Should religion be taught in science class?

[Jayhawker Soule]

They just started with gas and dust...making a leap of faith over where these things come from.

They started with that for which they had evidence. That you find this worthy of ridicule says far more about you than about science.

 

[Melody]

They started with that for which they had evidence. That you find this worthy of ridicule says far more about you than about science.

Ridicule? I am merely showing that there is no evidence *at all* in science that shows that *anything* is created from *nothing*. So to go from nothing to gas and dust takes a leap of faith. I'm not saying that's a problem...just that science takes a leap of faith as well.

 

[Druidus]

Melody, it doesn't go from nothing to something. It goes from something to something. Matter existed in the singularity point, matter exists now.

 

[Melody]

Melody, it doesn't go from nothing to something. It goes from something to something. Matter existed in the singularity point, matter exists now.

Ok...let's back up for a second. On every thread on evolution, the argument is made that evolution is based on the evidence that can be seen and by what we know about physics, etc.

Please tell me of one incidence where science has proved that anything comes from nothing. Otherwise you're *assuming* that something was there to start with...that leap of faith.

 

[Druidus]

Ok...let's back up for a second. On every thread on evolution, the argument is made that evolution is based on the evidence that can be seen and by what we know about physics, etc.

Please tell me of one incidence where science has proved that anything comes from nothing. Otherwise you're *assuming* that something was there to start with...that leap of faith.

It's obviously a binary choice here. Either the matter existed before the big bang, or it didn't. I'm going to say that it did, because the Source, which is what comprises all matter, existed before the big bang. Whether it existed into infinity I don't know.

You can't blame science for not knowing something at the moment. Science will eventual answer these (at present) unanswerables.

 

[Melody]

You can't blame science for not knowing something at the moment. Science will eventual answer these (at present) unanswerables.

I'm not blaming them. Just saying that they're also taking a leap of faith.

Anyway....I think this has gotten off topic (my fault, sorry).

 

[painted wolf]

nowhere does evolution say life came from nothing.
That would be silly.

The biggest difference between Science and Religion is when Science is shown to be incorrect, it goes... "woops, well lets change that so we are right...untill we find out we are wrong... then we will change again."
When Religion finds out its wrong.... well religion never finds out its wrong, because it by and large refuses to accept the hint of a possibility that it might be. Things are for the most part unchaging... good for the 'authority' of the religion... bad for scientific thinking.

Thus the two sould stay seperate... and be content with thier roles in society. IMHO

wa:do

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Lets make a fundamental distinction between the real and the unreal; between knowledge and perception. Knowledge is truth, under one law, the law of love or God. Truth is unalterable, eternal, and unambiguous. It can be unrecognized, but it cannot be changed. It applies to everything that God created, and only what He created is real. It is beyond learning because it is beyond time and process. It has no opposite; no beginning and no end. It merely is.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The world of perception, on the other hand, is the world of time, of change, of beginnings and endings. It is based on interpretation, not on facts. It is the world of birth and death, founded on the belief in scarcity, loss, separation, and death. It is learned rather than given, selective in its perceptual emphases, unstable in its functioning, and inaccurate in its interpretations.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From knowledge and perception respectively, two distinct thought systems arise which are opposite in every respect. In the realm of knowledge no thoughts exist apart from God, because God and His Creation share one Will. The world of perception, however, is made by the belief in opposites and separate wills, in perpetual conflict with each other and with God. What perception sees and hears appears to be real because it permits into awareness only what conforms to the wishes of the perceiver. This leads to a world of illusions, a world which needs constant defense precisely because it is not real.[/font]

 

[painted wolf]

by the way... this is the MOST precious thing I have read in a while :biglaugh:

Creationists don't need evidence. Lack of evidence does not mean lack of truth.

Thank you for that...

wa:do

 

[linwood]

Melody, it doesn't go from nothing to something. It goes from something to something. Matter existed in the singularity point, matter exists now.

I find it a bit amusing that you`re using the Big Bang as an example while defending the lack of faith needed for science Druidus.

The amount of "Faith" needed to have belief in the modern model rivals that of the faith needed for belief in a virgin birth.

 

[Tawn]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]From knowledge and perception respectively, two distinct thought systems arise which are opposite in every respect. In the realm of knowledge no thoughts exist apart from God, because God and His Creation share one Will. The world of perception, however, is made by the belief in opposites and separate wills, in perpetual conflict with each other and with God. What perception sees and hears appears to be real because it permits into awareness only what conforms to the wishes of the perceiver. This leads to a world of illusions, a world which needs constant defense precisely because it is not real.[/font]

Sooo.. where did u copy that from? The description of the realm of perception is quite good actually. Although I think youll find the world of 'knowledge' (what an inappropriate term) is more a world of fantasy and make belief than the world of perception might be.
Whilst the world of perception can conform to the wishes of the perciever - it is for that reason that we must question everything around us - so we can be as sure as possible that we arent letting our wishes cloud our perception. Belief in God is precisely one of these instances where our perception of the world is clouded by wishes

Can I take it you agree that science and religion should therefore be kept separate in the classroom???

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The amount of "Faith" needed to have belief in the modern model rivals that of the faith needed for belief in a virgin birth.

What a curious statement ...

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

* The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
* The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
* Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
* Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
* Time dilation in supernova light curves.

The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:

* Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
* Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
* Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
* Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.

Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

- see Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology

It actually worthy of at least some degree of pity. Having seen his God(s) evicted from 99.999999% of the Universe and its history, the poor "ID" apologist can do little more than scratch, claw, and ridicule in a frantic effort to defend the exponentially decreasing territory of his god-of-the-gaps, yet the best he can accomplish is some whining variant of the argument from ignorance. As Darwin noted:

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. - Charles Darwin, Introduction to The Descent of Man (1871)​

 

[Melody]

Can I take it you agree that science and religion should therefore be kept separate in the classroom???

Yep....although I do like the "turtles all the way down" theory.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

The amount of "Faith" needed to have belief in the modern model rivals that of the faith needed for belief in a virgin birth.

Actually, I can prove the virgin birth with science. But I tend to upset a lot of Christians when I bring it up. Most don't want to believe that science and spirituality can coincide, I however, understand that the two exist side by side and intertwined.

 

[linwood]

What a curious statement ...

Not curious at all once you actually examine the "evidence".

* The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.

Ulbers paradox is a falacy.
Stars cease to exist as well as exist.
However even if it were good evidence it is not evidence for a Big Bang.
It is evidence that the universe did not always exist in it`s present form.
It says nothing of origins, just that there were origins.

* The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.

The Data is "NOW"..very good.
It was said to be "Very Good" a decade ago before they changed the constant numerous times.
But.."NOW" it`s very good.
OK.
You yourself gave me an excellent link not long ago that raises serious questions about Hubbles Law.
haltonarp.com

However this is not evidence for the current model of a "Big Bang" either.
It is merely evidence that the universe is expanding.

* Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.

This evidence for the current Bang model..how exactly?
So it`s not special, that does not automatically mean there was ever a "Bang".

* Time dilation in supernova light curves.

Please supply some ref for this.
It`s not at your link.
Time is not a physical reality, it is not a fourth dimension.
In order for time to be manipulated by a "gravitational" light curve it would have to have physical properties (mass)or movement (phyisical velocity) through space.
Are you stating that time has these properties?

The rest of the evidence for a bang that you pasted is nothing more than evidence for "Redshift".
The fact that our universe is expanding.
It says nothing about the existnce or non-existnce of space and time like the Bang model does.
It says nothing about the creation of something from nothing as the Bang model does.
It says nothing of the existence of an infinately infinitismal point of matter exploding some 14 billion years ago.
Redshift does not require a "Bang" of the type described by the model.
In fact Redshift itself has a few problems.
haltonarp.org

This is a bit off topic here..
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8871

It actually worthy of at least some degree of pity.

Yes, most arguments from ignorance are.

 

[iaminterface]

I love reading about older religions or ones i've never heard about, so interesing.

When it comes to creationism vs Big bang, heres my idea.
Science should tell the students that the evidence they have found points so some sort of large explosion, but they don't need to be stating it as a fact, because just like creationism, its a myth and cannot be proven.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I don't think the Big Bang is really what we are talking about. I think the real question (or point) of this thread is whether or not Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution.

The Big Bang is simply a model at this point, that does not enjoy the same amount of supporting evidence that Evolution does. As far as I know, one would probably have to take a college level course (probably an Introductory to Cosmology, or something like that) to learn about the Big Bang in a structured class. I don't know of any high school level course that addresses the beginning of the universe. Then again, I've been out of high school for almost 30 years now. Perhaps Spinkles, Ceridwen, or one of our other young members could tell us if this material is even covered in a high school course material.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Einstein- "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Mr_Spinkles- "When it comes to philosophy, Albert was no Einstein. Stick to physics, Al."

 

[eternalsaint]

i think religion is taught in the classroom. creationism is not allowed to be taugt in the classroom because it is based on on faith and belief in a god or supreme being. I will use Christianity for an example because i am a christian, alhough the god that created all could be different in other religions. Christians believe that God created the universe by faith in the Bible. there is not one person who can prove that God exists scientifically so a person must have faith in the idea. on the same perspective, not one person can scientifially prove evolution because the universe came into existence before any human was around. no one can prove that 6 billion years ago there was a big bang and over long periods of time man evolved from amoeba. it just cant be done. it takes faith to believe in such a thing. to get to the point that religion is being taught in the classroom comes to by examining the idea or religion of humanism. humanists have called themselves a religion for a long time and here are a few of their beliefs, belief in no god; belief in matter as eternal; belief in spontaneous generation; and belief in man as an evolving animal. so why can the beliefs of their religion be taught but no others can. just because they call the ideas of their faith science doesnt mean its not a religion. do away with all religion from the classroom or allow all their ideas to be taught.