Indiana passes law to allow religion in science class
ehhh
Teaching the ORIGINS of DIFFERENT religions, not a big deal. Teaching that religion is the correct origin of life, def wrong.
I see nothing wrong with teaching that a majority of the people on the earth believe in a higher power and that these are the origins of christianity, muslims, jewish, catholic, whatever. as long as they arent influencing kids to believe a certain way, nothing wrong with educating our children on different forms of religion.
hell i took a religion 101 class in College, i turned out fine
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
I do not see anything wrong with it either, im sure thats no surprise to you though. Since the Big Bang is not scientific fact, why not put all the plausible options on the table? Here is a question for you....do you believe prayer in school should be banned?
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
prayer in school ..............it shouldnt be sanctioned, but a "moment of silence" for that particular person to practice their religion is fine if thats what you mean.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
The thing is, the big bang theory is based on scientific fact, same with evolution, which is why it's taught in science class. The whole scientific community recognizes this. "Creation" is not. There are already institutions that deal with "creation science". If you want your kids to learn it, you can take them to those institutions, free of charge, and they're open every Sunday.
I wonder if those that voted for this would be ok with teaching the big bang theory and evolution in church? Probably not
I have no problem with students discussing religous creation stories in school but it doesn't make sense to do it in a science class. Most relgious creation stories can not be tested with the scientific method, hence, they do not belong in a science class.Originally Posted by .blank cd
I'm ok with this method. Strictly as an elective class or exploratory program
The big bang theory is a theory it is not fact.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
You are exactly right here. The big bang theory is a scientific theory.
BTW, theory does not mean "guess"
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...ew_normal_site
Theory = educated guess, still not fact
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Either way why teach an unproven theory as FACT? Give both options, and let the students choose for themselves. Can you imagine if only Liberal politics was taught in school as the "appropriate" way. School is to educate youth on all options out there based on the current knowledge we have. Do not limit their choices because you do not agree with them. You atheists are "free thinkers"....so let them think freely.
As far as prayer goes, i say let the students come together to pray if they so choose. Let them give thanks over their meals if that is how they were raised. The only thing that should be restricted is prejudice against anothers beliefs.
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
Man, I looked up "scientific theory" in every dictionary I could find. Still couldn't find the words "educated guess" in them anywhere.
I guess your definition of theory is........
.....a "theory". Lol
Cool, I've taken. Higher learning science classes, a theory is not fact. Period
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
It is taught as scientific theory in science class because it can be tested (with repeated conclusive results) with the scientific method. The only way it could be taught in science class would be biased against it since it cannot be tested conclusively with the scientific method.
So then by your definition, since you've taken higher learning classes, the earth orbiting the sun is not a fact, correct? Serious question. There is a correct answer.
Educated guess may seem like a simple way to sum it up but really that's all a theory is. It is not a fact. It is just a proposed idea based on the scientific evidence.
As far as the big bang theory goes its not even a good one. The chances that all the necessary elements needed to create life in even its most simple, basic form would.be present in one location at one time is for all intents and purposes an impossibility
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
The big bang theory doesn't not attempt to explain how complex life began. This is called abiogenesis.
I didn't say complex life I said life in even its most basic form. Even a single celled organism would be beyond explination using the big bang theory
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Some important clarifications:
Be careful when using the word fact. Everything in science is open to revision if new evidence comes to light and that includes the "Law of gravity".
"Theory" in "scientific theory" does not have the same meaning as "theory" in everday english. A scientific theory has much more rigorous a definition than "educated guess".
It doesn't even attempt to explain single celled organisms
Big bang theory explains (VERY simply paraphrased) where the earth and other planets came from. The theory says (VERY simply paraphrased) a gravitational singlarity. We can observe OTHER singularities to hypothesize how ours came into existence.
Then there's abiogenesis, which explains where life comes from. Scientists have recently done experiments that observe how "simple" life came to be.
Then there's evolution that explains how "complex" life came to be, and everything in the middle
The problem is that believers are lumping all of those together and saying its one huge thing when it's not
Even scientific LAWS are open to revision. See "general relativity" which better explains "gravitation"
Scientific law and theory are also two separate things. People seem to think a theory is a guess and a law is what the theory turned into. (scientific) Laws will always be laws and theories will always be theories.
If you want to learn about religion, attend a church.
It's interesting that no one tries to discredit the theory of relativity, atomic theory, or electromagnetic theory as "just theories"
The difference is the science backing all of the latter is far more sound than the big bang.
Light speed travel we will never know until we reach lght speed, which isn't happeneing anytime soon.
How do you suppose we test the big bang out?
Its a theory and an educated guess. There is ZERO modern day evidence to support it. Its just as likely God crated us as a bunch of particles developing into a single cell organism then evolved into dinosaurs and humans.
They are both unprovable
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Evolution is a theory, it can't be proven, even though there are a lot of evidence to support it, there's glaring evidence to suggest its impossible.
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
any evidence supporting this theory?
No there is zero evidence to support Moses parted the red sea. You either believe it or you don't.any evidence supporting this theory?
There's no evidence God exists, there's no evidence he doesn't exist either.
Either you believe or you don't, plain and simple
Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
so with that said......
true or false, religion belongs in science class.
Religion isn't a science creationism isn't a science therefore it does not belong in a science class
It boils down to people believing science is an alternate belief system. And cognitive dissonance.
So there are two scientific methods now? Can you explain to me what sound scientific backing is, as opposed to unsound scientific backing? Did you happen to answer the other question I posed to you?
We wont reach light speed until we drop all of our mass and drag coefficient
Observe other gravitational sigularities with really big telescopes, which is being done
False
Absolutely possible, however, unlikely that "god" did it
Evolution is scientific fact. You can test it yourself. Step 1: Get a flu vaccine this year, Step 2: Never ever get one again and see if you can contract the flu again. Step 3: Come back and report your findings.
There is zero evidence to suggest its impossible from any credible scientist. If there is, please cite your source. (foxnews.com, rushlimbaugh.com, alexjones.com are not credible sources)
Absolutely, the bible says moses used telekenises to move salt water molecules...didnt it? lolany evidence supporting this theory?
Last edited by .blank cd; 02-03-2012 at 06:32 PM.
In the End.... Religion is the Root of All Evils.
I am a teacher. I teach science. My focus is biology. All I can say is WTF. There needs to a clear line of separation of church and state.
I can deal with (sort of) the fact that I MUST say that all of the topics on evolution, genetics and heredity that I teach are "theories only". I have to get out of this profession. It is going down the crapper faster than I can keep up with.
95 Buick Roadmaster Estate Wagon Limited
Is it really that bad? Trying to be a science teacher here...
I wasn't saying you can't debate the theory, just that calling it a "theory" isn't a good argument.
Of course there is plenty of evidence to support it. Red shifting, Cosmic background radiation, etc. If there wasn't evidence it would just be conjecture, not a theory.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
