S
So you're saying that if I'm a teacher in a senior geology class, for example, talking about the origin of the Earth and the Universe, I should not be allowed to say that an alternate belief to the Big Bang theory proposed by astrophysicists is that God created it?
Sorry, I couldn't do that- I take as many opportunities as I can to tell others about God.
As a parent of a student at a Christian school, I would expect that teachers would take every opportunity to bring God into every aspect of my child's education.
I am quite surprised that some of you Christians feel differently.
I don't think that comparing God's role in creation to the possibility of space aliens building the pyramids is an appropriate comparison for a Christian to be making.
25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
As a parent of a student at a Christian school, I would expect that teachers would take every opportunity to bring God into every aspect of my child's education.
I am quite surprised that some of you Christians feel differently.
I don't think that comparing God's role in creation to the possibility of space aliens building the pyramids is an appropriate comparison for a Christian to be making.
Rhetoric isn't a scientific principle, I guess that by your own logic you have no knowledge of it either. Oh wait, your comment isn't valid since it isn't based on the laws of nature. Oh crap.I question whether you really should be teaching science *at all*, since you are displaying total ignorance of what is at the core of science.
Science is about evidence based reasoning. That is the ability to make observations in nature (which should be appearing in your class as simple experiments) and make inductive and reasonable generalizations from them.
It is not about memorizing a bunch of laws and theorems out of a book.
If I taught a science class and a student couldn't remember any law or theorem, but could do an experiment and draw reasonable and correct conclusions from it and apply them in other situations, then I would say that student could be a brilliant scientist, and constituted a success. A student which memorized every law and theorem from the book but couldn't look at the evidence to reach a conclusion at all would be a failure.
I can only see one viewing ID as a perfectly good scientific theory if they were viewing science as nothing more than memorizing laws and theorems out of a book.
Heck, as long as you are memorizing doctrines you may as well memorize alternative doctrines since at no level do you care whether the doctrines have anything to do with reality.
Rhetoric isn't a scientific principle, I guess that by your own logic you have no knowledge of it either. Oh wait, your comment isn't valid since it isn't based on the laws of nature. Oh crap.
The problem is how do you DEFINE science. Since most people like yourself seem to have a neomaterialist definition of it. And ID applies to your own definition, an intelligent designed structured the universe. It doesn't directly imply it's God...although I think it's the best bet.
If you really believe the notion of a creator is scientific, *and* you believe in the scientific method, then you have to be prepared to say "I will no longer believe in God, if the scientific evidence points in that direction."
So anyone that is willing to renounce their faith in God if the evidence points in that directions, is the only one with enough intellectual honesty to postulate a creator as a scientific hypothesis.
Who is willing to renounce their faith on the basis of scientific evidence?
What direct scientific evidence is there for the Big Bang? Oh yes, we have expansion of the Universe, residual radiation- but direct proof- no.
And wouldn't statistics alone, as demonstrated by the vast order in the Universe, be ample evidence for a Creator. Science doesn't require direct proof, after all.
But more to the point, even scientific thought has to start somewhere with just an idea, a thought; eventually formulated into a hypothesis, and then into a theory and finally a principle or law.
So where does science really begin? I can see it now: "Einstein- get that E=mc2 idea out of your head- this is a SCIENCE classroom".
And even more to the point, what is wrong with discussing all of this- including God- in a science classroom- especially one in a Christian school?
Especially by someone that has accepted Jesus as Lord. Someone that believes that God is as real as a rock.
PS I find that my knowledge of science and engineering greatly validates my faith, not the other way around. As I design and build things, I constantly marvel at God's guidance, and the foundation that He provides for my work. Now if he would only help me finish my reports...... (prayer please).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?