Should religion be taught in science class?

painted wolf · May 7, 2005

gravity is a theory...

the cold fact is that the evidence for evolution is too good to ignore.

the cold fact is that the evidence for religion is too poor to be in a science class

Religion is a matter of the heart... educating children about the various world religions should be for Social studies and History. IMHO

wa:do

Master Vigil · May 7, 2005

Could you imagine a high school science class teaching creation stories. How many are there? Geez, they would take up the whole year getting through about half of them. And since none can be backed up by scientific explanation at all. They would have wasted an entire year of science, on myth.

EnhancedSpirit · May 8, 2005

Sunstone said:
Isn't that like saying that since they are both sports, you can't teach basketball without teaching football? Obviously, that's not the case. You can teach basketball without teaching football. It's done all the time. And in much the same way, you can teach science without teaching religion, and religion without teaching science.

Basketball and football are not school courses. But they are BOTH taught about in Physical Education.

Melody · May 8, 2005

painted wolf said:
gravity is a theory...

the cold fact is that the evidence for evolution is too good to ignore.

But still theory.

EnhancedSpirit · May 8, 2005

the cold fact is that the evidence for evolution is too good to ignore.

This evidence does not prove evolution. It proves adaptation. There is a difference.

See there are only X number of elements (ingredients) that make up everything. EVERYTHING in the Universe. Physical matter is a combination of these elements. ei water is H2O.

Now a cake and a biscuit have the same ingredients in different ratios. The relationship between monkeys and people are the same.

It is impossible for me to believe that it was by shear dumb luck that all these elements accidentally bumped into each other to create everything on our planet. This leads me to believe that there must be a master chef that knew that one combination of elements would create animals, and another combination would make plants, and another for minerals, etc.

Tawn · May 8, 2005

EnhancedSpirit said:
This evidence does not prove evolution. It proves adaptation. There is a difference.

Last time I checked they were the same thing. Evolution occurs through adaptation.

It is impossible for me to believe that it was by shear dumb luck that all these elements accidentally bumped into each other to create everything on our planet. This leads me to believe that there must be a master chef that knew that one combination of elements would create animals, and another combination would make plants, and another for minerals, etc.

Abiogenesis is not taught in schools to my knowledge. So therefore neither should creationism.

Will everyone please get it into their heads that evolution and creationism are different categories!!!! Creationism and abiogenesis are competing views which describe how life was created. Evolution does not.

EnhancedSpirit · May 8, 2005

Tawn said:
Last time I checked they were the same thing. Evolution occurs through adaptation.

Evolution is a theory based on adaptation.

Jayhawker Soule · May 8, 2005

EnhancedSpirit said:
This evidence does not prove evolution. It proves adaptation. There is a difference.

The evidence absolutely confirms descent with modification and the change in allele frequency over time.

Tawn · May 8, 2005

EnhancedSpirit said:
Evolution is a theory based on adaptation.

Evolution is an obvious result of adaptation. How can you possibly believe in one and not the other?

Jayhawker Soule · May 8, 2005

EnhancedSpirit said:
Evolution is a theory based on adaptation.

No, survival is based on adaptation; evolution is a consequence.

EnhancedSpirit · May 8, 2005

Tawn said:
Will everyone please get it into their heads that evolution and creationism are different categories!!!! Creationism and abiogenesis are competing views which describe how life was created. Evolution does not.

Oh I see what you are saying, but until someone changed the label to abiogenesis, it was evolution vs creationism. So I guess what I need to say is the abiogenesis is a theory based on adaption.

Tawn · May 8, 2005

I wish they would change the label. There no reason someone cannot believe in both Creationism and Evolution together.

Melody · May 8, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
The evidence absolutely confirms descent with modification and the change in allele frequency over time.

Prove it. You say the evidence confirms it. I say that the evidence "implies" but that there is no proof. Without the missing link you cannot prove it but you can make an educated guess....which may be wrong.

The Voice of Reason · May 8, 2005

Teaching religion in school should be limited to a class on "Comparative Religions" in which the basic tenets of the worlds major religions are compared and contrasted. If a student then wishes to explore a given belief system, they should be encouraged to do so. This class in "Comparative Religions" should also include a short discussion on atheism and agnosticism. In my opinion, the "Comparative Religions" class should be a course required for graduation.

Teaching religion in the science classroom is ludicrous. Science deals with testable and falsifiable concepts that explain the world we live in, while religion, by definition, addresses a realm that is neither testable, or falsifiable.

Could there possibly be any two disciplines that are more dissimilar?

TVOR

EnhancedSpirit · May 8, 2005

Tawn said:
I wish they would change the label. There no reason someone cannot believe in both Creationism and Evolution together.

That's what I'm trying to say

Tawn · May 8, 2005

Melody said:
Prove it. You say the evidence confirms it. I say that the evidence "implies" but that there is no proof. Without the missing link you cannot prove it but you can make an educated guess....which may be wrong.

When things fall towards the earth it 'implies' gravity.. but doesnt prove it.
Yet such implied knowledge has allowed us to put satellites in orbit.

Evolution might be wrong. Hell the entire nature of your existance as you understand it may be wrong. However, evolution has a lot of evidence to support it and is thus unlikely to be wrong.

Creationism on the other hand seems to turn up no evidence..

Sunstone · May 8, 2005

Melody said:
Prove it. You say the evidence confirms it. I say that the evidence "implies" but that there is no proof. Without the missing link you cannot prove it but you can make an educated guess....which may be wrong.

This is just a quibble, but the "missing link" has been discovered time and again in animals like Homo habilus, which was unknown to Darwin, but predicted by his theory.

EnhancedSpirit · May 8, 2005

Tawn said:
Creationism on the other hand seems to turn up no evidence..

This could be because science has not up to that yet. We used to think that the cell was the smallest thing you could measure. Then science discovered otherwise. I have found that science actually helps me get closer to proving the existance of God rather than disproving it.

Melody · May 8, 2005

Sunstone said:
This is just a quibble, but the "missing link" has been discovered time and again in animals like Homo habilus, which was unknown to Darwin, but predicted by his theory.

Call me stubborn. I want to see the one for humans.

EnhancedSpirit · May 8, 2005

Quotes from famous evolutionist who claim there is not enough evidence to support evolution:

[font=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]"It is, however, very difficult to establish the precise lines of descent, termed [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]phylogenies, [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow]for most organisms." [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, adobe-helvetica, Arial Narrow](Ayala, F. J. and Valentine J. W., Evolving: The Theory and Process of Organic Evolution, 1978, p. 230) [/font]