If you want kids to learn creation science, show how you'd teach it.

[Jase]

um, there are reasons why helium balloos, air planes, and the space shuttle do fly..

But there is no way for a human to fly on his own other than breaking the natural laws.

edit: (well, I wouldn't know what the future holds, so, it's impossible for now ><)

Jesus' ressurection was a supernatural event. What does the law of gravity have to do with it?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll quote something that I found interesting from Bouw's book:

Interesting perspective. I've always though of those Laws as existing to serve man, but at the beck and call of their Creator.

In the same manner that the Sabbath was for us ---

[bible]Mark 2:27[/bible]

The physical laws are subject to God ---

[bible]Mark 4:41[/bible]

Bouw's book mentions God violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (E=mc[sup]2[/sup]) at the Creation, but point-in-fact is that the 1st Law wasn't established until God rested on the 7th day from creating.

Also, you can add to that list of "violations" of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (^S[sub]universe[/sub]>0) the time when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness ---

[bible]Deuteronomy 29:5[/bible]

God wasn't made for these laws, these laws were made by God - for our benefit.

 

[Lord_Marx]

The only difference between evolutionists and creation scientists, is that evolutionists seek to understand the world seperate from God...and creationists seek to understand the world God has made.

That's not unique to evolutionists. Mathematicians, chemists, geologists, historians, (to name a few) all seek to understand the world separate from God. God exists outside the realm of human knowledge and is undetectable by any form of observation. So how can we possably include such an otherworldly being into our study of the worldly?

 

[AV1611VET]

So how can we possably include such an otherworldly being into our study of the worldly?

By studying the areas where God interfaced with His creation.

 

[RichardT]

Interesting perspective. I've always though of those Laws as existing to serve man, but at the beck and call of their Creator.

In the same manner that the Sabbath was for us ---

[bible]Mark 2:27[/bible]

The physical laws are subject to God ---

[bible]Mark 4:41[/bible]

Bouw's book mentions God violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (E=mc[sup]2[/sup]) at the Creation, but point-in-fact is that the 1st Law wasn't established until God rested on the 7th day from creating.

Also, you can add to that list of "violations" of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (^S[sub]universe[/sub]>0) the time when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness ---

[bible]Deuteronomy 29:5[/bible]

God wasn't made for these laws, these laws were made by God - for our benefit.

aw, I thought you would have agreed with me

Though another thing you should consider, where in the bible does it say that God has to be restrained by the "natural laws", plus, I will disagree with you that the "natural laws" were meant to be unbroken, these laws were made by humans, and thus, they are not infallible.

 

[Chalnoth]

Actually, as I understand it, Richard T's point is sort of trivially true. In relativity, all frames of reference are equivalent and you can certainly adjust the mathmatics of Newtonian physics such that they will work with a geocentric universe, we just choose to use the simpler transformation.

That being said, I won't even bother with a napkin calculation of the forces involved in stopping the sun in it's orbit.

Well, that's not really true, though. There are some reference frames that are clearly very different from others. Using the Earth as a reference frame, for instance, is great for describing things on and near the Earth, as the Earth is certainly the center of the system of the Earth and the artificial satellites surrounding it (it's not the center of the Earth-moon system, though, as the moon is massive enough to deflect the Earth significantly).

But when describing the solar system as a whole, you would never use a reference frame with the Earth as a center. The special point in the solar system is the sun. It is only by choosing the sun as the center of the system that your equations work out best.

But when describing the universe as a whole, you would never use a reference frame with the sun as a center. Actually, you don't use a reference frame with any point as the center. You instead use a reference frame for which the universe is homogeneous (the same everywhere) and isotropic (the same in every direction). The origin of the coordinate system in this case is completely irrelevant, as any place is as good as any other.

 

[Chalnoth]

I'm a homeschool mom and science is one of our favorite subjects. I think it is important that my children understand both evolution and creation theories. I also think it's important that they determine for themselves what they believe...and the only way they can do that is to receive as much information as possible. Have you ever noticed how both sides, evolutionists and christians, try to hide their children from the teachings of the other? I think it is more detrimental to try to brainwash our children into believing what we believe than it is to teach them everything there is to know about a subject and let them decide for themselves what they believe.

The public school system should be promoting open thinking...after all, it's the very principle our country was founded on. Makes you wonder what everyone's so afraid of, doesn't it??

Open thinking is important, but creationism isn't a science, as it doesn't ever hold itself to the scientific method.

One cannot ever get the point of science across by "brainwashing" students. If teaching a specific theory, like the theory of evolution, it is important to teach the physical process which the theory describes, the specific predictions the theory makes, and some specific experimental evidence in support of these predictions.

I'm sorry, but this statement about "brainwashing" clearly shows that you don't understand what science is all about. One cannot brainwash in science. Science is all about skepticism. It's about not being convinced of anything until you've seen the evidence for yourself. It's about not ever trusting one person or group's experiment, until that experiment has been verified by a completely independent group of people. And even then questioning whether or not the second group made sure to control their own experiment enough to keep from accidentally manipulating their own data to support the previous experiment.

If science is not taught in the above way, then the teacher has no business teaching science at all. Science isn't about facts and figures. It's about skepticism and investigation.

 

[Jase]

Bouw's book mentions God violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (E=mc[sup]2[/sup]) at the Creation, but point-in-fact is that the 1st Law wasn't established until God rested on the 7th day from creating.

The first law of thermodynamics is E=mc[sup]2[/sup]?

Also, you can add to that list of "violations" of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (^S[sub]universe[/sub]>0) the time when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness ---

How on Earth does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have anything to do with nomads wandering in the desert?

 

[RichardT]

The first law of thermodynamics is E=mc[sup]2[/sup]?

How on Earth does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have anything to do with nomads wandering in the desert?

Lol, I can't believe I completely missed that..

 

[Jelumismom]

That's not unique to evolutionists. Mathematicians, chemists, geologists, historians, (to name a few) all seek to understand the world separate from God. God exists outside the realm of human knowledge and is undetectable by any form of observation. So how can we possably include such an otherworldly being into our study of the worldly?

You're right, scientists are not alone in their effort to understand the world seperate from God. There are other subjects taught in school (history, literature) that conveniently leave out evidence of Christ's existence.

Also, I get what you're saying about worldly vs. unwordly. But there are plenty of things in science that are not of this world and that we cannot observe, but yet we believe in their existence. (ie - black holes) We hypothesize that they are there based on other evidence that points to the possibility of their existence. How is that different than creationists seeking to prove the existence of God, based on historical documentation of miracles, Jesus' death and resurrection, the great flood. All of these things point to evidence of the unworldly.

All that said&#8230;I'm okay with creation not being taught in the public science class, but I do have a problem with evolution being taught as fact, rather than theory. For me, that&#8217;s what it boils down to.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Jase]

Excellent...EXCELLENT topic!

My biggest complaint about the way schools teach science, specifically evolution, is that they present it as absolute truth, rather than theory.

Well, it's absolute truth that it occurs. I haven't heard of anyone claiming that the Theory of Evolution is perfect though. But considering it is the most well evidenced and supported theory in science, if it weren't a very accurate theory, that doesn't hold much promise for other theories like gravity, plate tectonics, etc.

All science, regardless of whether you believe in creation or not, is best guess based on the observations of the world around us. The only difference between evolutionists and creation scientists, is that evolutionists seek to understand the world seperate from God...and creationists seek to understand the world God has made.

Science shouldn't be combined with God. Creationists don't seek to understand anything about the world God made because they make blanket statements such as "if science disagrees with my interpretation of Genesis, it is wrong". That isn't science, nor is it intellectually honest.

Have you ever noticed how both sides, evolutionists and christians, try to hide their children from the teachings of the other?

Why do you make a distinction between evolutionists and christians? Evolutionist does not mean atheist. The majority of the 2+ billion Christians on Earth accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Jase]

You're right, scientists are not alone in their effort to understand the world seperate from God. There are other subjects taught in school (history, literature) that conveniently leave out evidence of Christ's existence.

Probably because there isn't a whole lot of evidence for it. I of course believe he existed, but it doesn't exactly have overwhelming evidence supporting it.

Also, I get what you're saying about worldly vs. unwordly. But there are plenty of things in science that are not of this world and that we cannot observe, but yet we believe in their existence. (ie - black holes) We hypothesize that they are there based on other evidence that points to the possibility of their existence. How is that different than creationists seeking to prove the existence of God, based on historical documentation of miracles, Jesus' death and resurrection, the great flood. All of these things point to evidence of the unworldly.

The only "evidence" of these things is contained in the Bible, and saying events in the Bible occurred because the Bible says so is circular logic. We can see the effects of the gravitational pull of a black hole. We can't see any evidence of a global flood. In fact, we can clearly see evidence that completely contradicts a global flood.

All that said&#8230;I'm okay with creation not being taught in the public science class, but I do have a problem with evolution being taught as fact, rather than theory. For me, that&#8217;s what it boils down to.

Thanks for your reply.

But evolution is both a fact and a theory. Do you understand what is meant in science by fact and theory? I can provide a good summary explaining them if you're interested.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Well, that's not really true, though. There are some reference frames that are clearly very different from others. Using the Earth as a reference frame, for instance, is great for describing things on and near the Earth, as the Earth is certainly the center of the system of the Earth and the artificial satellites surrounding it (it's not the center of the Earth-moon system, though, as the moon is massive enough to deflect the Earth significantly).

But when describing the solar system as a whole, you would never use a reference frame with the Earth as a center. The special point in the solar system is the sun. It is only by choosing the sun as the center of the system that your equations work out best.

But when describing the universe as a whole, you would never use a reference frame with the sun as a center. Actually, you don't use a reference frame with any point as the center. You instead use a reference frame for which the universe is homogeneous (the same everywhere) and isotropic (the same in every direction). The origin of the coordinate system in this case is completely irrelevant, as any place is as good as any other.

I think you missed my point, though you restated it succinctly at the end:

The origin of the coordinate system in this case is completely irrelevant, as any place is as good as any other.

Bouw's argument is only trivially true because there is no way of defining an absolute center or origin.

 

[Tiphereth]

Greetings and Salutations,

You're right, scientists are not alone in their effort to understand the world seperate from God. There are other subjects taught in school (history, literature) that conveniently leave out evidence of Christ's existence.

.They leave out supernatural claims because those claims are not actually subject to objective investigation. Faith is required for a reason.

Also, I get what you're saying about worldly vs. unwordly. But there are plenty of things in science that are not of this world and that we cannot observe, but yet we believe in their existence. (ie - black holes) We hypothesize that they are there based on other evidence that points to the possibility of their existence. How is that different than creationists seeking to prove the existence of God, based on historical documentation of miracles, Jesus' death and resurrection, the great flood. All of these things point to evidence of the unworldly.

You misunderstand. We do not need to see something directly with our senses to understand that it is there. By that logic, pencils do indeed warp miraculously when we insert them in water and re-assume their natural shape when removed from water. The flaw in your argument is that you ignore that observations can either be direct or indirect. Black holes are indirect observations, for example.

However, the Bible and other claims of the supernatural cannot be subject to scientific scrutiny because such supernatural entities are not investigatable in an empirical manner.

All that said…I'm okay with creation not being taught in the public science class, but I do have a problem with evolution being taught as fact, rather than theory. For me, that’s what it boils down to.

You misunderstand the word "theory." In science, a theory is not something uncertain or something that is mere conjecture - in a scientific context, a theory is any well-supported explanation of a broad range of related phenomena observed either directly or indirectly. Well known theories include atomic theory, cell theory, germ theory, Big Bang theory, et cetra.

A fact in science is any well-supported phenomenon that is observed consistently such that it would, to quote Gould, "perverse to withold provisional consent." In this manner, evolution is a theory in that it explains the diversity of life and the change life undergoes. But evolution is also a fact in there is the universal observation of the non-static nature of life.

 

[TooCurious]

Though another thing you should consider, where in the bible does it say that God has to be restrained by the "natural laws", plus, I will disagree with you that the "natural laws" were meant to be unbroken, these laws were made by humans, and thus, they are not infallible.

It really isn't accurate to say that natural laws were "made by humans." Humans have discovered the laws of physics, certainly; they have studied them, examined them, and put them into words. But humans did not create or originate the natural laws by which the universe functions. The speed of light, for instance, is entirely independent of human consent. Gravity worked perfectly well before people ever thought to put a name to it--even before there were people to do the naming. Humans might imperfectly describe the fundamental principles of physics, but that doesn't have any effect on the principles themselves, or whether or not they can be "broken."

 

[Chalnoth]

Also, I get what you're saying about worldly vs. unwordly. But there are plenty of things in science that are not of this world and that we cannot observe, but yet we believe in their existence. (ie - black holes) We hypothesize that they are there based on other evidence that points to the possibility of their existence. How is that different than creationists seeking to prove the existence of God, based on historical documentation of miracles, Jesus' death and resurrection, the great flood. All of these things point to evidence of the unworldly.

Oh, it's very, very different. In science, you first have a theory (that is likely to be based on some other evidence), then within that theory you make a prediction that is testable. In this situation, general relativity predicts that black holes can exist (providing a process for their production is a different discipline), and provides a number of very specific predictions as to the properties such black holes would have that we could possibly measure from Earth. Then we go out and look for astronomical objects with these specific properties.

The exact same thing is true of electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos, and the entire zoo of subatomic particles. Nobody has actually seen any one of these things: we have a theoretical model that provides a physical explanation for the observations. If new observations showed that our old theories were incorrect, we might completely transform our descriptions of these objects.

Attempting to do the same with religion acts in complete reverse. The doctrine provides an explanation, and people modify how they view the physical evidence to try to fit within this explanation, instead of allowing the physical evidence to change what they think about how the world works.

Edit: It is worth noting that a change in our fundamental theories may change our descriptions of these objects, but it will never change the fact that they exist. There are, for example, objects which have all of the properties of black holes that we can measure, such as the supermassive black holes that exist at the center of galaxies. If a change in physics tells us that these aren't really black holes, but something else, this doesn't change the fact that these objects we currently think are black holes are really out there to be observed. It just changes what we consider them to be.

In a similar way, evolution is undeniable. The evidence that it has happened is incontrovertable (unless you want to believe in a deceptive God), the only questions remaining are the exact mechanisms.

 

[AV1611VET]

The first law of thermodynamics is E=mc[sup]2[/sup]?

Yes

How on Earth does the 2nd law of thermodynamics have anything to do with nomads wandering in the desert?

God suspended it for the benefit of those "nomads wandering in the desert" --- aka His chosen people.

[bible]Deuteronomy 29:5[/bible]

 

[Hermit]

AV1611VET, could you tell me what the second law of thermodynamics is and what it implicates, in your own words?

 

[TheBellman]

You bet'cha!

That would be our main textbook.

Which is why what you would be teaching would be religion, not science.

 

[TheBellman]

Have you ever noticed how both sides, evolutionists and christians, try to hide their children from the teachings of the other?

No. I've noticed how 'evolutionists' don't want creationism taught AS SCIENCE, because it's not science. Creationists, on the other hand (not Christians - most Christians accept evolution) don't want evolution taught at all.