Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[Abbadon]

It's not just Atheists that want evolution taught in public schools. I, and many other Christians, would like for the teaching of evolution in schools to continue.

The "under God" part of the pledge was tossed in during the Cold War. I don't bother saying the pledge at all (I read it as: "I pledge allegiance to a piece of inanimate cloth of wishful thinking, and to the plot of dirt and buracracy for which it stands..."), so I don't care what anyone does to it.

I really don't see any reason to have this stuff, except to cause arguements.

1 Corinthians 13:4 was written by a human, but it doesn't mention God at all. All it talks about is love, which it's not hard to find persons of all faiths (or lack thereof) that believe that love exists and is a good thing. It should not (could not) have been used for arguement by either side of the debate.

 

[mycatspice]

Let's see them, then.

Try this on for size for your "Big Bang Guess": "Matter can not be created nor destroyed" (that's a famous scientific statement FYI) Did someone say that evolution was scientific earlier? What a joke!

 

[MartinM]

Try this on for size for your "Big Bang Guess": "Matter can not be created nor destroyed" (that's a famous scientific statement FYI)

It also happens to be false, since matter and energy are interchangable. Try again.

Did someone say that evolution was scientific earlier? What a joke!

Evolution and the Big Bang are separate.

 

[Arikay]

And quantum mechanics tells us that energy and mater can be created in the quantum realm.

No offense to anyone but it really seems like the people who need to learn more about evolution, the scientific method, the big bang, etc. are some of the same people that want to try to remove them from education.


Mycat: Tell me, how does teaching creationism, saying "under God" and having "in God we trust" on our money, going to teach kids the line that you quoted?
How is not having those things going to prevent them from hearing or understanding the line you quoted?

 

[AliveInChrist]

I think the idea behind having "In God We Trust" on coins was to remind people to be honest in his dealings with money. The same with "Under God" in the pledge is to remind people who say it to honor the Lord every day, along with his country. It's almost like a WWJD bracelet, only in the form of money.

As for why Christians want Creation to be taught in public schools...why should evolution be taught? It is a theory. It has not been proven true any more that Creationism has been.

 

[Arikay]

It's an interesting idea although it doesn't seem to have worked.

Both slogans were added during red scares, a time when not supporting good american christian beliefs could get you investigated and your life destroyed. Historically they represent some bad times in recent american history.

why should evolution be taught? It is a theory. It has not been proven true any more that Creationism has been.

In science, a theory means a bit more than a guess. For example, another theory is germ theory (the theory that many sicknesses are caused by tiny organisms that spread by reproduction). Creationism, especially Young Earth creationism has been shown false for around 200 years now. Evolution has been constantly gaining evidence. It is important to remember that evolution isn't atheism and is compatible with creation, that is the idea that God created. If God created, evolution is one of the ways he did it. Similar to snowflakes, God creates snowflakes through the process of crystalization.

Hopefully you will learn about evolution in school. Unfortunatly public school doesn't seem to do the greatest teaching science and evolution and certain private christian schools do worse.

 

[Shane Roach]

And quantum mechanics tells us that energy and mater can be created in the quantum realm.

My understanding is that this phenomenon is explained as still within the scope of conservation of energy because a similar amount of energy or matter is destroyed elsewhere.

As I have said before, a full explanation of things such as big bang and evolution takes a lot more time than is available in public schools, and it is only fair to expose people to the problems with those explanations and other beliefs about them.

 

[Arikay]

My understanding is that this phenomenon is explained as still within the scope of conservation of energy because a similar amount of energy or matter is destroyed elsewhere.

In the case of virtual particles, they are created in pairs that destroy each other. This creation out of spacetime is within the scope of conservation of energy because it happens so fast it stays within the quantum realm.

In the case of the big bang, this brings into question the claims that it is false because matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, since the few instances after 0 the big bang was in the quantum realm of things.

As I have said before, a full explanation of things such as big bang and evolution takes a lot more time than is available in public schools, and it is only fair to expose people to the problems with those explanations and other beliefs about them.

I agree. But we need to make sure that these problems are real problems and are understood just as well as the theories themselves.

 

[Shane Roach]

In the case of the big bang, this brings into question the claims that it is false because matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, since the few instances after 0 the big bang was in the quantum realm of things.

The grammar here is obscuring whatever it is you are trying to say. You're saying this is a question still under consideration?

Since 2002 there has been an understanding that the universe's expansion is actually accelerating due to dark energy which comprises 70% of the universe. Has there ever been any observation of this dark energy, and to what extent if there has been?

 

[Alencon]

Since this is observed, and since it is apparent that the will wields through some mechanism of our bodies physical power to effect change, it is beyond my ability to comprehend why people such as you find the idea that a conscious will could exist that likewise has the ability to control matter through some mechanism created the reality we know now so outside of natural occurance.

How the brain translates impulses or desires into physical motion is fairly well undrstood and it is this physical motion that affects the material world. The ability of the mind to impact the material world outside of the physical influence of a physical entity, such as the creation of matter, has never been observed.

Why are you putting words into my mouth? I never said anything about the existence or non-existence of a physical will that can control matter. I simply said that such hypotheses are outside the realm of science.

It is not 'supernatural' in the sense that it is outside of our experience, it is merely supernatural in the sense that it excedes our finite ability to encompass, and in that way, frankly, so are all the non-spritual explanations such as the Big Bang.

But it is outside the realm of naturalism and the presumption of naturalism is fundamental to the pursuit of science. Once we decide "God did it" science loses it's incentive to explore for naturalistic answers.

No one KNOWS how the universe came into being. What is the big deal about discussing all options in a precious science class? Well, it's all about somantics and power and control, obviously, and trying to marginalize religion.

I was under the impression that all naturalistic options were explored because that is the realm of science. Are you asking that we add the thousand or more creation myths that exist in the world? Why? I think most students are already aware of the option that existence came into being through divine will.

Science doesn't need to marginalize religion. Religion is quite capable of handling that all on it's own. Again, there is no conflict that I can see here. Religion and science each have their own domains, they just don't mix very well. Each is free to choose whether he will put his faith in religion, rely on science or come up with some sort of hybrid.

I just don't understand the need to move religion from the church into the biology or physics lab.

That's all. It's painfully obvious and yet here we all are. Silly really. Just let people know all the different concepts. It's easy, hurts no one, and is in the best spirit of open communication and debate and just LEARNING.

It's just not science. There's are lots of interesting things to learn, but one doesn't study Shakespeare in a physics classroom nor mythology in a biology classroom. There is a time and place for all things but not all times and places are appropriate for all things.

In fact, the very idea that most scientists actually seem to believe they have a pretty good handle on the universe at all given our situation stuck on this planet without the means to get anywhere almost at all stuns me. That as much as anything just reeks of people claiming authority more to solidify their position in society rather than being open and objective about what they are doing.

The arrogance of science isn't new nor is it pervasive. Most scientists admit that our current knowledge is rather limited, but that doesn't mean we stop looking.

 

[Arikay]

I am saying that since we have observed energy appear out of spacetime for a very short amount of time, that it is possible for energy to be created. The big bang transitioned through this short amount of time from 0 - planck time and in that time it may have been possible for energy to have been created at that time.

Without a good understanding of quantum gravity (among many other things), there is a lot about the first moments that we don't know about.

The grammar here is obscuring whatever it is you are trying to say. You're saying this is a question still under consideration?

Since 2002 there has been an understanding that the universe's expansion is actually accelerating due to dark energy which comprises 70% of the universe. Has there ever been any observation of this dark energy, and to what extent if there has been?

 

[Shane Roach]

How the brain translates impulses or desires into physical motion is fairly well undrstood and it is this physical motion that affects the material world. The ability of the mind to impact the material world outside of the physical influence of a physical entity, such as the creation of matter, has never been observed.

Why are you putting words into my mouth? I never said anything about the existence or non-existence of a physical will that can control matter. I simply said that such hypotheses are outside the realm of science.

If the will exists and is observed to effect the material, then it is in the realm of science. If it does so in ways that cannot be measured, that has implications for science, i.e. it does not make sense to argue that such things cannot be discussed in science when in fact it can be seen that they have their effect on the material, which is the pervue of science.

Just because science has yet to understand something does not mean it is not science or related to science. Scientists ought to be honest about this sort of thing rather than trying to shove the topic out the back door by simply shrugging and defining it as out of their purvue.

I find the sidewise slap on religion telling.

 

[Shane Roach]

I am saying that since we have observed energy appear out of spacetime for a very short amount of time, that it is possible for energy to be created. The big bang transitioned through this short amount of time from 0 - planck time and in that time it may have been possible for energy to have been created at that time.

Without a good understanding of quantum gravity (among many other things), there is a lot about the first moments that we don't know about.

See, and this is why I find this very interesting. the coloquial translation of all this is, "at present we really have no idea how this could be possible," and yet the word on the street is always, "well, this is the most likely way that the universe came into existence." These two statements are not at ALL related to one another in my opinion, and dovetailed with the things I have been explaining about consciousness and will, it constitutes what appears to be a tactic of pretending to know more than they really do, relying on the difficulty of the subject to minimize scrutiny, and then leverage that into an excuse to exclude other ideas illigitimately by defining away the problem of consciousness, will, a possible soul, and a possible design element to the universe, as 'not part of science'.

 

[Arikay]

I don't see anything wrong with saying, "Currently we don't know everything, but X is the best explanation for the evidence."

and then leverage that into an excuse to exclude other ideas illigitimately by defining away the problem of consciousness, will, a possible soul, and a possible design element to the universe, as 'not part of science'.

Exactly where do you get this from?
It is not the big bang that says these things are not part of science, but science itself.
Science is the study of the natural world, these things are not considered part of the natural world and thus science doesn't directly study them.
However, if you would like to turn them into part of the natural world, then you need to provide a way to falsify God, a soul, Intelligent Design, among other things.
Currently there is no way to falsify them, and thus they are as much part of science as magic and demons.
Unless you would like to go back to the time when things were explained by demons and magic.

 

[Shane Roach]

I don't see anything wrong with saying, "Currently we don't know everything, but X is the best explanation for the evidence."



Exactly where do you get this from?
It is not the big bang that says these things are not part of science, but science itself.
Science is the study of the natural world, these things are not considered part of the natural world and thus science doesn't directly study them.
However, if you would like to turn them into part of the natural world, then you need to provide a way to falsify God, a soul, Intelligent Design, among other things.
Currently there is no way to falsify them, and thus they are as much part of science as magic and demons.
Unless you would like to go back to the time when things were explained by demons and magic.

As I have said repeatedly, I am talking about consciousness and will, which are observable parts of the natural world that, like the big bang, are not entirely understood. Given that history gives a lot of weight to the ideas of various religions, and one in particular bears heavily on the history and foundation of this country and all of western civilization, perhaps it is not out of place to question the exclusion of religion on the assertion that the will and consciousness are somehow outside of science. They are not. They are simply not understood.

Specifically, it is illegitimate to call something the 'best explanation for the evidence' when it neither explains the evidence nor is measureably 'better' than the alternatives.

I think if most people were presented the evidence and the explanation of the Big Bang without any propaganda about how silly the concept of will or consciousness having anything to a soul is, they would likely conclude that the universe appears to be impossible to understant without some intervention of an outside power of some sort. Very likely, if there actually is no God, this is precisely why Gods were hypothesized.

Rather than simply prononcing something better, ideas need to be compared, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, the concepts of consciousness and free will are not outside of science any more than the concept of the Big Bang is. Neither can be observed directly, yet observed evidence suggests some things about both.

 

[Arikay]

I am talking about consciousness and will, which are observable parts of the natural world that, like the big bang, are not entirely understood.

Notice, I never said anything about natural consciousness and will.

I think if most people were presented the evidence and the explanation of the Big Bang without any propaganda about how silly the concept of will or consciousness having anything to a soul is, they would likely conclude that the universe appears to be impossible to understant without some intervention of an outside power of some sort.

You must be thinking about a different theory than me. The big bang never says anything about conciousness or will.
Now, if you are talking about the conciousness or will of a supernatural God, then it has already been settled, it is outside of science.

 

[MartinM]

My understanding is that this phenomenon is explained as still within the scope of conservation of energy because a similar amount of energy or matter is destroyed elsewhere

In QM, energy is still conserved on average. Over an infinite amount of time, all the fluctuations around this average will exactly cancel out.

In GR, on the other hand, it's more serious. Not only is there no such thing as global conservation of energy in GR, but it's not even at all clea that 'total energy of the Universe' is even a meaningful concept.

 

[MartinM]

If the will exists and is observed to effect the material, then it is in the realm of science. If it does so in ways that cannot be measured, that has implications for science

Yes, the implication is that science cannot be done where such an interaction exists.

 

[MartinM]

See, and this is why I find this very interesting. the coloquial translation of all this is, "at present we really have no idea how this could be possible," and yet the word on the street is always, "well, this is the most likely way that the universe came into existence."

The problem is that you're conflating two separate issues. The question 'did the Universe go through a hot Big Bang phase?' is one that science has answered 'yes' with very high confidence. The question 'how did that come about?' is as of yet unanswered, though there are several interesting possibilities being explored.

 

[MartinM]

Specifically, it is illegitimate to call something the 'best explanation for the evidence' when it neither explains the evidence nor is measureably 'better' than the alternatives

Oh, right. Got a better explanation than current cosmological models for, say, the angular power spectrum of the CMB, then?