Should religion be taught in science class?

[Pah]

Religion is the beginning science. You must begin with a datum of super-nature to investigate nature. There’s no other place to set it. (unless you can count to infinity)

Both religion and science begin with thought - separately.

While you are some what right about data being dependenrt on lower orders ofd data , you have not accounted for postulization.. Science can accept the inaccurances of measurement. and still postualte a therory, conduct tests with the acurracy of the data postulated and prove the theory. When that process is repeatable by others with accuracy to the same degree or better enough times, it becomes scientific law. One of the problems with religion is that is has nothing to measure and accuracy is irrevelant. None of religions axioms or postulates have been proved. It is foolish to talk of God's salvation when God has not been proven to exist. The scientific method negates God

What's the problem counting to infinity? Time perhaps! But not with mathmatics - !+2+3 ...+n+(n+1). In mathmatical fact there are more than one infinity.

Aleph-null

Aleph-null is a transfinite number as defined by Cantor when he proved that infinite sets can have different cardinalities or sizes. Aleph-null is by definition the cardinality of the set of all natural numbers, and is the smallest of all infinite cardinalities. Any set of cardinality Aleph-null can be put into a direct one-to-one correspondence (see bijection) with the integers, and thus is a countably infinite set. Such sets include the set of all prime numbers, the set of all squares of integers, the set of all positive integers, and the set of all integer multiples of a given non-zero real number n.

Aleph-one is the cardinality of the set of all countably infinite ordinal numbers. It can be demonstrated within the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms (without the axiom of choice) that no cardinal number is between aleph-null and aleph-one. If the axiom of choice (AC) is used, it can be further proved that the class of cardinal numbers is totally ordered, and thus aleph-one is the second-smallest infinite cardinal number. Aleph-one is pretty uninteresting without AC; using AC we can show one of the most useful properties of aleph-one: any countable subset of aleph-one has an upper bound in aleph-one (the proof is easy: a countable union of countable sets is countable; this is one of the most common applications of AC). This fact is analogous to the (also very useful) fact that any finite subset of aleph-null has an upper bound (finite unions of finite sets are finite).

http://www.fact-index.com/a/al/aleph_number.html

Just two of the infinite number of infinities.

-pah-

 

[Mr Spinkles]

SPLogan--

If an experiment causes me to conclude that electricity exists, and then I use this knowledge to invent a battery that should power a light bulb, and it works, I don't need to go back and question all my datums. If the datums were wrong, and if therefore my conclusions about electricity were wrong, the battery shouldn't be able to power the light bulb. But it does, so looks like science works after all!

 

[SPLogan]

Mr. Spinkles -

That's exactly how religion works. We know God, not by where He is, but by what He's done. We base scientific assumptions on religion because it "works after all." Therefor we consider it true, like electricity. Look! It lights up my life! See?

Super-nature is necessarily the bottom datum, it works. (whatever it is) That datum is in place by will. That "will" is a religious position. This necessarily applies to all everyone. If it didn't, life would end quickly. People would basically act as computers at best. There is where science and religion overlap. That's how we can live life and face the world each day. There is order and meaning after all.

Goodnight

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That's exactly how religion works. We know God, not by where He is, but by what He's done.

That's odd, I haven't seen God do anything...

We base scientific assumptions on religion because it "works after all." Therefor we consider it true, like electricity. Look! It lights up my life! See?

So since Hindus, Muslims, evangelists, Catholics, and Jews say their religion lights up their lives, they are all true?

Super-nature is necessarily the bottom datum, it works. (whatever it is)

It does? Rain dances don't bring on storms. Praying doesn't heal the sick. Charms won't help me do well on a test, and Voodoo will not harm my enemies. What is "super-nature" and when has it "worked"?

The only thing that "works" in science, as far as I can tell, is using logic, insisting on evidence, and testing things with controls (as I said earlier, we don't need to test the controls themselves if the experiment works).

 

[SPLogan]

That's odd, I haven't seen God do anything...

I was assuming that you had eyes. Sorry

So since Hindus, Muslims, evangelists, Catholics, and Jews say their religion lights up their lives, they are all true?

No, and neither are all scientists right. The subjects (science & religion) are true, not necessarily the beliefs within those subjects. The beliefs within the subject of religion are fundamentally a matter of the will, but they are the foundation of science.

What is "super-nature" and when has it "worked"?

"Super-nature" is the noun form of the adjective "supernatural." It "works" in that it functions as a base or a way of understanding anything.

The only thing that "works" in science, as far as I can tell, is using logic, insisting on evidence, and testing things with controls (as I said earlier, we don't need to test the controls themselves if the experiment works).

I agree.

 

[SPLogan]

What's the problem counting to infinity? Time perhaps! But not with mathmatics - !+2+3 ...+n+(n+1). In mathmatical fact there are more than one infinity.

"time perhaps" - that was my point. God is eternal and omniscient. Science is left in the finite realm of speculation. To have a chance of figuring it all out, science would have to have been around literally forever. Within the context of finitude we are left to make leaps of faith for answers. Those leaps are unavoidable in linear thought and are guided by human will. Ultimately people believe what they want to. But they "want to" for a reason. "Want to" is the department of religion. It also forms the fundamental context for science.

Your mathematical formulas accomplish nothing more that the formulation of the word “infinity.”

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I was assuming that you had eyes. Sorry

No need to apologize--I do have eyes, but they must be defective because I've never seen God, nor have I seen Him do things. Can you explain what you meant by "We know God...by what He's done."? Have you seen God do things, or do you simply attribute everything you see to God?

No, and neither are all scientists right. The subjects (science & religion) are true, not necessarily the beliefs within those subjects.

Ah, but you said that religious beliefs are true because we observe them to work "See! It lights up my life!". I have heard many people of many different faiths claim that their beliefs make them happy in life and provide meaning...so by your definition, there are many contradictory religious beleifs that "work" and are therefore "true". In science, however, a scientist might be wrong, but we can verify this by testing his theories to see if they work.

The beliefs within the subject of religion are fundamentally a matter of the will, but they are the foundation of science.

Which religious beliefs, specifically, make up the foundation of science?

"Super-nature" is the noun form of the adjective "supernatural." It "works" in that it functions as a base or a way of understanding anything.

What is this super-nature, and how does it serve as a base of understanding anything? What supernatural beliefs must I hold in order to understand that acids and bases will explode when mixed?

 

[linwood]

On the other end of my examples would be a plethora of naturalistic justifications for those phenomena.

It is more than possible that these natural justifications are the correct evidence isn`t it?

If you have a natural justification for anything why do you need to wrap it in myth?

I don`t get it.

 

[SPLogan]

What supernatural beliefs must I hold in order to understand that acids and bases will explode when mixed?

You know that God is unchanging and His profound order in creation extend even into the test tube when you mix acids and bases. "Laws" of nature exist because God spoke and declaired that they be so. Chaos knows no law. God knows no chaos. That's why you don't either.

The Universe is nonsence without God. You live in denial for a reason. Because if God is soverign, then you aren't soverign. That thought disturbs you so you live in denial of reality. Yes, I attribute everything I see to God. He made it. I believe in science and I believe in truth. The two aren't exclusive of each other. I haven't lived long enough to have it all figured out. I trust in God and His redemption through Christ for sinners like me. He changed my bottom datum. Namely, my will. He can change yours too.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life,[1] and the life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

1In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.3And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
6And God said, "Let there be an expanse[1] in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8And God called the expanse Heaven.[2] And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10God called the dry land Earth,[3] and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[4] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so. 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.
14And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons,[5] and for days and years, 15and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16And God made[6] the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. 17And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.
20And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds[7] fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." 21So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.
24And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds--livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26Then God said, "Let us make man[8] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
27So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. 31And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

16 "For God so loved the world,[1] that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Here's my scientific conclusion from this exegetical observation: Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

Again, science is the study of God. Theology is the master science. Religion is the beginning of science. Truth should be taught in the science class even if you don't like it.

 

[Ceridwen018]

"Again, science is the study of God. Theology is the master science. Religion is the beginning of science. Truth should be taught in the science class even if you don't like it."

Yikes....

 

[LittleNipper]

Soren Lovtrup a Swedish scientist/evolutionist put it this way, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deciet in the history of science."

DARWINISM: THE REFUTATION of a MYTH, Croomhelm, Ney York, 1987, page 422.

 

[Pah]

Soren Lovtrup a Swedish scientist/evolutionist put it this way, "I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deciet in the history of science."

DARWINISM: THE REFUTATION of a MYTH, Croomhelm, Ney York, 1987, page 422.

Tell us, LittleNipper, in this book of his what was the four theroies of evolution he talked about - which one did he recommend? Was it Lamarckism? His own theory? Creation theory? Do you know or are you just repeating drivel from some Christian site?

-pah-

 

[LittleNipper]

Tell us, LittleNipper, in this book of his what was the four theroies of evolution he talked about - which one did he recommend? Was it Lamarckism? His own theory? Creation theory? Do you know or are you just repeating drivel from some Christian site?

-pah-

I suppose you'll need to read his book and find out for YOURSELF. What is drivel
anyway-------whatever someone disagrees with?

 

[Pah]

I suppose you'll need to read his book and find out for YOURSELF. What is drivel
anyway-------whatever someone disagrees with?

The book is out of print.

Where did you get your information?

-pah-

 

[LittleNipper]

The book is out of print.

Where did you get your information?

-pah-

Why would it matter? The text is real and you might try a library. Are evolutionists the only ones privy to credible information?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Are evolutionists the only ones privy to credible information?

It's the best explanation I can come up with.

 

[Melody]

No, creationism should not be taught in schools. Again...separation of religion and state.

I would like to see a bit more honesty in the science classes though. Even in my college science classes, evolution was taught as fact and there just isn't proof that we've crawled out of the primordial ooze.

My anthropology professor loved to expound on how man and apes descended from a common ancester and once they found the missing link, all would be explained. Well if you've ever seen a chart with the missing link, it's pretty obvious that everything pre-missing link looks like a knuckle dragging ape with the features of said animal. Everything post-missing link walks upright with normal length arms and a human skull.

Science also operates on faith but that is not taught in school.

Melody

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Even in my college science classes, evolution was taught as fact and there just isn't proof that we've crawled out of the primordial ooze.

There is evidence that we crawled out of the primordial ooze, the question is how, exactly, this happened. Evolution should be taught as a fact--it is a fact that all (complex) organisms come from living parents...they don't suddenly *poof!* appear...it's a fact that parents pass on their traits to their offspring, and that these traits can become modified over time to form organisms so different from their great great great great great great (you get the idea) grandparents that we can call them a different species altogether. Evolution is one of the most well supported theories in the history of science.

 

[Pah]

Why would it matter? The text is real and you might try a library. Are evolutionists the only ones privy to credible information?

It matters because you are spreading deception, a practise so many Christian creationist sites practise. You imply by your out-of-context statement that Darwin was completely wrong. On the contrary, both Lovtrup and Darwin scientifically bebunk the creation story - they differ only in the mechanism of the fact of evelution.

Also from the book - http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho28.htm - a review

"Indeed, the nature and the wealth of the corroborating evidence are such that the theory on the reality of evolution turns out to be one of the best substantiated theories in biology, perhaps in the natural sciences."

And denying a tenet of creationism -

"It thus appears that all the objections against the macromutation theory may easily be met, and this is in itself perhaps the most compelling evidence in its favour."

Please tell me if deception is in itself a sin - are the Christians sites that selectively quote out-of-context from scientific works guilty of sin?

-pah-

 

[painted wolf]

Melody...

perhaps you should take a better look at the line of human decent... Many of our ancestors were not built just like us... Australopithicines (sp) had longer arm/leg proportions than humans and were still quite capable tree climbers, while still being able to walk upright like man. Kenyanthropus (2001) and especially Sahelanthropus (found in 2002) are filling in gaps quite nicely.

part of the problem is with artistic reconstructions... many older pictures are poorly done and incorrect in thier depictions of our ancestors. Artistic licence is a big wiggle rooom in showing prehistoric animals. Many old illustrations were made to highlight certen ideas rather than the actual specimen... such as the human nature of the older hominids. Thus they were shown more human and less ape like.

hope this helps

wa:do