Kevin's Watch

I'm going to check with my daughter. I know she had some discussions about various religions and creation theories at school last year, and I was under the impression that at least a couple of them were in the classroom.

(And yeah Cail, I had gotten the impression that you like to say what you mean...)

Cail wrote:I have no problem with alternate theories being brought up, but strict religious teachings should not be taught in science class.

Oh... mentioning 'alternative' theories is fine - as long as they don't contradict your philosophy?

Gee, how broad-minded...

Okay, I can concede that intelligent design/creationism can be mentioned in class. But it cannot be taught, in a full chapter, nor cannot should it be considered in the public school classroom to be a scientific, teach-able theory.

ur-bane,

Theoretical science, or at least theoretical science that can be taught, should have nonrefutable evidence supporting it. Evolution has this, intelligent design does not.

Regarding Ptolemy and Aristotle - these are a) as Syl said ancient science that was a precursor to modern science and b) obviously refuted by today's scientific community. Intelligent design is at best junk science, and there are those today that still believe in it.

Lord Mhoram wrote: Theoretical science, or at least theoretical science that can be taught, should have nonrefutable evidence supporting it. Evolution has this, intelligent design does not.

"Nonrefutable science" "proving" the "theory of evolution"?

In what universe did you dream that?

Edge,

Evolution has not been proved, in your opinion?

No, it certainly has not been proved.

It is just one of a number of 'origin' theories.

Edge,

Okay, we've been over this sufficiently on these boards. No way I'm gonna even try to convince you.

Thanks. Me too.

Edge wrote:

Cail wrote:I have no problem with alternate theories being brought up, but strict religious teachings should not be taught in science class.

Oh... mentioning 'alternative' theories is fine - as long as they don't contradict your philosophy?

Gee, how broad-minded...

You know, thinking that religion should be taught in a science class isn't broad-minded. It's just silly.

Religion requires faith. Science requires proof. The two seem to be at odds with each other, no?

It's the issue of faith. I'm sure people like Edge have their own proof. And that's not a criticism of Edge. What matters to him, matters. In some sense, it requires us to understand him, not him to prove to us.

Edge wrote:Oh... mentioning 'alternative' theories is fine - as long as they don't contradict your philosophy?

Gee, how broad-minded...

Not at all. But teaching religion in a science class is like teaching Shakespeare in geometry class. It doesn't make sense.

There's also the question of how many alternative theories you want to introduce. Do we want to talk about the Worm of the World's End? That's an alternative too. I have no idea what the Buddhists believe, but should we teach that as well?

See, that's the problem with this. I don't think there should be an issue with a teacher mentioning Creation, but I don't think it should be part of the curriculum.

Sylvanus wrote:If you guys want a Creation Day, and your local school endorses it or State legislatures will approve it, I'm all for it.

Assuredly, nobody here is trying for that Holiday.

I am in complete agreement with Cail when he states:

Cail wrote:I don't think there should be an issue with a teacher mentioning Creation, but I don't think it should be part of the curriculum.

No red herring. No hidden agenda. How could there be? I am not a "creationist." I just don't have a problem with a discussion on the origins of life including creationism if it comes up in science class.

Plissken wrote: Religion requires faith. Science requires proof. The two seem to be at odds with each other, no?

As I've said before, belief in evolution requires far more of a step of faith than I'm willing to make.

I simply don't have it in me to believe something just because an authority figure says it's so.

I don't know Edge....the fossil record and dating techniques have already proven that the earth is far older than the 6,000 years claimed by creationists.

So if nothing else, that tells me right there that a literal interpretation of the biblical creation story is not possibly true. Why is it that some parts of the Bible are open to interpretation, meant to drive home a point, and others are so adamantly taken literally?

As Lord Foul, and Lord Mhoram, and Cail and Matrixman, and others have said, evolution does not deal with the origin of life, but it deals with the progression of life.

Even if a divine influence got it all started, why does evolution have to be a leap of faith?

ur-bane wrote: Even if a divine influence got it all started, why does evolution have to be a leap of faith?

In a nutshell: because of a very conspicuous lack of supporting evidence.

Y'all need to sit down together and watch Inherit the Wind, Kirk Douglass gets very upset in it... **danlo scratches his divine-gills and yawns**

danlo,

I recently read that play for school. Very interesting.

btw, There is a lengthy article on this in Time. Did anyone else read it?

Edge wrote:

ur-bane wrote: Even if a divine influence got it all started, why does evolution have to be a leap of faith?

In a nutshell: because of a very conspicuous lack of supporting evidence.

Meaning?

(I have had this conversation over and over again. Let me fast forward:)

By definition, belief in an unseen Judeo-Christian Creator God requires faith: The belief in things unseen and unproven. No matter which of the data on Evolution you reject, no matter which "holes" you find in it's study, the study of evolution follows the course and requirements of scientific study - which is what places it justly in the science classroom.

Religion on the other hand, also has a place in which to be studied: The church, temple, or home. These are places where the teachings of faith are rightfully taught to the next generations.

To graft the teaching of faith onto a teaching that strives to limit itself to the observable and provable causes only the withering and wasting away of both lines of thought.

Personally, I'm all for a class in comparitive religion. In which all of the various creation myths should be mentioned and discussed.

How about this then: There is significant evidence that suggests that the creation story of Genesis is not true. And while some may consider "evolution" to be unsupported, I certainly don't see much supporting evidence for creationism, especially if we take the biblical account as given.

I think LoreMaster is right. It does all come down to faith. Some people have faith in god, some have faith in science. At least science is i) refutable, ii) open to question, iii) in serious search of evidence. Religion appears to be none of those things.

--A