How many creationists practise what they preach?

[VirOptimus]

If i believed everything that science said, i would believe that God isn't real, -snip-

As god(s) is a metaphysical concept and therefore not part of the physical world science does not help us determining wheter god(s) exists or not.

 

[OzSpen]

Creationists ask that the schools should 'Teach both sides' meaning teach creationism along with evolution in the science class.

How many creationists here teach their home schooled children both sides?
How many creationists here are happy that their children are taught about evolution in school then teach them about creationism at home?

I sure hope creationist parents who home school their children are engaged in the equipping ministry (age appropriate) of children being exposed to the theory of evolution along with its refutation.

Showing the children the holes in that way of thinking is critical for them when they leave homeschooling and enter the world of university or employment. The enemies' tools should be explained and exposed by knowledgeable and caring Christian parents.

Oz

 

[Dave-W]

Should someone show their kids a video on how to make a pipe bomb, then let them make up their own minds?

I checked out a book (and read it) from my jr high school library (8th grade) entitled "How to Make an Atomic Bomb in your Kitchen Sink."

It gave us all the details with 2 exceptions: the EXACT number for critical mass, and WHERE to obtain fissable Plutonium.

 

[AV1611VET]

I sure hope creationist parents who home school their children are engaged in the equipping ministry (age appropriate) of children being exposed to the theory of evolution along with its refutation.

Showing the children the holes in that way of thinking is critical for them when they leave homeschooling and enter the world of university or employment. The enemies' tools should be explained and exposed by knowledgeable and caring Christian parents.

Oz

I disagree.

I think a child should know Genesis 1 and how it pwns evolution; and that should be good enough.

Giving too much air time to evolution just stirs the pot too much.

 

[Tree of Life]

Why should science have to recognize a religious culture in it's work?

Public schools ought to recognize the dominant cultural narrative. Especially when they teach something that apparently does not comply with it. That's just good pedagogy 101. When I teach the Bible I make sure that I'm contrasting it with the dominant views of the culture. Otherwise the teaching is not very affective or practical.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm not sure, based on this post, that you have an accurate point of view about the dominant narrative of western culture.

On the other hand, it is of course appropriate at the high school level to acknowledge the conflicting religious views that exist. And how we need to allow people to have those views.

Science needs to be taught along with evidence for the science and if some parts of the science happen to be against a student's religion, the student merely needs to be challenged to be aware of what the science is, including the evidence, instead of being forced to accept the science.

By "dominant cultural narrative" I mean the narrative that has dominated the west over the past millennia.

But I agree. This is why when evolution is taught in public schools it ought to be taught in a way that acknowledges the apparent difficulties for religious people. Otherwise it's just intellectual imperialism.

 

[Extraneous]

American history is taught in public schools as well, but that history is not always an "exact science", so to speak. Like evolution, american history has been tainted by mans unholy thinking. History is riddled with propaganda.

 

[Extraneous]

As god(s) is a metaphysical concept and therefore not part of the physical world science does not help us determining wheter god(s) exists or not.

Thats the problem with science, it only sees natural things, but cannot see into mans soul. Even then it cant see properly. TO science, love is just a chemical reaction, or electrical response in the brain. If effect science turns man into a robot. Science also turns man into nothing but an animal.

 

[Extraneous]

Science is actually blind in many ways. It sees only chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the human brain, but it really has no understanding of what they mean. To science things like depression are only chemical imbalances, therefore science is blind, and ends up doping mans brain with various cocktails of various drugs, which actually do as much harm as they do good. In effect, science is like a medieval butcher.

 

[CarlaB]

Science is actually blind in many ways. It sees only chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the human brain, but it really has no understanding of what they mean. To science things like depression are only chemical imbalances, therefore science is blind, and ends up doping mans brain with various cocktails of various drugs, which actually do as much harm as they do good. In effect, science is like a medieval butcher.

Become a Jehovah's witnesses then you won't ever need the services of medieval butcher again prayer will be all you will need, or stay as you are and visit one every time you get sick, or die, the choice is yours.
Science is only blind to mans imagination.

 

[Extraneous]

Become a Jehovah's witnesses then you won't ever need the services of medieval butcher again prayer will be all you will need, or stay as you are and visit one every time you get sick, or die, the choice is yours.
Science is only blind to mans imagination.

Im not in agreement with them either. Science is blind to its own blindness. Its like a blind man in denial, walking toward a cliff. He says, "I can see, im not blind!", yet he walks toward his own destruction.

 

[Loudmouth]

Public schools ought to recognize the dominant cultural narrative. Especially when they teach something that apparently does not comply with it. That's just good pedagogy 101. When I teach the Bible I make sure that I'm contrasting it with the dominant views of the culture. Otherwise the teaching is not very affective or practical.

The dominant cultural narrative does not determine the accuracy of theories in science. One of the best lessons one can learn in science is to put your beliefs to the side and follow the evidence.

 

[Tree of Life]

The dominant cultural narrative does not determine the accuracy of theories in science. One of the best lessons one can learn in science is to put your beliefs to the side and follow the evidence.

Maybe so. But how do you put your beliefs aside if you never acknowledge them and acknowledge where the evidence seems to be in discord with them?

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe so. But how do you put your beliefs aside if you never acknowledge them and acknowledge where the evidence seems to be in discord with them?

Why would you need to acknowledge your beliefs in science? You follow the evidence, not your beliefs.

 

[Extraneous]

Why would you need to acknowledge your beliefs in science? You follow the evidence, not your beliefs.

Atheists, regardless of their denial, do not follow your words here.

 

[CarlaB]

Maybe so. But how do you put your beliefs aside if you never acknowledge them and acknowledge where the evidence seems to be in discord with them?

Your beliefs are just that, beliefs, they are not backed by evidence that's why they are called beliefs, you can not teach others about your beliefs because those beliefs are peculiar to you, all others can do is imagine what you believe but they can never really know, they therefore must imagine their own beliefs in their own minds, that ultimately means that no two beliefs are the same and your God and theirs is unlike any other Gods ever imagined before.

 

[CarlaB]

Atheists, regardless of their denial, do not follow your words here.

Atheists follow the evidence because they have no gods to follow, what else can anyone who lives in the real world do?

 

[Loudmouth]

Atheists, regardless of their denial, do not follow your words here.

What evidence do they not follow?

 

[Loudmouth]

Atheists follow the evidence because they have no gods to follow, what else can anyone who lives in the real world do?

Christians can't follow the evidence?

 

[Tree of Life]

Why would you need to acknowledge your beliefs in science? You follow the evidence, not your beliefs.

Well. We're not really talking about "science", strictly speaking. We're talking about education and, more specifically, public schooling. It's just good pedagogy to recognize our current beliefs and dominate cultural beliefs as we learn new ideas.