Why Do Christians Want Creationism Taught In Public Schools?

[joebudda]

First off, it appears not only that the universe is expanding, but that its expansion is accelerating. It is hypothesized that this is due to dark energy which, to the best of my knowledge, is not something anyone has observed. I find this evidence that the Big Bang simply cannot be falsified. You can alter mathematical models to encompass almost any eventuality by adding to them.

Secondly, it appears to me that the assumption that nothing could have happened between now and the distant past to interrupt the utility of relativity in reverse engineering origins is a false one.

And finally, the very laws of relativity used by this hypothesis by all accounts break down at the eventual conclusion, leaving one to wonder that if the theory cannot account for the entire breadth of the hypothesis it is supposed to model, what possible falsification will ever convince anyone that it is probably not well founded.

And this doesn't even get to the point of addressing sentience. This is just looking at the massive problems even if one doesn't even think about any possible interuptions by a sentient being at all.

From what I understand of the big bang theory it only breaks down once we get to the quantum mechanics level. This is because we have not found a way to tie quantum mechanics and relativity. Both of these work alone but gravity doesn’t seem to work the same on a quantum level. Though there are equations stemming from M (or string) theory that are able to tie them together, we just need to still prove this new theory true. (this they are working on). This theory is very controversial being if true we are living in only 4 of the 11 dimensions needed for these “strings” to exist in. I think it is in the Netherlands they are making a facility where they can break apart Adams to be able to take a snap shot of (I think it is) the graviton escaping just before it disappears into another dimension. If they can do this then the M (string) theory will be supported by evidence.

It seems to be you are labeling what we don’t know yet as god.

 

[aca_rev55]

It's in my opinion that religious parents who have issues with creation not being taught in schools/evolution being taught in schools that they should either a) homeschool them and teach them what they want them to learn, or b) send them to a private religious school where they'll teach them what you want them to learn, as opposed to sending them to a public school an being all upset about it.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

You are playing the terminology game that creationist play.

I am?
I was not aware of that. Here I thought I was using reason and conveying my unique view as I have come to over the years in aquired knowledge and tested truths. Perhaps I should look into this 'game' if more than several people are all on the same page.

BTW - Since I claim to be Christian and hold certain values to be... of value, I suppose that the above statement holds some sort of conflict in interest if I was purposely lying.

 

[Shane Roach]

From what I understand of the big bang theory it only breaks down once we get to the quantum mechanics level. This is because we have not found a way to tie quantum mechanics and relativity. Both of these work alone but gravity doesn’t seem to work the same on a quantum level. Though there are equations stemming from M (or string) theory that are able to tie them together, we just need to still prove this new theory true. (this they are working on). This theory is very controversial being if true we are living in only 4 of the 11 dimensions needed for these “strings” to exist in. I think it is in the Netherlands they are making a facility where they can break apart Adams to be able to take a snap shot of (I think it is) the graviton escaping just before it disappears into another dimension. If they can do this then the M (string) theory will be supported by evidence.

It seems to be you are labeling what we don’t know yet as god.

Not at all. I am labelling what we do not know as yet as unknown, and I am labelling things that we do know exist but that are outside scientific inquiry, such as consciousness or will, as real and requiring honest discussion when things that are not yet known are being discussed.

 

[Shane Roach]

It's in my opinion that religious parents who have issues with creation not being taught in schools/evolution being taught in schools that they should either a) homeschool them and teach them what they want them to learn, or b) send them to a private religious school where they'll teach them what you want them to learn, as opposed to sending them to a public school an being all upset about it.

If they had the right to stop paying into the public system, this might well work as a compromise.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

It's in my opinion that religious parents who have issues with creation not being taught in schools/evolution being taught in schools that they should either a) homeschool them and teach them what they want them to learn, or b) send them to a private religious school where they'll teach them what you want them to learn, as opposed to sending them to a public school an being all upset about it.

And I suggest that you table that ultimatum until you have to pay tuitions AND taxes out of your own earnings or at least are susceptible to the same conditions. It becomes sort of obtuse for a non-participant in the factors to tout such a position without reasoning or cause.
The issue comes down to one ideology being propagated while another just as legitimate is repressed.

 

[joebudda]

I am?
I was not aware of that. Here I thought I was using reason and conveying my unique view as I have come to over the years in aquired knowledge and tested truths. Perhaps I should look into this 'game' if more than several people are all on the same page.

BTW - Since I claim to be Christian and hold certain values to be... of value, I suppose that the above statement holds some sort of conflict in interest if I was purposely lying.

If you are being honest and not playing the terminology game then can you tell me the difference of theory and scientific theory? Do you believe there is a difference in the terminology of theory and scientific theory?

Do you know why no matter how much evidence there is supporting a scientific theory it is still a theory?

 

[joebudda]

Not at all. I am labelling what we do not know as yet as unknown, and I am labelling things that we do know exist but that are outside scientific inquiry, such as consciousness or will, as real and requiring honest discussion when things that are not yet known are being discussed.

Consciousness? I might be able to answer some of your questions regarding this being my main field of interest is psychology.

And what do you mean by “will”?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

The issue comes down to one ideology being propagated while another just as legitimate is repressed.

No, it does not. It comes down to a scientific theory being propogated in science classes, and a religious belief NOT being propogated in science classes.

 

[Shane Roach]

Consciousness? I might be able to answer some of your questions regarding this being my main field of interest is psychology.

And what do you mean by “will”?

I'm thinking if you don't know what the will is you are going to be largely unable to answer any question I have at all. In fact, in all honesty it is the consistency with which atheists seem to have a difficult time even so much as acknowledging that the idea of consciousness or will has existed that informs my relatively negative opinion against the collective group of people that can be labelled 'atheist'.

Address the issue up front, like an honest and forthright man, without hedging. I think you know what I am talking about, and if not you can find it in any dictionary or encyclopedia.

 

[Shane Roach]

No, it does not. It comes down to a scientific theory being propogated in science classes, and a religious belief NOT being propogated in science classes.

It's not the propogation of belief. It's the discussion of issues relevant to origins theories.

If you want to teach your children that atheistic origins theories are superior to religious ones, you are free to do that. It is not the place of the schools to do so for you, nor to signal such a thing by refusing to discuss the issues where they overlap in public education.

 

[joebudda]

I'm thinking if you don't know what the will is you are going to be largely unable to answer any question I have at all. In fact, in all honesty it is the consistency with which atheists seem to have a difficult time even so much as acknowledging that the idea of consciousness or will has existed that informs my relatively negative opinion against the collective group of people that can be labelled 'atheist'.

Address the issue up front, like an honest and forthright man, without hedging. I think you know what I am talking about, and if not you can find it in any dictionary or encyclopedia.

Are you talking “will” as in “free will”? or are you talking more along the lines of determination? Or are you talking about like wishing someone “good will”? when discussing we do need to be on the same page when dealing with terminology.

Consciousness is who we are; it is our mind making sense of all of our senses.

If I am incorrect then can you please inform me where I am and explain why please?

 

[joebudda]

It's not the propogation of belief. It's the discussion of issues relevant to origins theories.

If you want to teach your children that atheistic origins theories are superior to religious ones, you are free to do that. It is not the place of the schools to do so for you, nor to signal such a thing by refusing to discuss the issues where they overlap in public education.

What religious and atheistic theories are you hinting too? Is there a way to test or evidence to support these theories?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

It's not the propogation of belief. It's the discussion of issues relevant to origins theories.

If you want to teach your children that atheistic origins theories are superior to religious ones, you are free to do that. It is not the place of the schools to do so for you, nor to signal such a thing by refusing to discuss the issues where they overlap in public education.

Nobody is telling children that atheistic origin theories are superior to religious ones. It is solely a question of where they are discussed. Scientific origin theories are discussed in a scientific forum; religious origin theories are discussed in a religious forum.

 

[xMinionX]

It's not the propogation of belief. It's the discussion of issues relevant to origins theories.

Right, and that doesn't belong in a science classroom. The science teacher should make it clear that this is the current most widely held theory in the scientific community, but the student is free to make his or her own decisions. However, on a test on the theory of evolution, the student must be able to demonstrate basic knowledge about the theory, even if they don't believe it. It's part of being a well-rounded person.

And just so you know, I would also promote a basic overview of the major creation theories in a social studies course. I intend on implementing this in my classes once I am certified and employed.

 

[Shane Roach]

The jist of the argument against mentioning concepts about origin theory other than Big Bang or Origin of Species appears to be because they are in science classes. I find this objection to be weak. It is well within the scope of a science class to discuss the limits of science and why such limits need to be kept in mind when discussing universal origins or the origin of species, or for that matter the origin of life - something of a necessary predicate for the origin of species.

 

[Shane Roach]

And just so you know, I would also promote a basic overview of the major creation theories in a social studies course. I intend on implementing this in my classes once I am certified and employed.

I see no reason to limit which class people are allowed to talk freely in. Still, I applaud your attempt to address the issues in another class.

 

[Shane Roach]

Are you talking “will” as in “free will”? or are you talking more along the lines of determination? Or are you talking about like wishing someone “good will”? when discussing we do need to be on the same page when dealing with terminology.

Consciousness is who we are; it is our mind making sense of all of our senses.

If I am incorrect then can you please inform me where I am and explain why please?

Good definitions all. I would point out that I actually asked for a discussion of how these things apply or do not apply in a study of science though which so far you haven't touched on.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

If you are being honest and not playing the terminology game then can you tell me the difference of theory and scientific theory? Do you believe there is a difference in the terminology of theory and scientific theory?

Do you know why no matter how much evidence there is supporting a scientific theory it is still a theory?

Yes, yes. I'm sure you don't want me regurgitating the boring definitions. I am sure that you know that many, many times, evolution, origins, etc. typically do NOT stipulate 'theory'. I've got several videos here in my home for my kids that are 'educational' and state point blank that 'this is what happened'.



I trust that a simple and honest overview of this communication right here shines the same implications that you had just implied... I believe you called it a terminology game or such?



This is very similar with the 'safe sex' discussions; whereas, one side claims that "it's a given that it 'really isn't safe, just safer" and still they state "safe" over and over and rarely stipulate the conditional. Same thing here... over and over it is said "this is how it happened" and theory, enlightening the controversies, etc. are RARELY mentioned if at all.

Anyway, the foundations of evolution and big bang are far from utilizing 'scientific theory' principles in its cohesion... it’s a 'belief' with it's OWN leaps of faith.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

No, it does not. It comes down to a scientific theory being propogated in science classes, and a religious belief NOT being propogated in science classes.

Sorry, yours has bigger 'leaps of faith' than mine.