Pretty soon religion will be "required reading" in

[Strid]

Teach facts not myths period.

What is fact today, is fiction tomorrow.

So don't teach the shit! Facts are facts and will always be facts. The whole how we got here etc. has never been factually explained, just "brilliant" people making things up that seem reasonable based on all their other made up things. The majority bilieves it ya, but that doesn't make it fact. I think Rin has it from here.

 

[Halifirien]

I realize Protestant evangelicals are driving the ID debate more forcefully than their Catholic brothers and sisters, but I found this story amusing. I grew up in an area with hardcore Baptists who declared Catholicism was an evil plot by Satan to damn the faithful, and I imagine those same Baptists go bugfuck out of their minds when they read something like this:

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.

There's more to the story if you follow the link.

 

[Answa~]

Einstein believed in God. Mendel, father of genetics, was a monk.

Mixing Science with Religion is not really a bad idea, I've had the mix since first grade and I have found harmony between both of them. The Bible is not all true, it has a lot of metaphors, and this was taught to me since I was a little kid, because some people fail to see this does not mean all religious people can be seen as biased.

I think people should be taught the religious principles of the five main religions: Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism. I was given an overview of the 4 other than Christianity, which I am part of. It is amazing how many of the elements between the five are similar. I'm talking about religious principles; dogma, not practice. Just make people know that there's diversity. Make them aware.

There is nothing better than knowing that not everyone thinks the same, but that is no reason to fight, only to discuss. The day everyone agrees on everything on Earth is the day that boredom will reign...

 

[Trippyhippy]

Science class is for facts.

If you want your kids to learn Intelligent Design or Evolution, have them sign up for a philosophy class.

That was one that wasn't offered at my school. It would be simple enough to offer though. Just need you parent's to sign some sort of permission slip, then you can discuss all those taboo topics like religion and theoretical science.

 

[Ravic]

Wait, just because evolution is still classified as "theory" it should not be taught? What about Einstein's theory of relativity, or quantum theory. Should these also be disallowed from being taught since they are also just "theories"? Or are they allowed just because some people don't get their panties in a bunch when they are discussed.

A science class is for scientific study, that includes theories as well as established laws. As a matter of fact, the difference between a scientific theory and a law is that a theory is more complex, not just a simple statement.

Intelligent Design should not be taught in schools since it is neither a theory nor a law, just Creationism wrapped up in a nondenominational bow. Since it had no factual basis, it has no place in a science class.

Evolution, on the other hand, has a factual basis and has been tested again and again by numerous scientists and has yet to be disproved.

So between the three, 2 being just conjecture with nothing to support them, and 1 being accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, which makes the most sense to have a place in class?

 

[Rinoah]

Wait, just because evolution is still classified as "theory" it should not be taught? What about Einstein's theory of relativity, or quantum theory. Should these also be disallowed from being taught since they are also just "theories"? Or are they allowed just because some people don't get their panties in a bunch when they are discussed.

A science class is for scientific study, that includes theories as well as established laws. As a matter of fact, the difference between a scientific theory and a law is that a theory is more complex, not just a simple statement.

Intelligent Design should not be taught in schools since it is neither a theory nor a law, just Creationism wrapped up in a nondenominational bow. Since it had no factual basis, it has no place in a science class.

Evolution, on the other hand, has a factual basis and has been tested again and again by numerous scientists and has yet to be disproved.

So between the three, 2 being just conjecture with nothing to support them, and 1 being accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, which makes the most sense to have a place in class?

O.k those theories you named to the best of my knowledge were proven..therefore no longer a theory really, closer to a law.

And i fail to see where there is evidence that i evolved from a fish. Sure i see primative primate bones and such...not seeing fish that have a resembalance to humans.

Also all 3 are beliefs, because none of them can actually be proven without a shadow of a doubt. I fail to see why believing what the majority of scientists believe is any different from believeing what the majority of christians believe.

I think the subject should not be taught because it is a theory with little to no evidence to back it up.

 

[Chemical_Penguin]

O.k those theories you named to the best of my knowledge were proven..therefore no longer a theory really, closer to a law.

Then "the best of your knowledge" is not very knowledgable. Theory of relativity and quantum theory are currently not compatible and actually contradict each other on some things. Hence you have scientists searching for a "holy grail" theory referred to as "Quantum Gravity" which will hopefully unite these two theories someday.

Just like the theory of evolution, Einsteins Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory are based on concrete, scientific observations and data, then organized into theories.

And i fail to see where there is evidence that i evolved from a fish. Sure i see primative primate bones and such...not seeing fish that have a resembalance to humans.

First off, you obviously do not understand how evolution works, you will never find a fish that has the arms of a human instead of flippers. Evolution from one species to another species, is thought to occur over many many years of small mutations that either hinder, or enhance the organism's ability to survive and reproduce.

And no, evolution does not say you evolved from a fish, nor does it save you evolved from a monkey. You evolved from your mother, and your mother from her parents, and her parent's parents evolved from THEIR parents....and so on.

But just to humor you, there are species of fish-like creatures that resemble human bodies. Ever see the skeleton of a dolphin, or whale? Why do you think they coincidently have five fingers inside of each of their fins?

Also all 3 are beliefs, because none of them can actually be proven without a shadow of a doubt. I fail to see why believing what the majority of scientists believe is any different from believeing what the majority of christians believe.

Because scientists use the scientific method to back-up their theories, where religions do not. Also, you should never believe something because a majority of scientists believe it, you should look up the collected data yourself. And with google handy, nobody should ever have en excuse of not looking up the data.

I think the subject should not be taught because it is a theory with little to no evidence to back it up.

Again, you have shown that you know nothing about the subject which you are arguing about. This is why the scientific method prevails over religious beliefs. Science first looks and observes ALL the factual data it can, then formulates its theories accordingly. It does not formulate the theory then try to figure out how it can squeeze-in bits and peices of observed data to fit.

So please, look up on google about the current knowledge of evolution before you make the naive, and over-used, claim that evolution has little to no evidence to back it up.

 

[Valoran]

Why is this going on in biology classes? Surely the complexity of mathematical systems suggest intelligent design more strongly than those of biological ones, yet nobody is on a warpath to teach creationism in math classes. Same for chemistry and physics.

Why is evolution such a hot point of contention. It is not mutually exclusive with intelligent deisgn; that much was demonstrated years ago. The only business intelligent design has in a discussion of evolution is to mention that if we accept both evolution and intelligent design, then it seems reasonable to assert that evolution was the process used.

There is little scope for religious conversation beyond that in a biology class, and to assert that the complexity of biological systems does anything more than point to the possibility of intelligent design is not scientific.

It seems far more likely that this is part of a religious right's attempt to push for school reforms to try to put religion in schools, something that goes against the spirit of the founding fathers, esp. separation of church and state.

For example, reactionary conservatives in Kansas, concerned that health class may not be strongly enough anti-homosexual, are pushing to make Sex Ed available only on an optional basis in schools. Thus, the children with the least involved parents will be those least likely to receive that education. Anyone care to speculate about which social and economic classes those children belong to?

 

[Rinoah]

O.k those theories you named to the best of my knowledge were proven..therefore no longer a theory really, closer to a law.

Then "the best of your knowledge" is not very knowledgable. Theory of relativity and quantum theory are currently not compatible and actually contradict each other on some things. Hence you have scientists searching for a "holy grail" theory referred to as "Quantum Gravity" which will hopefully unite these two theories someday.

Just like the theory of evolution, Einsteins Theory of Relativity and Quantum Theory are based on concrete, scientific observations and data, then organized into theories.

And i fail to see where there is evidence that i evolved from a fish. Sure i see primative primate bones and such...not seeing fish that have a resembalance to humans.

First off, you obviously do not understand how evolution works, you will never find a fish that has the arms of a human instead of flippers. Evolution from one species to another species, is thought to occur over many many years of small mutations that either hinder, or enhance the organism's ability to survive and reproduce.

And no, evolution does not say you evolved from a fish, nor does it save you evolved from a monkey. You evolved from your mother, and your mother from her parents, and her parent's parents evolved from THEIR parents....and so on.

But just to humor you, there are species of fish-like creatures that resemble human bodies. Ever see the skeleton of a dolphin, or whale? Why do you think they coincidently have five fingers inside of each of their fins?

Also all 3 are beliefs, because none of them can actually be proven without a shadow of a doubt. I fail to see why believing what the majority of scientists believe is any different from believeing what the majority of christians believe.

Because scientists use the scientific method to back-up their theories, where religions do not. Also, you should never believe something because a majority of scientists believe it, you should look up the collected data yourself. And with google handy, nobody should ever have en excuse of not looking up the data.

I think the subject should not be taught because it is a theory with little to no evidence to back it up.

Again, you have shown that you know nothing about the subject which you are arguing about. This is why the scientific method prevails over religious beliefs. Science first looks and observes ALL the factual data it can, then formulates its theories accordingly. It does not formulate the theory then try to figure out how it can squeeze-in bits and peices of observed data to fit.

So please, look up on google about the current knowledge of evolution before you make the naive, and over-used, claim that evolution has little to no evidence to back it up.

Didn't know about the quantum and relativity theories so thank you for clearing that up.

I still do not see any "concrete evidence" for evolution other than "it sounds good, and scientists said it and scientists are always right!"

Great Evolution is many mutations that took place over a long period of time...where is the actual evidence for this though? There are fossils of ancient humans that were similar to human bones...but what evidence is there for the stages before that? Perhaps god placed us on the earth like that, and then we evolved into humans?

And i also disagree with you that putting your belief in science is different than putting your faith in religion, as until there is proof, it is still just a belief.

Also please before you say that my opinion is naive and uninformed, could you actually show me some of this evidence that you claim is in abundance.

 

[Chemical_Penguin]

Great Evolution is many mutations that took place over a long period of time...where is the actual evidence for this though? There are fossils of ancient humans that were similar to human bones...but what evidence is there for the stages before that? Perhaps god placed us on the earth like that, and then we evolved into humans?

That type of thinking is not permitted in a scientific study, much less science class. It is totally unscientific to say "Just because there is a lack of evidence for something, does not mean it never occured." While that statement is true in some cases, you will NEVER see a scientific theory, whose premise is based on this statement, being taught in a classroom.

And i also disagree with you that putting your belief in science is different than putting your faith in religion, as until there is proof, it is still just a belief.

Science is a method, not a wish-washy religion. You observe facts and record them via the scientific method. Everything in science class was gathered using this method, and if it was not, then it is not science. Religion's "facts" were not gained through this meticulous method of observation and data recording. Religion has no method of evidence gathering that compares to this, and usually just consists of referring to a "book of teachings" that was written by one or many authors whom do not go into deep detail about how they themselves collected such data and evidence that they are writing about.

Also please before you say that my opinion is naive and uninformed, could you actually show me some of this evidence that you claim is in abundance.

If it is painfully obvious that your opinion is naive and uninformed, why should I not point it out on a public forum, where others are reading your words and might possibly believe that your expressions are coming from an informed stand-point on the subject? That would only cause even MORE people to have misconceptions on the theory of evolution, and that is something we definitely already have too much of.

I will not, and can not, write about every single peice of the theory of evolution. I can only point you in directions, or have you voluntarily look up the information yourself(which I highly advise). Because as I bring up more evidence, you will have more questions, and it will go on and on as it always does with people who refuse to even consider the idea of evolution as a scientific theory.

So here is an article that will point you in the direction of learning more about what you want to know, which are "transitional fossils." Transitional fossils being those in-between steps of evolution that so many people refuse to believe any exist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

 

[Darthyoda]

my reply

Heheheh... I believe in the Big Bang Theory...



God said it was.. and BANG it was..

I love that one..

ok back the discussion

 

[Kimberely]

OMG :roll:

First off Darwin died believing in God but he questioned why things change over time. Before Darwin people believed that humans are EXACTLY the same way now that they were back in the whole adam and eve bullshit.

Secondly this is a huge issue in the supreme court right now because of creation by intelligent design. But intelligent design does not explain why we are losing our third molars or why we have the ability to live with out the appendex, spleen, or tonsils (law of nature: you dont use it, you lose it...it requires too much energy to maintain something that you do not need). I am a scientist (chemistry major switched from biology!! :shock: ) so it is very hard for me to not believe in evolution when I have seen the facts which support it).

 

[Rinoah]

Great Evolution is many mutations that took place over a long period of time...where is the actual evidence for this though? There are fossils of ancient humans that were similar to human bones...but what evidence is there for the stages before that? Perhaps god placed us on the earth like that, and then we evolved into humans?

That type of thinking is not permitted in a scientific study, much less science class. It is totally unscientific to say "Just because there is a lack of evidence for something, does not mean it never occured." While that statement is true in some cases, you will NEVER see a scientific theory, whose premise is based on this statement, being taught in a classroom.

And i also disagree with you that putting your belief in science is different than putting your faith in religion, as until there is proof, it is still just a belief.

Science is a method, not a wish-washy religion. You observe facts and record them via the scientific method. Everything in science class was gathered using this method, and if it was not, then it is not science. Religion's "facts" were not gained through this meticulous method of observation and data recording. Religion has no method of evidence gathering that compares to this, and usually just consists of referring to a "book of teachings" that was written by one or many authors whom do not go into deep detail about how they themselves collected such data and evidence that they are writing about.

Also please before you say that my opinion is naive and uninformed, could you actually show me some of this evidence that you claim is in abundance.

If it is painfully obvious that your opinion is naive and uninformed, why should I not point it out on a public forum, where others are reading your words and might possibly believe that your expressions are coming from an informed stand-point on the subject? That would only cause even MORE people to have misconceptions on the theory of evolution, and that is something we definitely already have too much of.

I will not, and can not, write about every single peice of the theory of evolution. I can only point you in directions, or have you voluntarily look up the information yourself(which I highly advise). Because as I bring up more evidence, you will have more questions, and it will go on and on as it always does with people who refuse to even consider the idea of evolution as a scientific theory.

So here is an article that will point you in the direction of learning more about what you want to know, which are "transitional fossils." Transitional fossils being those in-between steps of evolution that so many people refuse to believe any exist.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Hmm interesting, i was not aware there was that much evidence for evolution (the transitional fossils was the main point).

I still believe that evolution is a belief though just as much as creationism, because while that has factual evidence, some would be happy to believe in, the people who believe in creationism, believe in god, and his abilities.

Yes it would be very unscientific to say "god placed us here so that we could evolve", but it is not supposed to be a scientific theory, it is supposed to be a belief. And while religion may be wishy-washy it is still widely believed by many people.

You cannot say that something is not a belief, because it has more evidence that the other belief.

 

[Chemical_Penguin]

You cannot say that something is not a belief, because it has more evidence that the other belief.

...

And i also disagree with you that putting your belief in science is different than putting your faith in religion, as until there is proof, it is still just a belief.

{huh?!}