Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
Christian / Islam divide.
66 Answers
John McCain's 'running mate' in the American presidential election campaign, SarahPalin, wants creationism taught in Science classes in the USA. Does anybody else feel this backwards step increases divisions between religions? Surely the way forward is to accept other faiths, rather than to polarise people, as this inevitably will.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bobclean. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You can test if the Earth is flat. If the evidence suggested the world was flat, then it would be taught. If not, then it wouldn't. The same applies to evolution.
Are we seriously debating whether the curriculum should take no account of the evidence in favour of scientific questions?
Like it or loathe it, the theory of evolution is testible and produces predictions. So far, the theory holds strong as the best explanation for what we see. If anything comes along that falsifies that explanation, then it will be rethought, but it is not going to be rethought on the grounds of wishful thinking.
And of course you agree with that.
Are we seriously debating whether the curriculum should take no account of the evidence in favour of scientific questions?
Like it or loathe it, the theory of evolution is testible and produces predictions. So far, the theory holds strong as the best explanation for what we see. If anything comes along that falsifies that explanation, then it will be rethought, but it is not going to be rethought on the grounds of wishful thinking.
And of course you agree with that.
That's the problem!
You *don't* change what you teach in science to be sensitive to religious and cultural belief!
We don't start modifying scientific teaching because it upsets people.
You're back to Galileo being locked up for upsetting the religious and cultural views of his time.
Or do you think we should offer children the opportunity to decide on a geocentric or heliocentric model too?
You can teach creationism - but do it in RE courses - it isn't science and a court of law has said so!
You *don't* change what you teach in science to be sensitive to religious and cultural belief!
We don't start modifying scientific teaching because it upsets people.
You're back to Galileo being locked up for upsetting the religious and cultural views of his time.
Or do you think we should offer children the opportunity to decide on a geocentric or heliocentric model too?
You can teach creationism - but do it in RE courses - it isn't science and a court of law has said so!
Ok, is this again to me?
Where have I said that creationism is a science? Or that religion and science should be combined?
My point was referring to those crayzee Americans who refer to the �study of science� and scientific principles of evolution, big bang etc., and use the (scientific) information within those theories to dispel them. A bit like UFOlogists and sceptics, or the people on Most Haunted who say �that orb is a bit of dust� or �that orb is a spirit�.
Now, Creation Science is something which probably leads itself to people questioning the theories. What is so wrong with that? If science can show that the accepted theories are right or wrong, then we would all learn something. It wouldn�t mean that creationism is right. Maybe they should drop the 'creation' bit....
You seem to be picking holes in my points, where invariably in this thread I have formerly agreed with the very first post.
Where have I said that creationism is a science? Or that religion and science should be combined?
My point was referring to those crayzee Americans who refer to the �study of science� and scientific principles of evolution, big bang etc., and use the (scientific) information within those theories to dispel them. A bit like UFOlogists and sceptics, or the people on Most Haunted who say �that orb is a bit of dust� or �that orb is a spirit�.
Now, Creation Science is something which probably leads itself to people questioning the theories. What is so wrong with that? If science can show that the accepted theories are right or wrong, then we would all learn something. It wouldn�t mean that creationism is right. Maybe they should drop the 'creation' bit....
You seem to be picking holes in my points, where invariably in this thread I have formerly agreed with the very first post.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Octavius you said:
Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.
Creationism is not information - it is disinformation
It is religion and faith dressed up as a science.
In the words of the Judge who heard the 2005 "intelligent design" law case
Intelligent design is is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory
The idea of teaching both sounds awfully liberal and enlightened but in reality it's a dangerous nonsense
Creationism is just plain wrong and we need to stand up in schools and say this and not pussyfoot around "cultural and philisophical sensitivities"
If people don't like it they can home school but we must not dignify it by tacit acceptance.
Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.
Creationism is not information - it is disinformation
It is religion and faith dressed up as a science.
In the words of the Judge who heard the 2005 "intelligent design" law case
Intelligent design is is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory
The idea of teaching both sounds awfully liberal and enlightened but in reality it's a dangerous nonsense
Creationism is just plain wrong and we need to stand up in schools and say this and not pussyfoot around "cultural and philisophical sensitivities"
If people don't like it they can home school but we must not dignify it by tacit acceptance.
Jake, I did say that in my post, but if you read that line, I was actually quoting Sarah Pallin.
Again, in my posts I am not referring to creationism, but the american idea of scientific exploration of disproving evolution and the big bang through science.
Again, in my posts I have never claimed creationism itself to be a scientific theory although I think it maybe could be taught as an existent belief system in RE.
I feel like I am repeating myself.......
Again, in my posts I am not referring to creationism, but the american idea of scientific exploration of disproving evolution and the big bang through science.
Again, in my posts I have never claimed creationism itself to be a scientific theory although I think it maybe could be taught as an existent belief system in RE.
I feel like I am repeating myself.......
the american idea of scientific exploration of disproving evolution and the big bang through science.
Octavius, I know nothing at all about this. How do they go about it; what progress have they made; and since we have positive evidence for evolution, how can they possibly expect to make any progress? (Sorry if this is going slightly off-track, but I'm genuinely interested).
Octavius, I know nothing at all about this. How do they go about it; what progress have they made; and since we have positive evidence for evolution, how can they possibly expect to make any progress? (Sorry if this is going slightly off-track, but I'm genuinely interested).
So do we.
The use of the scientific method to attempt to disprove existing theories is simply science. There's no need to give it another name, and scientists would actually be delighted if someone poked a big hole in the theory.
Creation science, is just creationism. Ultimately, it's not testible and doesn't make predictions, i.e. it fails to meet the criteria of what we define as science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
The use of the scientific method to attempt to disprove existing theories is simply science. There's no need to give it another name, and scientists would actually be delighted if someone poked a big hole in the theory.
Creation science, is just creationism. Ultimately, it's not testible and doesn't make predictions, i.e. it fails to meet the criteria of what we define as science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_science
But you clearly stated, "Now, Creation Science is something which probably leads itself to people questioning the theories. What is so wrong with that?"
So I explained.
Now you're claiming, 'No - I was just talking about yer bog standard science', which there was never any disagreement with anyway.
Hence the confusion, yersee.
So I explained.
Now you're claiming, 'No - I was just talking about yer bog standard science', which there was never any disagreement with anyway.
Hence the confusion, yersee.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.