Why teach creationism in public school science classes?

[Delphiki]

It's not hard to teach creationism - just have your students read the first few chapters of Genesis. Don't be so up in arms about people reading (gasp!) the Bible. Those who can learn from it, will, and the truth will be revealed to them. Those who don't, won't.

If you don't mind... Actually... Regardless of whether you mind or not, I'd like to come to your church and have everyone read the creation story from the (gasp!) Qu'ran and the (gasp!) Bhagavad Gita. Also go over the (gasp!) Native American, (gasp!) Wiccan, (gasp!) Norse/Pagan and (gasp!) Shinto creation stories as well. I'll be presenting these, and others all as historic fact. I'm sure you have an open mind and have the next month or so of free time it will take to cover all creation stories. What do you say about that idea?

Then, I'd like to go to your public school schools near you and present a lesson in (gasp!) astrology in a science class covering the topic of outer space and the solar system. If they happen to be in the middle of a biology lesson, that's no problem, for I can also put together a (gasp!) homeopathy lesson for the class as well. I figure (gasp!) tarot will also be good for a math class, to help illustrate statistical probabilities versus the infallible clairvoyance of card reading and (gasp!) coffee grinds.

See, champ, most of us don't have a problem with people reading the bible in school, as long as it's the students doing it of their own volition. Teachers having students read the bible and presenting the contents therein as historic fact is called preaching. That's for church. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but your religion is definitely not the only one in this world or this country.


(edit: What's actually find of funny, is stuff like this really does go on in UU churches)

 

[AV1611VET]

If you don't mind... Actually... Regardless of whether you mind or not, I'd like to come to your church and have everyone read the creation story from the (gasp!) Qu'ran and the (gasp!) Bhagavad Gita. Also go over the (gasp!) Native American, (gasp!) Wiccan, (gasp!) Norse/Pagan and (gasp!) Shinto creation stories as well. I'll be presenting these, and others all as historic fact.

That won't happen on your best day.

Deuteronomy 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Psalm 135:5 For I know that the LORD is great, and that our Lord is above all gods.

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

1 Corinthians 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

 

[Delphiki]

That won't happen on your best day.
*snip bunch of irrelevance*

Exactly. And neither will teaching the bible as fact in public schools, either.

 

[Cabal]

Right now you're so far from science it's ridiculous. But that was the point

It's a conclusion derived from repeated observation. So according to your definition, it is scientific

So you used the effect to define the cause? Is that what you're saying? Don't we first have to discover magnetic fields before we include them in science as a cause?

If this is a reference to God, I don't necessarily problem with the idea of identifying God through effect - the point is, no such effects have been observed that can be exclusively attributed to any deity, much less the one you worship.

The other glaring difference is that the definition of force doesn't use pre-existing abstract ideas - only the basic observations that matter exists and can be accelerated. By contrast, using ID/God to explain origins is shoving a massive preconception into the mix.

Btw, instead of this asinine argument of yours, you could be posting your evidence instead. I'm not altogether unsurprised that you aren't.

Don't forget your magnetic fields. You and your future visible processes.

I can get a compass needle to flick near a current-carrying wire any time I want. Your God, by virtue of his ego or whatever, does not have the capability to be observed, and by extension, nor repeatedly. By your own definition, God is not scientific.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you used the effect to define the cause? Is that what you're saying? Don't we first have to discover magnetic fields before we include them in science as a cause?

No, since we define, for the purposes of terminology, a 'force' to be any thing that enacts a change in momentum. If momentum is changed, then the cause of that change is defined as a 'force', whatever it may be. That's why there are four fundamental forces, instead of one force and three other, similar, but differently named things. That's why there are fictitious forces, too.

It's like a tachyon. A tachyon is defined as a particle that travels at superluminal speeds. We don't need to actually observe such a particle to give it a name, since it's a definition of a class of things, not the name given to a specific thing itself. Similarly, a force is defined as a thing which causes a momentum change, and we have found four* related things that meet this definition, and thus are called 'forces'.

It's just terminology.

*Or three, or two, or one, depending on whether you see the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces as one conglomerate 'electroweak' force.

 

[mzungu]

Exactly. And neither will teaching the bible as fact in public schools, either.

It is a fact that the bible exists. What the Bible writes about is not fact. Biblical stories belong in Sunday school lessons and not in history nor science class. The only exception will be to teach the history of the bible; How it came to be. All the different variations that have arisen from the original Hebrew, and Greek texts. But teaching creation myth as history will only take mankind back to the dark ages.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. And neither will teaching the bible as fact in public schools, either.

I didn't say teach the Bible in public schools though, did I?

 

[Hespera]

Science is basically experimenting, observing and testing the evidence against the laws of nature, that God created.
So things like chemistry, physics and biology and geology would be science.

We all understand that you feel god is behind everything. You may be right; who knows. A lot of scientists are Christians; this campus is in waht could be called the bible belt.

Now, science isnt always compatible with all of the different interpretations that people put on the bible. No way it could be, there being 30,000 plus sects, all of which put a different spin on the bible.

At any rate, we trust you are aware that if the bible doesnt synch with science.. to you... that is about your interpretation of the bible, not a statement about science as such. Your interpretation may not be infallible.

Now as for what you said above. Physics, chemistry and biology are full of theory. Theory is vital to all of science. The theory of evolution is central to all of the biological sciences. Atomic theory, likewise to physics and chemistry.

"testing the evidence against the laws of nature' doesnt actually make any sense. could you rephrase it?

also.. "laws of nature" are a bit like theory, in that they cannot be proven, any more than one could be sure he'd found the last grain of sand.

If you accept that geology biology and geology are science then you are going to have to accept that deep time and evolution are real as rain.
You dont get one without the other.

IF deep time and evolution were proven false, it would leave a smoking crater where physics and chemistry once stood. It would all have to be rethought from the sub basement up.

 

[hollyda]

(edit: What's actually find of funny, is stuff like this really does go on in UU churches)

I really enjoyed going to the UU. It was such an open, loving environment.

 

[AV1611VET]

I really enjoyed going to the UU. It was such an open, loving environment.

So was Peoples Temple.

 

[Split Rock]

Science is basically experimenting, observing and testing the evidence against the laws of nature, that God created.
So things like chemistry, physics and biology and geology would be science. This would be chemical equations and reactions, molecular makeup, looking at chromosomes and traits, calculating forces, observing the movements and interactions of earth and sea. All things God who is the prime mover originally created and puts into action.

theories however would be things like evolution, psychology, relativity, big bang, alchemy, uniformatism overarching attempts at explaining the processes and trying to make a STORY to explain them without God, since God cannot be seen, or measured, or tested in anyway, scientists deliberately ignore Him and leave him out of the equation.

Yes, we ignore God because he cannot be tested in any way.. that is correct. However, you are incorrect in your understanding of theories. Without theories, all we have are databases with no meaning. Without theories, we would not have the civilization and technology we have now. If you reject these, you are free to take up my suggestion to go live in a cave on an isolated island in the S Pacific. So far no creationist here has taken my suggestion up. BTW: Alchemy is not a scientific theory.

Now Christians believe since God created these laws he also is free to break them, (actually in essence, speed them up) hence, miracles. He also is outside of time, so He can do this. God is Spirit. Science ignores spirit, so ignores God. That is where science falls down, and why science can never come to the truth. It is always seeking, but never finding. If there is a new finding it will always lead to more questions. Like the atom once found, scientists looked into smaller and smaller parts of it. Or the universe, scientists will continue looking further and further into space. Or geology, digging deeper and deeper into earth. Or classifying animals and plants, species will always be looked for. It is a never ending quest, an all consuming hobby. You might decide to count all the grains of sand. One day you may think yes I've counted them all! You may present your figures to the world and pat yourself on the back. Finally! But the next day you'll find you missed some.

If science falls down because it ignores God, why does it work so well?

There is nothing wrong with teaching biblical creationism as history. People are free to believe what they like about history. We can't all trust that all history is true, but we trust what is documented, and the Bible is as well documented and preserved as any other written document . If you have something against the Bible, then that is your problem, with the content, not the actually history of it. Other creation histories are not as well doscumented or as influential as the Genesis account. If one doesn't have the knowledge of Genesis then it will be difficult to teach the rest of history because much of Western civlisation is grounded in this belief, and it is also good so you can see WHY there is a controversy between evolution and creationism. If you only teach evolution, or worse, present it as fact, then your students won't be able to grasp why Darwin's ideas were so controversial, or why nobody ever thought of evolution before Darwin. If evolution was so obvious, it would be apparent to us.

The Bible is an historical document, but it is but one of many. Historians know that few historical documents can be taken at face value, however, and the bible is no exception. Also, Darwin was not the first to theorize evolution.. just the first to come up with a viable mechanism for it to work.

It's not hard to teach creationism - just have your students read the first few chapters of Genesis. Don't be so up in arms about people reading (gasp!) the Bible. Those who can learn from it, will, and the truth will be revealed to them. Those who don't, won't.

That's fine for church, or a religious studies class, or literature, etc. Just not for modern science.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I didn't say teach the Bible in public schools though, did I?

Why teach mythology without its source?

 

[Delphiki]

I didn't say teach the Bible in public schools though, did I?

Not to parrot you, but please QV the thread title.

 

[Hespera]

Yes, we ignore God because he cannot be tested in any way.. that is correct. However, you are incorrect in your understanding of theories. Without theories, all we have are databases with no meaning. Without theories, we would not have the civilization and technology we have now. If you reject these, you are free to take up my suggestion to go live in a cave on an isolated island in the S Pacific. So far no creationist here has taken my suggestion up. BTW: Alchemy is not a scientific theory.


If science falls down because it ignores God, why does it work so well?


The Bible is an historical document, but it is but one of many. Historians know that few historical documents can be taken at face value, however, and the bible is no exception. Also, Darwin was not the first to theorize evolution.. just the first to come up with a viable mechanism for it to work.


That's fine for church, or a religious studies class, or literature, etc. Just not for modern science.

Ask any Christian who happens to be a scientist if he tries to work "god' into, say, his chemistry, and if so, how.

He might possibly say that he believes god created the universe, and set all things in motion. He sill not be able to identify a useful place to put god into chemistry beyond that.

If that is ignoring, then I guess it is. What else is one to do?

 

[hollyda]

So was Peoples Temple.

I went when I was trying to figure out my spirituality. Also because I was sick of the negativity in the Christian denominations I grew up in. I thought Christians were supposed to be a loving group -- all I ever saw in my personal experience was hate, fear, and bigotry.

Personal experience being the key phrase there.

Think what you want, though. I've been to both liberal and conservative churches, so I've heard it all.

 

[AV1611VET]

I went when I was trying to figure out my spirituality.

Were you greeted at the doors by a line of children welcoming you?

 

[hollyda]

Were you greeted at the doors by a line of children welcoming you?

Yes, and then there was a ritualistic human sacrifice in which we bathed in goat's blood and sang hymns to the Goddess Sheeva.

If your faith is so strong, I think you'd survive going one day just to get an idea of what it's like for yourself.

 

[Cabal]

Were you greeted at the doors by a line of children welcoming you?

This is why no-one is even interested in trying out your particular brand of religion.

Way to fail at the great commission, Christian.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is why no-one is even interested in trying out your particular brand of religion.

Excuse me, but Peoples Temple is not 'my brand of religion'.

 

[Greg1234]

Yes, and then there was a ritualistic human sacrifice in which we bathed in goat's blood and sang hymns to the Goddess Sheeva.

Why stop there? What about the use of physics and chemistry to ritualistically shoot millions of Jews?