word because people use the lay meaning when Theory is about as strong of a word as Law). It's much stronger than the Theory of Gravity, for example.

 

[mulimulix]

Absolutely all of these thing can and rightfully so be attributed to science. But, there are many more "faith related" theories that can also be attributed to science. Your foolish assumption in your last post proves this point to a tee. You suppose because man was put on the moon, because we have electricity in our homes, and because you can list absolutes that have been labeled science, that all things that fall into this category are of the same caliber or deserve the same merit. when in fact they do not. Again your comparison proves this point far above and beyond anything i could possibly say, but I will try.

No! They are not unrelated examples because the point I am trying to make is that science has proven itself time and time again to be mainly trustworthy. Religion has failed to do this. Never has religion been an asset to the knowledge of humanity and helped create technologies which have been beneficial on a scale that science has...Oh, wait, except for the Inquisition, if you call that beneficial...

Science's proven track record isn't the only reason I believe basically all of its theories; IT HAS EVIDENCE (yet another thing religion lacks). There is substantial proof that all of the aforementioned theories, inventions are valid and reliable and you do not question that, you said it yourself. Evolution and the Big Bang are no different. The only reason you choose to find reasons why they are not valid is because they conflict with your already implemented unsupported beliefs. If you looked at these two theories from a neutral perspective you would see that they are almost completely proven. You do not take exception to the other theories/inventions I mentioned before because they do not conflict with your other beliefs.

Science is a method of evaluating a hypothesis. Creationism is a hypothesis that can be evaluated this way, and it usually fails (geological evidence implies that plants (Gen 1:11) came after the moon (Gen 1:16), and that the Earth is more than 4000 some odd years old). The other major problem with creationism is that it isn't particularly useful as a prediction tool, but that isn't a problem as far as scientific validity goes.

Also, Evolution is a pretty strong scientific theory (I hate using that word because people use the lay meaning when Theory is about as strong of a word as Law). It's much stronger than the Theory of Gravity, for example.

Yes, definitely. I agree with everything you just said.

 

[drich0150]

No! They are not unrelated examples because the point I am trying to make is that science has proven itself time and time again to be mainly trustworthy.

...And it is by this trust that you are trying to sell all of the un proven theories as scientific fact or of the same caliber. So that you do not have to admit to your faith. This is your religious effort. This is your faith. You believe in a best educated guess because as you put it "Science has proven itself time, and time again to be MAINLY trustworthy."

The "Mainly trust worthy" bit is your faith. A faith in facts is still faith. Belief and faith equals a religious effort. This is where Hard science becomes religion.

Religion has failed to do this. Never has religion been an asset to the knowledge of humanity and helped create technologies which have been beneficial on a scale that science has...Oh, wait, except for the Inquisition, if you call that beneficial...

A foolish comparison when we are discussing the faith in facts you will not acknowledge.

Science's proven track record isn't the only reason I believe basically all of its theories; IT HAS EVIDENCE (yet another thing religion lacks).

Actually no, Religion has evidence, but is has been deemed unscientific.. It is like a Muslim looking at a Christian and asking him to prove the Christianity is correct using Muslim standards. Your faith (Not Hard Science) is designed to Identify and dismiss God. So why would their be scientific evidence to the contrary. After a few hundred years i believe those of your faith have perfected it to completely exclude God.

There is substantial proof that all of the aforementioned theories, inventions are valid and reliable and you do not question that, you said it yourself. Evolution and the Big Bang are no different.

Again pairing an absolute or verifiable data, to an unknown quantity. Your actions would disgust someone who truly held science to a high standard. Some of which have already posted a message to the contrary of your last statement.

The only reason you choose to find reasons why they are not valid is because they conflict with your already implemented unsupported beliefs.

No, because what i believe is verifiable data.. I have or refuse to put a believers faith into the uncertain areas of science as you have.

If you looked at these two theories from a neutral perspective you would see that they are almost completely proven.

You quantify this whole statement on a variable.. (almost completely proven) What fool does not see this as a leap of faith?

You do not take exception to the other theories/inventions I mentioned before because they do not conflict with your other beliefs.

They do not conflict with my beliefs because these findings are built on verifiable reproducible data.. All I have done is put the proper amount of doubt and a health amount of skepticism back into science where it belongs...

Look if you need to view science as an infallible crutch so that you may thumb your nose at God, then by all means do so. Just do not seek my blessing to do it.
You don't seem to understand or are not willing acknowledge what's being discussed here. either way I believe we have hit a wall you can not over come. you seem to be bent on pursuing a argument that has painted me living in a medieval cave, afraid of what i do not understand despite what i actually say, and you have apparently been indoctrinated to the point you can not see your own faith.

So, to pursue this topic with you any further will be a pointless endeavor (Unless you can show true change.) Just know in your heart of hearts on the day of your judgment, When God asks why did not not show faith in my Son Jesus the Christ, you can not fall back on the imperial evidences of almighty science. Because as of May 19th 2011 You have been shown that you have the same faith in science that God requires you to have in Christ. You simply do not want to believe anything you have not already accepted. Or you can not accept anything you have not been told it is ok to accept, Which is exactly why we need to have something other than "science" defining how we perceive data and dictate how ultimately interact within our societies.

 

[mulimulix]

Entire last post

This is actually quite unbelievable. I am actually, genuinely flabbergasted at what you are saying. You are saying that I am indoctrinated. Lets take a look at the definition of 'Indoctrination':

"Teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically."

If you believe science has doctrines, you truly do not understand what science is. Science CANNOT have doctrines because no theory is set in stone; they can change at any time with the presence of added/falsified evidence.

More importantly, the whole objective of science is to look at things critically. If things weren't looked at critically in science, the Sun would still be 'Revolving' around Earth, the Earth would still be flat etc.

Let me set the record straight:

No one is born and told by their parents that science is the way and you must obey what it says. I was born into a relatively secular household; my mum still does not know anything about evolution or the big bang as she has no interest and my dad has only found out recently. I do not see how I was indoctrinated. If my parents didn't do it, who did?

Regarding the evidence you claim religion has which is unscientific, I am guessing you are referring to things like personal experiences. If not, the historical evidence is certainly lacking. The thing with personal experience is that is CANNOT BE VERIFIED BY ANYONE ELSE. If someone came up to me and said "Hey, god just spoke to me!" I'd question it, but no matter how much I question it, there will never be more evidence than just "I heard/saw him." And this evidence will not hold up in any investigation. If you go to a court and say "This man robbed me" with no other evidence except for a missing lamp (let's say) and this claim, this man would not be found guilty because it cannot be verified! Yes, personal experience is not scientific evidence, but it is not evidence for anyone EXCEPT the person it happened to.

Regarding the trustworthiness claim, I have this analogy:

You have two people advising you on, say, the stock market. One person is a qualified stock broker who has been in the stock market for 30 years with a proven track record who says to invest in company A and shows you the upward trend it has gone in the past year and the other is someone who has never been involved in the stock market in his life who is telling you to invest in Company B and shows you that the price has not changed in the past year. They are both telling you to invest in different things. Which one do you trust? Obviously, you are more likely to trust the qualified person as he has experience and knows what he is talking about, whereas the other man may know what he is talking about, but you can't be sure. The same thing goes for evolution/big bang. You have two people telling you something; one is a professor in biology and the other is average man. The professor shows you transitional fossils and DNA evidence which show that present day animals have a common ancestor. The other man says "No, no, the professor is wrong, transitional fossils don't exist, cats can't turn into dogs." Now who do you trust...?

 

[drich0150]

This is actually quite unbelievable. I am actually, genuinely flabbergasted at what you are saying. You are saying that I am indoctrinated. Lets take a look at the definition of 'Indoctrination':

"Teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically."

If you believe science has doctrines, you truly do not understand what science is. Science CANNOT have doctrines because no theory is set in stone; they can change at any time with the presence of added/falsified evidence.

More importantly, the whole objective of science is to look at things critically. If things weren't looked at critically in science, the Sun would still be 'Revolving' around Earth, the Earth would still be flat etc.

Let me set the record straight:

No one is born and told by their parents that science is the way and you must obey what it says. I was born into a relatively secular household; my mum still does not know anything about evolution or the big bang as she has no interest and my dad has only found out recently. I do not see how I was indoctrinated. If my parents didn't do it, who did?

Regarding the evidence you claim religion has which is unscientific, I am guessing you are referring to things like personal experiences. If not, the historical evidence is certainly lacking. The thing with personal experience is that is CANNOT BE VERIFIED BY ANYONE ELSE. If someone came up to me and said "Hey, god just spoke to me!" I'd question it, but no matter how much I question it, there will never be more evidence than just "I heard/saw him." And this evidence will not hold up in any investigation. If you go to a court and say "This man robbed me" with no other evidence except for a missing lamp (let's say) and this claim, this man would not be found guilty because it cannot be verified! Yes, personal experience is not scientific evidence, but it is not evidence for anyone EXCEPT the person it happened to.

Regarding the trustworthiness claim, I have this analogy:

You have two people advising you on, say, the stock market. One person is a qualified stock broker who has been in the stock market for 30 years with a proven track record who says to invest in company A and shows you the upward trend it has gone in the past year and the other is someone who has never been involved in the stock market in his life who is telling you to invest in Company B and shows you that the price has not changed in the past year. They are both telling you to invest in different things. Which one do you trust? Obviously, you are more likely to trust the qualified person as he has experience and knows what he is talking about, whereas the other man may know what he is talking about, but you can't be sure. The same thing goes for evolution/big bang. You have two people telling you something; one is a professor in biology and the other is average man. The professor shows you transitional fossils and DNA evidence which show that present day animals have a common ancestor. The other man says "No, no, the professor is wrong, transitional fossils don't exist, cats can't turn into dogs." Now who do you trust...?

I have answered each and every one of your posts line by line, point by point. and you have opted to speak in generalities and have attempted to redirect the conversation, by ignoring each and every one of my points In favor of trying to re-frame my argument to one you are prepared to argue.

I point to your faith, and you only point to the popular negativities in mine. all the while ignoring The faith you have built around science.

Understand this one last effort. Science in of itself is not a religion, the indoctrination of those who "religiously follow the tenements or worship the infallibility of Science" is The religion I speak of.

 

[mulimulix]

I have answered each and every one of your posts line by line, point by point. and you have opted to speak in generalities and have attempted to redirect the conversation, by ignoring each and every one of my points In favor of trying to re-frame my argument to one you are prepared to argue.

I point to your faith, and you only point to the popular negativities in mine. all the while ignoring The faith you have built around science.

Understand this one last effort. Science in of itself is not a religion, the indoctrination of those who "religiously follow the tenements or worship the infallibility of Science" is The religion I speak of.

Can you please explain to me what you definition of faith is? I have heard many different versions of this and just want to clear it up.

 

[Faulty]

Since God created the heavens and the earth, then it's truth and should be taught just as anything else factual is taught.