E vs C

[Kieran]

Which one is science? Which one says "no need to learn any more, here are all the answers"?

This is a false assumption as well. Nowhere is it said Christians, or people of any religion for that matter, should stop learning. Over and over Christians (can't speak for other religions) are warned to be careful not to follow false teachings or messengers. Believers are to continue to search for truth and meaning. You go too far to say believers shut off their minds.

[midnight Target]

Rude wrote: "Why ask these questions, when we already have all of the answers?"

Well finally a Christian willing to lay it on the line. Exactly my point Rude! Why ask questions? To learn from them! The church doesn't want "Creationism" questioned. That is why it is not science!  Thank you thank you thank you Rude.

[midnight Target]

Kieran - Faith means to believe without question. Sure you can look for false prophets but never will the search for truth be outside the context of the Bible.

[Toad]

Originally posted by midnight Target

You say "don't worry, humans have risen above these problems"

I say "lets start somewhere above those problems and move on from there."

Last pass. I think MOST of us are ALREADY well above these problems.

[gavor]

You Americans are crazy .

I'm not sure we have a creationist thing going here, evolution is the accepted norm. I went to a religious school and even there evolution was accepted.

My personal view is that perhaps the Bible creation story is a metaphor(i mean, who the &#^$ really knows how it happened). God might have created the universe structure then left it all to evolution to build up plants and animals and people. Meanwhile he overlooked it all, maybe made some changes where he saw fit. Perhaps he placed the forerunner of man on earth as someone to rule over the other creatures. Maybe thats just a bit egotistical though.

That all sounds good and I would have no problem believing it, but im not convinced by any one explanation. Once again, who the hell really knows? Whos got a video of God creating the world? Whos got a picture of the big bang and a sign thats says 'God is fake'. Who made a time machine out of string and cardboard and went back to see it first hand? No-one. No one did.

Evidence points to evolution taking place. Evidence also points to things happening that can't really be explained and that scientists just guess at. Where DID the dinosaurs go? How DID monkeys become men, and if they did, why are there not lots of different sorts of man(not just ones adapted to their environment). Why are there not dog men(dogs are smart) or cat men or other men descended from intelligent animals.

Once again, im not a creationist but i'm also not 100% sure that evolution is the be all and end all of lifes emergence. My point is, one more time, no one knows the answers. All the debating in the world won't bring the answers to us. No-one will ever know in all probability. Why not enjoy life as it is instead of obsessing about where it came from.


That is all,

gavor

[Kieran]

The religious side here isn't arguing against science, only the posture from the scientific community here that religion is an abomination, and that the mere mention of the word "religion" is a crime. I have no problem at all with the teaching of evolution. That seems pretty flexible from a guy whose beliefs are supposed to make him inflexible, doesn't it?

[Am0n]

thanks for the link Tahgut, u the man.
didnt have time to look for it before i went home from work last night. Even after the link was given per request it was still rediculed, typical.


Soooo HBlair you like boats(seen in ur profile and picture), but you dont fish?


Sorry i dont have a Thesaurus and a Dictionary sitting here at my desk and use spell checker to impress you guys. Also i dont doctor up my thoughts, and i type over 100 wpm so occasionally i miss-type things.. o'well i wont loose any sleep over it



The whole point of this isnt if creatism is right or wrong, it is if it is right or wrong to teach it to our children in "public" schools.

Lets turn the tables here, one of you bible thumpers answer this for me. How would you feal if your children were in christain schools and they taught the "sceince" of evolution? (not creatism)

Wouldnt you feal as if they were wronging your children?

Originally posted by KieranI have no problem at all with the teaching of evolution. That seems pretty flexible from a guy whose beliefs are supposed to make him inflexible, doesn't it?

[/b]

No, it doesnt. It makes you sound like a hypocrite. which normal for your faith, dont be alarmed.

------------------

Gavor, yes we are crazy! welcome to the party


Evolution comes from a great period of time of adaption to certian climate or condition. There are countless documentiations of this happening today. No HBlair i will not look them all up on google to impress you with my browsing/searching skillz'.

dogs do communicate, they just dont speak our language. Maybe they have some better way of communicating that doesnt require grunting like our lanuage, telepathy or something along those lines. Dont assume that the most vocal species is the most intelligent, we made the "guidelines" of what intelligent is, yet we intelligent creatures destroy the earth and the "less-intelligent" live off of it in moderation.. If you were the earth, not human, who would you think was more intelligent?

[hblair]

Originally posted by Am0n

thanks for the link Tahgut, u the man.
didnt have time to look for it before i went home from work last night. Even after the link was given per request it was still rediculed, typical.

There's a difference between ridiculed and questioned.

Originally posted by Am0n

Soooo HBlair you like boats(seen in ur profile and picture), but you dont fish?

I confess, I tie the lines to the headers and trawl at 90 mph.

Originally posted by Am0n

Sorry i dont have a Thesaurus and a Dictionary sitting here at my desk and use spell checker to impress you guys. Also i dont doctor up my thoughts, and i type over 100 wpm so occasionally i miss-type things.. o'well i wont loose any sleep over it

I can't type either, but I was just saying, try to form your sentences so we can understand them easier is all, no biggie.

Originally posted by Am0n

The whole point of this isnt if creatism is right or wrong, it is if it is right or wrong to teach it to our children in "public" schools.

I think the curriculum thing is a side issue is it not? I think the theory of evolution should be pointed out, and it also should be pointed out that creation should be mentioned also, with a brief unbiased explanation of both. (as do most US citizens in the last poll)

Originally posted by Am0n

Lets turn the tables here, one of you bible thumpers answer this for me. How would you feal if your children were in christain schools and they taught the "sceince" of evolution? (not creatism)

Wouldnt you feal as if they were wronging your children?

You are aware of the difference between public and private schools? Public schools are paid for by the public (me, you, all citizens) private scholls are private, and are at liberty to change some of their curriculum.

This was taken from the Gallup poll site:

According to a Gallup poll conducted June 25-27 of this year, Americans favor teaching creationism in the public schools, along with evolution, by a margin of 68% to 29%. However, by a margin of 55% to 40%, they would oppose replacing evolution with creationism.

Originally posted by Am0n

It makes you sound like a hypocrite. which normal for your faith, dont be alarmed.

Fella, you're trying to jab people but you keep missing and falling on your face. Please save face and stop the attempted insults for your own good.

Originally posted by Am0n

Evolution comes from a great period of time of adaption to certian climate or condition. There are countless documentiations of this happening today. No HBlair i will not look them all up on google to impress you with my browsing/searching skillz'.

If you don't want to back up your "facts" with documentation, that's your call.

Originally posted by Am0n

dogs do communicate, they just dont speak our language. Maybe they have some better way of communicating that doesnt require grunting like our lanuage, telepathy or something along those lines.

Did he say telepathy? Like the Superfriends use? Oh that's sooo cool.

[Am0n]

Yes telepathy


Hblair you beat around the bush once again, please answer the question. Those statistics mean nothing since the majority of americans are "god fearing people". Yes i understand the difference between public/private schools.. this was a hypothetical question.

Originally posted by Am0n

Lets turn the tables here, one of you bible thumpers answer this for me. How would you feal if your children were in christain schools and they taught the "sceince" of evolution? (not creatism)

Wouldnt you feal as if they were wronging your children?

[/b]
-----------

Originally posted by HBlair
I think the curriculum thing is a side issue is it not? I think the theory of evolution should be pointed out, and it also should be pointed out that creation should be mentioned also, with a brief unbiased explanation of both.

[/b]


Why should it be taught in sceince even if it is mytholigy? Thats a whole other classroom. If you teach christian beliefs you'll have to teach the other 100 religious beliefs.. that would get a little redundant. I dont want my children influenced buy religon at there most vulnerable state, when they are open minded to learning.

[hblair]

Originally posted by Am0n

Hblair you beat around the bush once again, please answer the question. Those statistics mean nothing since the majority of americans are "god fearing people". Yes i understand the difference between public/private schools.. this was a hypothetical question.

Lets turn the tables here, one of you bible thumpers answer this for me. How would you feal if your children were in christain schools and they taught the "sceince" of evolution? (not creatism)

Wouldnt you feal as if they were wronging your children?

If you are speaking of a private Christian school, of course. Why? because the parents are sending their children to a school of their choice and paying out of their own pocket for the Christian ideals, beliefs to be included in the curriculum.
A person would be justified to feel wronged, because they are not getting what they are paying for.

In a public school, there are children of both evolution and creation backing parents, so to say that one view should be taught is to go against the others views. Do you understand that? Private and public education are two different things.

Originally posted by Am0n

Why should it be taught in sceince even if it is mytholigy?

your opinion again.

Originally posted by Am0n

Thats a whole other classroom. If you teach christian beliefs you'll have to teach the other 100 religious beliefs.. that would get a little redundant.

Why would you go into that detail? You'd just go something like "many religions believe the earth and universe was created by a higher form, but has not been proven by science, as evolution is not a proven fact" etc etc. blah blah.

Originally posted by Am0n

I dont want my children influenced buy religon at there most vulnerable state, when they are open minded to learning.

as 65% of the population doesn't want their children influenced by only evolution. Yet their opinion is not important to you. Why?

[Kieran]

Every time you type about school, you prove what you don't know.

There is nothing hypocritical about learning evolution and believing in creation. We (believers) live in a secular world, and in order to do so must understand the scientific principles and theories that guide our society. We must play by the rules and be good citizens.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, to God what is God's

 As Toad aptly put it, understanding science does nothing but give the religious an informed opinion of the other viewpoint.

Parochial schools are private institutions with an homogeneous student base. Parents send their children there for the express purpose of learning in an environment from the perspective of their particular faith- completely not the situation of public schools.

Public schools do not teach a religion as the religion because of separation of church and state, not because religion is a taboo subject. Therefore, religion discussed in the context of abstract comparison is allowable, though should be held to a minimum to avoid showing possible biases towards any particular religion. Do not confuse this to mean religion cannot be discussed in a public institution- it only means indoctrination cannot occur.

Any semantic argument concerning whether religion is a science or myth is moot- it undoubtedly has shaped the human experience since the beginning of time. It is ignorant to close your eyes and pretend it never happened.

Typing 100 words per minute would be no sweat if I didn't worry about such minor things as spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence continuity, or accuracy of fact.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Kieran
The religious side here isn't arguing against science, only the posture from the scientific community here that religion is an abomination, and that the mere mention of the word "religion" is a crime. I have no problem at all with the teaching of evolution. That seems pretty flexible from a guy whose beliefs are supposed to make him inflexible, doesn't it?

And I have no problem with Religion. Unless it becomes the arbiter of thought. I railed against religion in this post only when I was asked to prove religion has been detrimental to learning.

Religion is not the issue here. Neither is the veracity of Evolution. The issue is teaching religion and calling it science. This is also wrong in the reverse, science is not a religion. The basic flaw of religious "science" is the lack of ability to question the hypothesis. I know you are encouraged to seek truth Kieran, but the truth you accept cannot by definition be outside the teachings of the Bible.

[Kieran]

The question of whether to call it "religious science" should in actuality be determined by which side does the study- scientific or religious. A scientist who pursues the history of religion throughout the ages is no less a scientist than a person who studies archaeology. What you are really discussing here is scientific research conducted by those with a religious bias, and in that I would agree. Call it religious studies, whatever.

To ignore the impact and import religion has carried on the human experience is akin to denying the value of ancient civilizations. Both are fundamental in understanding who we are and how we came to be, and in that sense are worthy of the term "science".

Truth be told, I am not insulted by reluctance of scientists to have religious studies associated with them. I find it somewhat disturbing to refer to religion as a science from my perspective, too (due to the connotations associated with science).

[midnight Target]

Well Kieran, Other than the fact that I feel Creation as described in the Bible didn't happen, and the novel way you had of defining terms in your last post, I think we agree on just about everything else.

Don't teach religion and call it science, don't teach science and call it religion.

In the interest of moving this thread to an even 200 I will say this however:

The question of whether to call it "religious science" should in actuality be determined by which side does the study- scientific or religious.

Nope nope nope! Science is a method of study. It is the way to question our environment and all answers are open for question or change. In the example of "creation science" the hypothesis is always "God did it". That cannot be questioned, it is a matter of faith. That is precisely why it isn't science.

[hblair]

Target, I noticed earlier in this thread where you said "Evolution happened period". well, doesn't the scientific community still consider evolution a theory? Yet you say it is fact. Doesn't this mean you have "faith" in the theory? Isn't that unscientific, to say that things that are not proven to be so, are in fact so?

Please practice what you preach there Reverand.