Science vs. Creationism

[kaneohegirl]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

The "Big Bang Theory". Okay, but if no other possibility is taught then the students assume that's all there is.

So these scientific theories being taught may not explicitely be called fact, but they're not leaving any room for alternate views.

when taught most teachers do have a disclaimer that there are other religious belifs on how the world was made and to talk to their parents.

so if one were teach as a alternate form of "the big bang" In AMERICA we would need to teach Chrisitanity (Genisis), Native American Creationism (ohh and the are well over 100 different tribal views on this), Pacific Islander creationism (from Hawaii, Samoa, Tahiti, Maori, Aboriginal and more), Middle eastern creationism (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Shikism, Buddhism), lets not forget centeral/south americans (aztec, mayan, all them rainforest tribes that I dont know the names to), Africa also has several different tribal view on creation. NOW TELL ME HOW DO YOU DO THIS? instead of spending a month or so on the big bang/solar system and how things came about you spend the next 2 years covering other religions view on how we came to be here on this planet. that isnt practical

another reason its not practical

it isnt practical in this country to impose our (christian belifs) on others that do not practice christianity we are too diverse a country to be able to do
this. Not to mention the implications of getting parents to sign a permission slip for your children to learn about other religions (omg your kids might want to change religions if exposed to other trains of thought at such a impressionable age.... thus why you only find comparitive religions courses in college)

ok but.... In America we for example have many many many types of religions for we are the country with the FREEDOM to do that. thus one of the reasons for the seperation or CHURCH and STATE. so as one cannot directly influence the other (because once upon a time the church dictated to the monarchies that they will follow their proclimations or ELSE) ...(at least that is what was taught to me)

so the alternate views should be taught by PARENTS.

[Mahi Waina]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

Some, at the highest levels of academia, think that the presumption of a beginning is the biggest stumbling block to understanding the bigger picture.

If the space-time continuum is a "torus" (donut-shaped) as I have read, then that argues against a beginning. I'm no physicist, and likely mortals will never know everything, but I have a hard time with anybody who leaps from theoretical discussions like these to using there "faith" to justify discrimination against gays and others.

Christians: Please do not twist words and say that my intolerance of your bigotry is no different than your intolerance of people who are not like you. You are 'throwing the first punch' and the onus is on you defend your actions, especially when they involve coercing people to behave according to your standards.

Take a course in Critical Thinking if you do not comprehend this. If you pay attention, you may also realize that 'Faith' is another word for circular logic.

[jasonzzz]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

The argument from design is one argument for the existence of a creator. I learned it in a philosophy course in college, not a science course, as one way of looking at the world. I'm sure you've heard Paley's Watchmaker analogy. It merely suggests that if you were walking through a field and happened to find a pocket-watch, you wouldn't assume it was the product of a natural process. It is unfair to suggest that Christians who embrace this idea can't comprehend basic concepts. Of course we can understand how it might have happened, but remember Occam's Razor: All things being equal, the simplest explanation is likely the best.

I think that's exactly the essence of the problem of "Science vs. Creationism". As a well rounded humanist, the results of science should be used to enrich the human experience which involves vision, love, art, hopes, faiths, etc, etc. However, the process of scientific inquiry and the education around it doesn't involve faith, hopes, or dreams. Science itself is an investigative process involving data and repeatable experiments. This is the only reason why creationism and other non-science subjects should not be taught within the confines of a science curriculum.

A scientist coming across an artifact in an open field also not draw conclusions either without collecting data. The big deal with Intelligent Design for scientists is that it's not science, there is no data and there is not proposed experiments to collect data on it. In fact, science only limits itself to the study of nature and natural processes - everything that can be measured. It is pretty much not science if it's not measurable - and should be studied in another field.

I'm pleased that you come to your beliefs so easily, but there's as much proof for spontaneous generation as there is for the existence of a creator; you have taken a leap of faith as broad as the one I've taken. I hope you realize that. Mocking others' beliefs is the sort of thing that keeps this issue as divisive as it is. I suggested in a previous post that this is maybe not the best approach, if we are ever to reach some kind of peace about it. 6,000 years is one number some people have arrived at, but there is no serious Biblical reason to be utterly convinced of its accuracy.

Actually, molecular self-assembly is a known concept within the biology field. The individual stuff that makes our cell membranes self assemble themselves out of its own will (eventhough it lowers the local system entropy). There isn't magic behind it, we can collect the data, and all of the math works out. Now, on the philosophical side, you might suggest that there is divine guidance or a grand plan in laying out this mechanism; but as far as science goes, to study this, this type of guidance or plan needs to be measurable. Maybe that we just haven't found a way to measure it - yet...

But there's a big difference in the basic cognitive switch in "thinking" about science and non-science (e.g. religion) stuff: religion doesn't require you to have proof and to reason thru it, you just have to belief in it - entirely and completely on faith. In science land, you need to be able to measure it, understand the mechanism in how it works, and be able to make it repeatable.

I respect your opinions; it would be nice if you'd make an effort to respect mine -- otherwise, these discussions will always evolve (ha!) into exchanges of mockery.

[newroots]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

hmm... in all the cultures , everyone in the world. they have a desire for god. aww man.. here i go preaching again. lol..... well i learned this good point from some guy on t.v.... he said the ten commandments are written in hearts of humans.. i think he was trying to say it was apart of human nature.. so all the cultures and civilzations have a longing for god.. thats commandment 1 thou shall love god with all your heart and soul.. and all the cultures and civilzations respect their god , they dont allow it to be blasphemed and stuff.. thats commandment 2 .. thou shall not use the lords name in vain.... soo... the point of this thread was... to prove that creationism is cool

[jasonzzz]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

I don't know about each and every culture. Certainly the "culture" of science doesn't necessarily involve a desire for a God. Now, there certainly are scientists who are also religious - who believe in higher beings/creator(s)/mythos; but certainly not a necessity. It's merely an interesting intersection of cultures.

Now, anthropologists teach that people and cultures have a general need to explain the natural phenonmenons around them, people feel a need for a world story that explains why their world, their people, their being came about. Why there is day and night, why does it rain, how do the plants grow, why are there different kinds of people, etc, etc. People have these stories to explain how things work and why things work. These stories allow us to have a better cognitive feel on our environment. Up until when things don't go right, the floods carried away some of the people, lightning flashed and killed many, the hunt didn't go well and some hunters died. Now the people want to control their surroundings, but there is no established procedure, no big switch that people can pull to make it rain more/less, make the lightning stop. The people have to make a connection with the "super"natural, those beings who actually "can" control these natural phenonmenons. You pay them tribute and they can make the world a better place. All of these world stories and making connections with the "super"natural world weave into this rich tapestries of elaborate practices and behaviors allows us to "explain" the world and help us "control" it.

Organized religions are another thing though. The codified social interactions allow people to band and live together. In earlier times, all of these things were necessary for people to "be" - a common set of beliefs: same world story, same set of "super"natural connections, a common expectation of social behavior. These things became more than just religion, it was a way of life to live. Religion also became the legal basis for crime and punishment, property ownership, in fact government itself; simply because it bind the people together and it worked.

The ugly part of it is that most everyone some how wants to feel unique and special - that there being-ness also has to be for a particular purpose - maybe even for a higher purpose, so everyone's God(s) also designates them to be the "special" people. Of course, everyone else who don't go by their set of explanations and rules are dirty and doomed for the "special place in hell". And of course, these things are still causing us trouble from the beginning and likely til eternity.

Try this out, imagine thinking that there is no supercreator being, that all of this happened by chance, and that all of this is completely without purpose or significance, all of this happened for absolutely no reason and will probably go away without any consequences at all. That this existence is so minute in the "cosmic" scale of size and time that it hardly bares a notice - even had there been a supercreator being. How alone, empty, and insignificant we will feel, modern people seek to fill this void with the religion. It smothers them with a infinitely compassionate super being. It fills them with purpose and reason. There is a significance to existence after all.

But that's all there is to it, it's a cognitive switch, some people take the other point of view and don't feel bad about the randomness of nature, but still fill their lives with whatever happenstance that is going on.

hmm... in all the cultures , everyone in the world. they have a desire for god. aww man.. here i go preaching again. lol..... well i learned this good point from some guy on t.v.... he said the ten commandments are written in hearts of humans.. i think he was trying to say it was apart of human nature.. so all the cultures and civilzations have a longing for god.. thats commandment 1 thou shall love god with all your heart and soul.. and all the cultures and civilzations respect their god , they dont allow it to be blasphemed and stuff.. thats commandment 2 .. thou shall not use the lords name in vain.... soo... the point of this thread was... to prove that creationism is cool

[newroots]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

Try this out, imagine thinking that there is no supercreator being, that all of this happened by chance, and that all of this is completely without purpose or significance, all of this happened for absolutely no reason and will probably go away without any consequences at all. That this existence is so minute in the "cosmic" scale of size and time that it hardly bares a notice - even had there been a supercreator being. How alone, empty, and insignificant we will feel, modern people seek to fill this void with the religion. It smothers them with a infinitely compassionate super being. It fills them with purpose and reason. There is a significance to existence after all.

You have very good point of views.. Very good ones.. Unlike mine. I imagine that stuff alot... Its easier not to believe , than it is to believe. but i'm a shame cuz even though i do believe. i dont practice as much as i should.. so its really a shame for me to try and debate this issue with you.. but i think.... science is really good. but just think , what if life isnt so meaningless.. maybe instead of being robots of nature.. maybe we have souls.. i think of souls like energy... it cant die , it just passes on. science cant explain everything.. especially the few things labeled as supernatural. I'm sure it would be kinda cool if lifes meaning was sex drugs and rock n roll... but thats only temporary.

[Mahi Waina]

Re: Science vs. Creationism

I'm sure it would be kinda cool if lifes meaning was sex drugs and rock n roll... but thats only temporary.

If you don't take a fatalistic approach, then you are free to define life any way you want: The present is a result of everything that has happened in the past, but the future is wide open. A society that allows its denizens to make choices will have higher highs (innovations in technology, art) and lower lows (drug abuse, etc.)

My complaint about fundamentalists of any religion is that it takes no effort at all to live according to their natural proclivities, and they use their religion to impose their lifestyle and values on those that differ.