Since they're saying it's just an alternative scientific theory and that no religion is involved, where will they get their ideas? They can't teach Genesis, so what will they say?
Since they're saying it's just an alternative scientific theory and that no religion is involved, where will they get their ideas? They can't teach Genesis, so what will they say?
They didn't plan that far ahead. That's where Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in.
You beat me to it. But most certainly, "Intelligent Design" is the trojan wrapper with which creationists hope to smuggle their preferred theology into the world of science education.Actually they did plan somewhat. They did a find ("creationism") and replace ("Intelligent Design") search on Of Pandas and People. However, the Dover trial took care of that.
They would teach whatever science they have that shows the Bible is true. For example, the Bible says "In the Beginning" Science also says there is a beginning. So they would teach what science says about a beginning. The Bible talks about "heaven and earth" So in a science class they can talk about what science has to say about a heaven and earth. The first three heavens is the atmosphere around the earth. Science has a lot to say about our atmosphere and science has a lot to say about the earth we live on.Since they're saying it's just an alternative scientific theory and that no religion is involved, where will they get their ideas? They can't teach Genesis, so what will they say?
It depends on what you mean by "Creationism" The Bible does not have very much to say about it compared to what science has to say. But you can use science to understand a lot of different things that we find in our Bible. You can use science to help us to better understand the Bible.shoot, there is no way Creationism should be taught in a science classroom.
It depends on what you mean by "Creationism" The Bible does not have very much to say about it compared to what science has to say. But you can use science to understand a lot of different things that we find in our Bible. You can use science to help us to better understand the Bible.
The Science book and the Bible are both important in how we live this life. The Bible talks about "eternity" and how we can live forever or throughout all the ages. Science knows a little bit about some of the different ages, so science can help us to understand that.
Why not? As long as you are teaching the truth and it is science. In Christ we live and breath and have our being. We do not stop living and breathing and being just because we walk into a science class. If we are a Christian that that is going to be a part of our experance of science.don't get me wrong. I'm a bible believing creationist. I feel that teaching it in the science classroom, however, can only lead to one of a few unhappy results.
No.I dont see a problem shouldnt we try and teach every viewpoint to our children?
No.
To clarify, we don't teach different viewpoints of history (eg holocaust denial) and we don't teach alternate "theories" that aren't supported by evidence (eg Flat earth). School is not the place for such debates of alternate viewpoints, school is a place where kids should be given the information agreed on at the top levels of the field they are being taught.
I am sure that all the top level creationists will agree to the lessons.
Where did matter energy come from?
It is believed to have always existed and it expanded and exploded and the earth was created.
I believe that God has always existed and by his will the earth was created.
At the core they are both based on assumptions.
Why not? As long as you are teaching the truth and it is science. In Christ we live and breath and have our being. We do not stop living and breathing and being just because we walk into a science class. If we are a Christian that that is going to be a part of our experance of science.
Of course we do not want to teach something that is not true, and that is the fear people have. There seems to be a big debate between creationist and scientist, each accusing the other of not being "true".
Fortunately what top-level creationists believe is completely irrelevant to science, which developes laws, hypotheses and theories based on observation, falsifiability and repeated testing. As such, creationism has no place being taught alongside any science, except perhaps in "history and philosophy of science" class, which I've only seen offered at university level to date. In that class it would be an interesting comparison between creationism and science as methods of investigating the natural world.
We can see evidence of matter expanding froma central point in the universe, and there are hypotheses about what caused that expansion based on the available evidence that anyone can go out and look at with the right equipment.
No, they're not. Science is based on evidence, creationism is based on faith.
Well thats one opinion.
Right I never said it didnt exist...but how come it has just always existed?
So what evidence is there that matter energy always existed? What was the control that showed that matter energy cannot simply exist?
Seems to me like it is taken on evidence that "points" towards a particular theory being correct as there is no certain way of knowing.
There are a lot of things in the Bible that can be explained by natural cause. Some people think that natural cause can explain all of the Bible.Because unfortunately as it stands, science does not include anything that is explained outside of natural cause.
Creationism is going to be taught though.The reasons to not teach creationism in a science class are good though.
Science is based on evidence, so yes, it "is taken on evidence that points towards a particular theory". Don't know why you would object to this though!