Should religion be taught in science class?

[Mr Spinkles]

I think it's important to note that the Big Bang and evolution, as far as science is concerned, have nothing to do with God's existence (or lack thereof). There are discoverable properties about the universe and how it works...the goal of science is to discover those properties, not who created them.

 

[LittleNipper]

In addition someone might just wonder:

The scientific community? Which scientific "community" are you speaking of? The simple explanation is that presently there is a decidely secular, agnostic, atheistic scientific "community" entrenched in all aspects of public education. They presently control the field of study, the accreditation process, the research piorities, etc... It would be like trying to open a "Christian" church in the capital of North Korea, to expect any cooperation to bring into perspective FLOOD dynamics or RATE research.
This might just infer Biblical truth. What secularist would wish to do such a thing?!?!? Why that might cause people to imagine that GOD really does exist. What a terrible thing.

 

[Confused]

Believe me, religion should not be taught in science class. science alone is full of many things and bringing in religion may heavy the workload. But im all for it being in the curriculum if it has to be.

 

[Pah]

In addition someone might just wonder:

The scientific community? Which scientific "community" are you speaking of? The simple explanation is that presently there is a decidely secular, agnostic, atheistic scientific "community" entrenched in all aspects of public education. They presently control the field of study, the accreditation process, the research piorities, etc... It would be like trying to open a "Christian" church in the capital of North Korea, to expect any cooperation to bring into perspective FLOOD dynamics or RATE research.
This might just infer Biblical truth. What secularist would wish to do such a thing?!?!? Why that might cause people to imagine that GOD really does exist. What a terrible thing.

Totally unsubstantiated This supplies as much proof of the statements as LittleNipper supplies for the proof of God - Zero.

-pah-

 

[LittleNipper]

Totally unsubstantiated This supplies as much proof of the statements as LittleNipper supplies for the proof of God - Zero.

-pah-

Is it totally unsubstantiated that evolutionists have been unable to explain the following:

http://www.answersingensis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/docs/v14n3_dino.asp

It would seem that little if anything is being said about such finds ---- I think evolutionists are very embarrassed and are presently looking for a good excuse to prevent all their theories from falling apart...

 

[Druidus]

Such bones could never have lasted 70 million years, she said.

There are many ways they could.

In 1987, while working with scientists from Memorial University (Newfoundland, Canada) on Bylot Island, just east of the northern tip of Baffin Island, a young Inuit (Canadian Eskimo) picked up a bone fragment. It was iden- tified within days as part of the lower jaw of a duckbill dinosaur and proclaimed to the world as such.1

I live on Baffin Island in Iqaluit, and I have heard that story. It was pretty intersting.

How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold.

Of course it wasn't as cold back then. Many things still could have preserved them though. For instance, tar that has since disapeared. It simply sunk back into the Earth and by then it was cold enough. That's only one way. There are others. Because there were many different kinds, a tarpit seems likely.

Similar perplexing questions can be asked about the `frozen forest' found even further north on Axel Heiberg Island in the Canadian Arctic, less than 1,200 kilometres from the North Pole.

Continental drift.

Nevertheless, the wood and leaf debris are astonishingly well preserved. The plant material is not petrified. The logs are still wood which can be sawn and burnt. The leaf debris and cones include some specimens recognizable as dawn redwood.

As the Ice Age drew on, it got colder and colder. One year, the Arctic Forest was just to far north, and too cold to live anymore and it froze. The reason it is not petrified is because the water is still within the plants, and hasn't been taken away somehow.

but perhaps only thousands.

Impossible. There would be far more bones, and in some cases, even frozen bodies. It would be impossible as well for a large cold-blooded creature to survive in the cold we have today.

 

[Runt]

***MOD POST***

You guys are beginning to stray off topic. Please refer back to the original post and proceed from there. Thanks!

 

[Mister Emu]

I believe that as long as you teach one unproven theory as to the creation of the universe and how humans came to being (Evolution and Big Bang theory, In High School both of these were taught as if fact) then you should also teach the opposite side of the coin(that there is a divine creator(s) of some sort).

Perhaps not in science class, but definiatley should be taught.

 

[chronic1634]

I believe that as long as you teach one unproven theory as to the creation of the universe and how humans came to being (Evolution and Big Bang theory, In High School both of these were taught as if fact) then you should also teach the opposite side of the coin(that there is a divine creator(s) of some sort).

Perhaps not in science class, but definiatley should be taught.

I agree with this.

 

[chronic1634]

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?

Because the other side of the story hasn't been allowed in schools where all the current members of the scientific community were educated, and what do people do if the other side of the story isn't taught? They accept what's given as fact. Now, of course there are those who know the truth, but the #1 reason other people don't know is because those people were and for the most part are still too wussy to share it and too scared of what others will think of them.

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?

Sorry, I was going off on a limb that doesn't belong in this conversation because it's not really on the topic. Not going to pursue it further. And I was being a bit presumptious - using abstract reasoning.

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?

Energy hasn't always existed because that would require an eternity - infinite time stretching in both directions of the spectrum. If time stretched infinitely into the past, we technically couldn't have a present moment because every present moment requires a previous moment, a previous step in the measure of time to 'boost' it. Trying to reach a present moment from the one preceding it would be a lot like trying to jump out of a bottomless pit and reach the top: You can't do it because you have nothing to push yourself off of.

Time is relative.

Relative to what?

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

Explain how time could come into existence from nothing. I mean, you could easily say that energy pooling constitutes a reference point, but for energy to move through particles (energy requires matter to be expressed, remember) requires time to be pre-existent so that it's progress can be measured in reference points, including a beginning reference point - energy can't bring time into existence when it requires it to exist. Energy requires time for shifting of energy to exist, and matter to be expressed.

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.

Point out exactly where I associated science in any way with spirituality. As for science, it is the search for truth in the natural realm. Philosophy is the search for truth in the spiritual realm.

They are scientific theories which have been observed by scientists.

My bad. Of course they don't create the scienctific laws, that's God. They just observe them. And I didn't say scientific theories on purpose because there are scientific laws which exist and are constant.

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.

OK, a little bit of explaining needs to be done. I said this:

...whose only motivation should be to come to conclusions about the truth.

First, it's not false because it's an opinion - scientist's only motivation should be to come to conclusions about the truth.

Second, You've just basically said that if I believe I am correct, I should believe that scientists are purely interested in bringing down any sort of creation theory and therefore will lie to any extent, judging by the amount of false theories in the foundations of science. Outright liars instead of simply mistaken. Correct?

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.

Logic is "A system of reasoning". Now, by using the scientific law of cause and effect to say that because the universe has a beginning there must be a cause such as God, I have used logic: I have reasoned that because the universe has a beginning it has a cause.

As for credible observation of the universe, what do you call observing that we have a beginning? Or that there is energy and time and matter and they are linked and interdependent on each other? Or that there are computers that exist, and humans that exist, and therefore they have a cause? Yup, that's credible observation.

As for the motivation, of course we have used logic and credible observation to attempt and prove our point! If you expect us not to, it's illogical! Since as I pointed out we are not illogical, we do the logical thing, which is to defend what we believe!

 

[Ceridwen018]

Because the other side of the story hasn't been allowed in schools where all the current members of the scientific community were educated, and what do people do if the other side of the story isn't taught? They accept what's given as fact. Now, of course there are those who know the truth, but the #1 reason other people don't know is because those people were and for the most part are still too wussy to share it and too scared of what others will think of them.

This is pretty much the answer I get to that question every time. Personally I don't buy it. How about this: You seem to know enough about creationism, at least enough that you yourself are convinced. Why don't you write up a couple of essays and formally present them to the world of science. If your theory is indeed based on empirical analysis and logic, there is a Nobel Prize and fame and fortune waiting for you.

Energy hasn't always existed because that would require an eternity - infinite time stretching in both directions of the spectrum. If time stretched infinitely into the past, we technically couldn't have a present moment because every present moment requires a previous moment, a previous step in the measure of time to 'boost' it. Trying to reach a present moment from the one preceding it would be a lot like trying to jump out of a bottomless pit and reach the top: You can't do it because you have nothing to push yourself off of.

I don't understand what you're saying here. If time were eternal, then every moment would have a preceding moment to 'push' off from. I don't see where the problem lies.

Relative to what?

Relative to movement/action, or reference points.

Explain how time could come into existence from nothing. I mean, you could easily say that energy pooling constitutes a reference point, but for energy to move through particles (energy requires matter to be expressed, remember) requires time to be pre-existent so that it's progress can be measured in reference points, including a beginning reference point - energy can't bring time into existence when it requires it to exist. Energy requires time for shifting of energy to exist, and matter to be expressed.

Time is not a tangible thing which can come into and out of existence. It is simply a tool used for measurement. Energy does not require time for the shifting of energy to exist, but rather time requires the shifting of energy to exist because it needs a reference point.

Point out exactly where I associated science in any way with spirituality. As for science, it is the search for truth in the natural realm. Philosophy is the search for truth in the spiritual realm.

I must have just misunderstood you here. You said that science was the search for truth, not laws and rules for how the universe works. I assumed the alternative to truths about the universe would be spiritual truths.

And I didn't say scientific theories on purpose because there are scientific laws which exist and are constant.

In science, even laws are considered open for discussion.

First, it's not false because it's an opinion - scientist's only motivation should be to come to conclusions about the truth.

Sorry, I misread you here. I thought you meant that scientists only motivation is to come to conclusions about truth, as in, they would say anything just to be able to have a 'conclusion', be that conclusion right or wrong.

Logic is "A system of reasoning".

Maybe this is a typo on your part, but I would have to disagree and say instead that logic is THE system of reasoning. There are not multiple forms of credible reasoning.

Now, by using the scientific law of cause and effect to say that because the universe has a beginning there must be a cause such as God, I have used logic: I have reasoned that because the universe has a beginning it has a cause.

Not quite. By using the scientific law of cause and effect, you would conclude that because the universe has a beginning, there must be a cause...not necessarily god. You use reason to a point, but then you begin using assumption in order to preserve your religious beliefs.

As for credible observation of the universe, what do you call observing that we have a beginning? Or that there is energy and time and matter and they are linked and interdependent on each other? Or that there are computers that exist, and humans that exist, and therefore they have a cause? Yup, that's credible observation.

What I meant, was credible observation regarding what that beginning was. The creationism theory is not based on credible observation.

 

[Druidus]

I believe that as long as you teach one unproven theory as to the creation of the universe and how humans came to being (Evolution and Big Bang theory, In High School both of these were taught as if fact) then you should also teach the opposite side of the coin(that there is a divine creator(s) of some sort).

The problem with this is that there are too many religions to cover. For instance, perhaps I want mine to be taught as well. And Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Confucionists, Rastafarians, Satanists, Luciferists, Wiccans, Hellenists, Asatru, Native American, Inuit, Shamanistic, Judaistic and many others. You can't say that only a select few will be taught, because others would feel discriminated against. You don't see me complaining because Druidry isn't taught in schools. If you want your specific religion taught in school, choose private schools specifically for you. Period.

 

[Mister Emu]

Druidus you obviously misunderstood what I said, I did not say that christianity be taught, I said that it should be taught that there is a divine creator(s) of some sort

*emphasis on portion that would refer to non-christian deity*

Religous study should involve cursory glances at all of the worlds major religions today, and all of the major religions of the past that have effected the world in some way.

Off topic: As far as I knew all fo the Druidic rites, procedures, traditions, ect. were lost in the mass oppression of Druids by the Roman empire, where almost all druids were killed or joined (even if just to stay alive) christianity. If you are in possession of any information that you can reveal I would greatly appreciate it. Druids have always intrigued me as they were not only the spiritual leaders, but also the intellectuals, judges, healers, and the keepers of history.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Mister Emu-- science has discovered no evidence that has lead to a theory of creators of some sort. When that happens, I'll agree with you. Until then, children should neither be taught in science class that there is a god, nor should they be taught that there aren't gods. Let the parents do that (besides, isn't belief in god supposed to be faith based and not based on evidence?)

 

[Druidus]

As far as I knew all fo the Druidic rites, procedures, traditions, ect. were lost in the mass oppression of Druids by the Roman empire, where almost all druids were killed or joined (even if just to stay alive) christianity. If you are in possession of any information that you can reveal I would greatly appreciate it. Druids have always intrigued me as they were not only the spiritual leaders, but also the intellectuals, judges, healers, and the keepers of history.

Some of it was kept by Greek scholars who visited the area. For instance, Ptolemy was there I believe. Whatever you do don't believe Caesar's writings, as it was just propaghanda. I have a few interesting prayers that survived as well. We mainly do not have organized rituals, or anything like that. It is basically following these the simple rules of Justice, Honesty, Hospility, Wisdom, Courage, Respect and Love, and worshipping our Gods.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

**Mod Post***

Although the discussion of the Druids is an interesting one, I am compelled to say a quick general reminder that the topic of this thread is "Should religion be taught in science class?" Thanks

 

[linwood]

Druidus you obviously misunderstood what I said, I did not say that christianity be taught, I said that it should be taught that there is a divine creator(s) of some sort

Do you know of any evidence that supports this idea?

If not why should we teach it to our children?

Religous study should involve cursory glances at all of the worlds major religions today, and all of the major religions of the past that have effected the world in some way.

Agreed, but it should not be taught in science class and HOW those religions affected the world should be told as well.

 

[LittleNipper]

Linwood:

There are at least three proofs for the existance of GOD.

1. The very existence of life. There is no scientific proof that life can, did or does originate from inanimate objects or materials. (Scientific Proof)

2. The continued persistance of the Jew for survival. Both their religious heritage and ethic linage has outlasted all other ancient societies in the face of all attempts of total
eradication. (Historic Proof)

3. The way social order and behavior have been infected by the religious fervor of only a few individuals to permanently change the lives of countless individuals over the course of centuries. (Social Proof)

 

[Pah]

Linwood:

There are at least three proofs for the existance of GOD.

1. The very existence of life. There is no scientific proof that life can, did or does originate from inanimate objects or materials. (Scientific Proof)

2. The continued persistance of the Jew for survival. Both their religious heritage and ethic linage has outlasted all other ancient societies in the face of all attempts of total
eradication. (Historic Proof)

3. The way social order and behavior have been infected by the religious fervor of only a few individuals to permanently change the lives of countless individuals over the course of centuries. (Social Proof)

Number one says nothing about God, even if your statment is true. A negative for an alternative answer does not add truth to the proposition that God exists. There is no proof in science (yet!!!) and no proof of God.

Number two and three is not proof. Longevity of an error does not make an error correct. You have to prove it is not error.

I'm afraid you have done nothing to refute Linwood and are getting off topic as are some of the points being made.

-pah-

 

[LittleNipper]

There has to be a GOD for life to exist. Life establishes life. Dead matter establishes nothing. Scientists have been unable to prove otherwise. You have not proven that the Jew is wrong nor that Christian ethic is wrong. Simply because you consider it an error of judgment doesn't make it so.