Should religion be taught in science class?

[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, >>

Sorry it's been <cough cough> years since I was in college so I don't remember the names but if Australopithicines was a knuckle dragger then I didn't consider it human but rather ape and it was probably pre missing link.

I get into these conversations with my husband and he can't figure out why I can't remember specifics of these classes. Um...could it be that I can't even remember where I put my shoes and they're a bit higher up the chain of priorities?

I didn't use to be like this, but I think pregnancies kill brain cells. It's called Mommyheimers.

Melody

 

[painted wolf]

Australopiticus aferensis aka (lucy) is not a 'knuckle dragger' as she was built for bipedal walking though not as good as us. Dispite that there are other numerous fetures that make her more like us than any of the 'apes'.
tecnically she is post 'missing link' as we have found several older species than her. Sahelanthropus is the oldest and most ape like of the 'missing links' so far, though he still has many features that make him a hominid rather than an 'ape'.

its ok that you don't remember, its a lot of quickly changing information. The key is that you look for answers. That to me is why science (especially paleontology) is such an exciting field, one specimin can re-write the whole family tree.

I still feel that church is the best place to tech creationism... it is a religious doctrine and should stay that way.

wa:do

 

[LittleNipper]

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

The "EXPOUNDING" of your professor amounts to nothing less than a sermon and that constitutes RELIGION to my way of thinking. No one is saying that
Baptist or Catholic or Jewish faith should be PROMOTED as superior to any
other at Public expense. What MUST be provided is a means of presenting FACTS and not just onesided opinions that conveniently promote SECULARISM & EVOLUTION as totally without flaws or cause for dissension.
I can add that the promotion of EVOLUTION in no way encourages real investigation. It hampers it. Do we wish to hamper science in order to hold to "secular reasoning".

 

[painted wolf]

if creationism was based on genuine science and scientific process then that would be different, but it isn't it is psudo-science at best. Hucksterism at worst.

we don't teach parapsycology and 'oddball' cryptozoology (like bigfoot/nessie) in science class either.

wa:do

 

[Ceridwen018]

Do we wish to hamper science in order to hold to "secular reasoning".

You seem willing to hamper science in favor of your religious reasoning.

 

[LittleNipper]

You seem willing to hamper science in favor of your religious reasoning.

RATE which is an acronym for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth is a research project exploring an alternative young-earth investigation of radioisotope dating. The final portions of the technical RATE book are presently going through a review process. The release of this book is slated for next year---the second draft of the work should be completed in October. We will see if this scientific investigation is accepted or rejected on evolutionary bias or not. In any case, this book is likely to cause as much tempest as did the "THE GENESIS FLOOD" by John C. Whitcomb, Jr. & Henery M. Morris in 1961.
That single book is the beginning of the Creation movement that is very strong and growing ever stronger today. Prior to that time the old fashion view was that Science and Biblical views were incompatable. However, it was discovered that this "incompatability" existed only in "theory".

 

[Pah]

RATE which is an acronym for Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth is a research project exploring an alternative young-earth investigation of radioisotope dating. The final portions of the technical RATE book are presently going through a review process. The release of this book is slated for next year---the second draft of the work should be completed in October. We will see if this scientific investigation is accepted or rejected on evolutionary bias or not. In any case, this book is likely to cause as much tempest as did the "THE GENESIS FLOOD" by John C. Whitcomb, Jr. & Henery M. Morris in 1961.
That single book is the beginning of the Creation movement that is very strong and growing ever stronger today. Prior to that time the old fashion view was that Science and Biblical views were incompatable. However, it was discovered that this "incompatability" existed only in "theory".

If it is not peer reviewed is not scientific. If it is released in book form it bypasses peer review and is intended to influence public opinion. If it is published as a book, it may cause a tempest but only in the circles that need all the help thay can get in trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

I think the book will wallow in the mud - the very home of the sow.

-pah-

 

[LittleNipper]

I guess any group can be considered a peer group. Come to my church and you will be in my peer group. Get a job at my place of employment and you will be in my peer group. If you graduated in 1972 then you were in my peer group. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. If you don't wish to test the findings that is your problem. I could care less what you think. I only care about what you know. If you don't wish to eventually read the text, well that is you loss. Your bias is showing and you didn't even need to use capital letters.

 

[Pah]

I guess any group can be considered a peer group.Come to my church and you will be in my peer group. Get a job at my place of employment and you will be in my peer group. If you graduated in 1972 then you were in my peer group

Which is not the peer group of science. You are at the threshold of understanding why Creation "Science" is not science.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. If you don't wish to test the findings that is your problem. I could care less what you think. I only care about what you know. If you don't wish to eventually read the text, well that is you loss. Your bias is showing and you didn't even need to use capital letters.

I would prefer peer review of science from those competent and credentialed in the science being reviewd. Niether you nor John C. Whitcomb have credentials in science - any science.

From his biography http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_whitcomb.asp

Biography

John C. Whitcomb served as Professor of Theology and Old Testament at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, IN, for 38 years.

He was graduated with honors from Princeton University in 1948 with a B.A. degree, majoring in ancient and European history. At the end of his freshman year at Princeton, he was led to Christ by Donald B. Fullerton, a former missionary to India.

In 1951, he was graduated from Grace Theological Seminary with the B.D. degree (high honors) and received the Th.M. degree in 1953 and Th.D. degree in 1957 from the same institution. From 1951 to 1990, he taught in the Department of Old Testament and also in the Department of Christian Theology, in which he served as chairman for many of these years. For twenty years he also served as Director of Doctoral Studies, and for ten years as Editor of Grace Theological Journal.

Where is the science? Not here
From his resume at Answers in Genesis

Princeton University, 1948 — B.A. degree, majoring in ancient and European history.

Grace Theological Seminary, 1951 — B.D. degree (high honors), 1953 — Th.M. degree, 1957 — Th.D. degree [

-pah-

 

[LittleNipper]

Which is not the peer group of science. You are at the threshold of understanding why Creation "Science" is not science.
COLOR=Teal]I would prefer peer review of science from those competent and credentialed in the science being reviewd. Niether you nor John C. Whitcomb have credentials in science - any science.
From his biography http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/j_whitcomb.asp
Where is the science? Not here
From his resume at Answers in Genesis
-pah-[/COLOR]

Charles Darwin was a disciple of Sir Charles Lyell, who wrote "PRINCIPLES OF
GEOLOGY." And Sir Charles Lyell was an English attorney. It isn't who teaches you, it is what you are prepared to learn. I would say the John C. Whitcomb was more educated then Sir Charles Lyell & Charles Darwin put together. You really do set your sight rather low...

 

[Pah]

Charles Darwin was a disciple of Sir Charles Lyell, who wrote "PRINCIPLES OF
GEOLOGY." And Sir Charles Lyell was an English attorney. It isn't who teaches you, it is what you are prepared to learn. I would say the John C. Whitcomb was more educated then Sir Charles Lyell & Charles Darwin put together. You really do set your sight rather low...

Sir Charles Lyell

Sir Charles Lyell was born in Scotland on November 14, 1797 and died in London on February 22, 1875. He attended Oxford University at age 19. He was knighted for scientific accomplishment in 1848. He later became a Baron in 1864. He grew up the oldest of 10 children. Lyell's father was an active naturalist. Lyell had access to an elaborate library including subjects such as Geology.

When Lyell was at Oxford, his interests were mathematics, classics, the legal system (law) and geology. He attended a lecture by William Buckland that triggered his enthusiasm for geology.

Lyell originally started his career as a lawyer, but later turned to geology. His zoological skills aided in his extensive studies and observations throughout the world. He became an author of The Geological Evidence of the Antiquity of Man in 1863 and Principles of Geology (12 editions). Lyell argued in this book that, at the time, presently observable geological processes were adequate to explain geological history. He thought the action of the rain, sea, volcanoes and earthquakes explained the geological history of more ancient times.

How dare you compare Sir Charles Lyell to Dr. Whitcomb in the mater of creditials

How dare you try to assassinate Darwin with a poorly reasearched statement about a contemporary.

-pah-

 

[LittleNipper]

How dare I? Jesus was just a carpenter, at best in your eyes. I believe him to be the Son of God---go figure. In fact he was God in human form. Lyell was a lawyer and Darwin seems to have been a reclusive psychotic, suffering from Agoraphobia, several phobias and panic attacks. I guess it all depends on which basket one willing is placing ones eggs in.

Atheists come and atheists go, and where they go I'd rather not know...

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Atheists come and atheists go, and where they go I'd rather not know...

Haha, this made me laugh, good rhyme.

The problem here is, a scientist is supposed to be both prosecutor and defense attorney. Unlike an attorney, a scientist has to consider both evidence for and against a theory (although there are always debate as to how to interpret evidence and what it means). Creation 'scientists' are just the prosecution, their main goal is to show that current science has not *gasp!* answered every question there is. Of course, whenever science answers one question more pop up, and the quest for finding more answers continues. Creationists don't like it when science answers questions because this makes us ask more questions, and their goal is to stop people from questioning altogether so that all there is left are their a priori beliefs.

Of course, creationists rarely (if ever) actually present alternative theories or explanations...they just hope that if they tear down all the other explanations that have evidence behind them, people will give up searching for evidence and once again be willing to accept their non-ideas.

 

[Pah]

How dare I? Jesus was just a carpenter, at best in your eyes. I believe him to be the Son of God---go figure. In fact he was God in human form. Lyell was a lawyer and Darwin seems to have been a reclusive psychotic, suffering from Agoraphobia, several phobias and panic attacks. I guess it all depends on which basket one willing is placing ones eggs in.

Atheists come and atheists go, and where they go I'd rather not know...

Answer the points and stay on topic

How do you compare Sir Charles Lyell to Dr. Whitcomb in the mater of creditials

How do you try to assassinate Darwin with a poorly reasearched statement about a contemporary. ( this one is directed at your still obvious error - obvious from the quote supplied)

-pah-

P.S.
Yes a particular atheist may come and go but athiesm will outlast all religions

 

[LittleNipper]

Answer the points and stay on topic

How do you compare Sir Charles Lyell to Dr. Whitcomb in the mater of creditials

How do you try to assassinate Darwin with a poorly reasearched statement about a contemporary. ( this one is directed at your still obvious error - obvious from the quote supplied)

-pah-

P.S.
Yes a particular atheist may come and go but athiesm will outlast all religions

I've read about all three. I've read books written by two. Dr. Whitcomb was by far the more educated. He had by far the wider spectrum of research to investigate.

P.S. Who cares. There is no religion in heaven. There are no atheists in hell.

 

[Pah]

I've read about all three. I've read books written by two. Dr. Whitcomb was by far the more educated. He had by far the wider spectrum of research to investigate. QUOTE]

Being educated does not equate to being crednetialed.

But this is going off-topic. The last post "on-topic" was my refutation of the book - if it is not peer reviewd it is not scientific. Address that point if you will.

-pah-

 

[chronic1634]

creation theory is perfectly scientific. in fact, the concept of the big bang is practically unscientific, not taking into account quantam theories (note: theories. see below for more). i agree that there was a big bang, but i differ from the classic explanation that it came from nothing. the law of cause and effect states that anything with a beginning has a cause, and therefore the big bang must have a cause, not just random spurts of energy appearing out of nowhere. it makes sense therefore that if (a) god created the universe, he also created everything inside of it (creation - humans, plants, planets, water, scientific laws) and it was made personally. let's think about it here - if he is god, he knows everything. if he knows everything, he knows it's a mistake to create something and then drop it and run because it would be a mistake on his part and therefore he wouldn't be all-perfect in terms of his creation.

now, as for quantam mechanics and theories or what not - quantam whatever states that there can be anomalies where energy all of a sudden pools at one area and create extra matter and energy for a limited amount of time before disappearing. now, there are two problems with using this to explain the beginning of time, energy and matter:
1) if time, energy and matter didn't exist, no energy could 'pool up' because it doesn't exist. i mean, what a revelation! it's not the hard to figure out!
2) the energy and matter only pool for a short time. how could the amount of time that the anomaly appears be measured in terms of time if time doesn't exist?

creation science is scientific - remember, science is pursuit of the truth, not a set of rules and facts about how the universe operates - those are scientific laws created by scientists, whose only motivation should be to come to conclusions about the truth.

since science is pursuit of the truth, and religion's attempt at science is creation, it should be part of the curriculum in schools' science education programs.

appreciate comments.

 

[Ceridwen018]

creation theory is perfectly scientific. in fact, the concept of the big bang is practically unscientific, not taking into account quantam theories (note: theories. see below for more).

I have a question. If the creation theory is scientific, and the Big Bang theory is unscientific, why is the Big Bang accepted by the scientific community as a valid possibility but not creationism?

(a) god created the universe, he also created everything inside of it (creation - humans, plants, planets, water, scientific laws) and it was made personally. let's think about it here - if he is god, he knows everything. if he knows everything, he knows it's a mistake to create something and then drop it and run because it would be a mistake on his part and therefore he wouldn't be all-perfect in terms of his creation.

First of all, you're making the ill-fated assumption that there is indeed a god. Secondly, you seem to be presuming that you know how he thinks. How do you know he would view creating a world and then dropping it as a mistake?

1) if time, energy and matter didn't exist, no energy could 'pool up' because it doesn't exist. i mean, what a revelation! it's not the hard to figure out!

Now, I don't know a whole lot about quantum mechanics--luckily however, there are people here who do. I still have a couple comments, though: I think the biggest thing right here is your assumption that the universe ever existed without energy. Everyone has been taught in science class at one point or another that energy cannot be created or destroyed (except perhaps created by quantum events?), so what do you think of the idea that energy has always existed?

2) the energy and matter only pool for a short time. how could the amount of time that the anomaly appears be measured in terms of time if time doesn't exist?

Time is relative. It exists with reference points, and ceases to without them. Obviously, the event of pooling energy can be constituted as a reference point.

creation science is scientific - remember, science is pursuit of the truth, not a set of rules and facts about how the universe operates

Woah now, hold the phone. Philosophy is the search for the 'Truth'. Science, although in search of answers which are 'true' in relation to reality, doesn't care about your spirituality or about some 'higher power'. Science most certainly IS the pursuit of rules and facts about how the universe operates.

those are scientific laws created by scientists, whose only motivation should be to come to conclusions about the truth.

They are scientific theories which have been observed by scientists. Given the number of uncertainties and mere theories which constitute the foundation of science, I am sure you now realize how the second half of that statement is false.

In all reality, I would have to say the same thing about creationists. The creation theory was formulated not from logic and credible observation of the universe, but to try and scientifically prove the bible.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

i agree that there was a big bang, but i differ from the classic explanation that it came from nothing.

That's not the classic explanation at all. You are thinking of time in terms of a straight line that extends in two directions for infinity, but it is not. Time is relative, and therefore it is not possible to speak of a "before" the Big Bang...the theoretical nothingness that existed "before" the Big Bang lasted for 0 seconds and therefore the Big Bang didn't "come from" that theoretical nothingness, it just has been, since the beginning of time.

and therefore the big bang must have a cause, not just random spurts of energy appearing out of nowhere.

Physicists have known for some time now that virtual particles come into and out of existence randomly in a vacuum, without cause.

it makes sense therefore that if (a) god created the universe,

Whoah there, you went from discussing the Big Bang to God? There are different theories as to how exactly the Big Bang happened, each with some evidence to suppport them, but there has never been any evidence of a supernatural entity causing the Big Bang...you might as well tell me supernatural entities cause lightning. Besides, isn't belief in God supposed to be based on faith/revelation and not evidence?

1) if time, energy and matter didn't exist, no energy could 'pool up' because it doesn't exist. i mean, what a revelation! it's not the hard to figure out!

There never was a time when time, energy, and matter didn't exist. Time has always existed, as has energy and matter. Think of it this way: "before" the Big Bang, there is (theoretically) nothing. For how long does this nothingness last? Exactly 0 seconds. Therefore, this nothingness never existed....there never was a "time" when matter and energy and time didn't exist. If there had been a time when energy and matter didn't exist, your argument would be stronger.

creation science is scientific - remember, science is pursuit of the truth, not a set of rules and facts about how the universe operates - those are scientific laws created by scientists, whose only motivation should be to come to conclusions about the truth.

Creation science is the pursuit of trying to fit all the evidence into some a priori beliefs, and trying to hide all the evidence that goes against them. Real science doesn't try to prove a case, as creation science does, it just weighs the evidence. The best creation "science" can do is try to poke holes in modern science and hope that their beliefs can fill them (and not, say, the creation stories of thousands of other cultures for example).

 

[Pah]

creation theory is perfectly scientific. in fact, the concept of the big bang is practically unscientific, not taking into account quantam theories (note: theories. see below for more). i agree that there was a big bang, but i differ from the classic explanation that it came from nothing. the law of cause and effect states that anything with a beginning has a cause, and therefore the big bang must have a cause, not just random spurts of energy appearing out of nowhere. it makes sense therefore that if (a) god created the universe, he also created everything inside of it (creation - humans, plants, planets, water, scientific laws) and it was made personally. let's think about it here - if he is god, he knows everything. if he knows everything, he knows it's a mistake to create something and then drop it and run because it would be a mistake on his part and therefore he wouldn't be all-perfect in terms of his creation.

now, as for quantam mechanics and theories or what not - quantam whatever states that there can be anomalies where energy all of a sudden pools at one area and create extra matter and energy for a limited amount of time before disappearing. now, there are two problems with using this to explain the beginning of time, energy and matter:
1) if time, energy and matter didn't exist, no energy could 'pool up' because it doesn't exist. i mean, what a revelation! it's not the hard to figure out!
2) the energy and matter only pool for a short time. how could the amount of time that the anomaly appears be measured in terms of time if time doesn't exist?

creation science is scientific - remember, science is pursuit of the truth, not a set of rules and facts about how the universe operates - those are scientific laws created by scientists, whose only motivation should be to come to conclusions about the truth.

since science is pursuit of the truth, and religion's attempt at science is creation, it should be part of the curriculum in schools' science education programs.

appreciate comments.

Your first post is very nicely put - it will be good to have you as a member in ReligiousForums.

I'd first like to address one of your assumptions about science. I don't believe science is a search for truth but rather a pursuit of knowing a material world. It must do so based on fact and rules or it is not science. It operates from observation to testing thoughts about the observed to peer review of the results and conclusions to a modification of the thoughts and re-testing and re-review by peers. That is the cycle of science, the rules of science, if you will and this is what is included in the classroom.

With a better definition of science, we can now look at creation science. It's axiomatic observation does not come from the material world - it comes from a supernatural author quite apart from the material world. Unless we can be called peers, there are no peers, so says the author. If we can be called peers, even in a limited sense, we can not forefill the requirement for complete review by testing (or reproducing the original tests) the hypothesis.

Now I may be swayed to believe science is a search for truth. It would be a discussion in the philosophical realm. But the utlimate goal is not neccessarily important. So many things in curriculum are a search for truth of one sort or another.I can find the search for and expression of truth in the broad expanses of history, the arts, business, mathematics, even home economics from a philosophical standpoint. The curriculum is established to provide a body of knowledge as a minimum standard for participation in this material world and really doesn't seek to provide truth.

So my conclusions about creationism is that it does not equate to science at key points and does not deserve to be treated as a science.

-pah-