07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Why should parents have to have their children's teachers tell (or strongly imply) to their children that everything they've taught them about God is not true?
Why should parents have to have their children's teachers tell (or strongly imply) to their children that everything they've taught them about God is not true? We know that science has not disproven the possibility of the existence of God. We know that the origin of the Universe has not been completely answered by science. We know that God is one possible answe ...[text shortened]... t to call this discussion social studies or whatever, go ahead. Call it whatever you like.
Science teacher's job is to teach science. If science contradicts a child's religion then parents can have their child be scientifically illiterate and remove them from that class. Religion shouldn't be taught in science class just to appease religious beliefs.
Why people are so desperate to keep that discussion out of the classroom is beyond me.
This discussion has nothing to do with evolution since evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origin of the earth.
Science specifically does not have anything to do with god so god is irrelevant in science class.
If people want to have this discussion in science class.. ok, as long as you don't present the "god did it" hypothesis as being anything close to science. It is not since science doesn't handle the supernatural.
If a teacher wants to explain about how science can't prove or disprove the supernatural claims of religions then fine - that's all part of teaching kids what science is.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Teaching god as being an alternative theory as to the origin of the universe is legitimate in a religion class, not a science class.
I never said anything about teaching the Earth's age as 6,000 years. Even many religious people at this point are coming off that idea.
I'm talking about presenting God as one alternative theory as to the origin of the Universe.
I don't care if a science teacher mentions that some people believe that claim, but I have a problem if a science teacher is saying that god is a legitimate scientific theory.
Science is about providing testable explanations for the world and universe around us. Unless you can provide testable and falsifiable theories about god creating the universe then it's not scientific and hence should not be taught in science class.
Science should be taught in science class. If it's not science then it shouldn't be taught in science class.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOkay. We're getting closer to agreement.
Why should parents have to have their children's teachers tell (or strongly imply) to their children that everything they've taught them about God is not true?
Science teacher's job is to teach science. If science contradicts a child's religion then parents can have their child be scientifically illiterate and remove them from that class. Religi ...[text shortened]... al claims of religions then fine - that's all part of teaching kids what science is.
Let's see if we can crystalize this.
1) Is the origin of the Universe a scientific issue?
2) Is there a completely reliable scientific explanation for the origin of the Universe?
3) Is action by some sort of God one hypothesis?
4) Can some sort God be consistent with the Big Bang theory?
5) Is there anything about the Big Bang theory that rules out the existence of God?
6) Is there a hole in the scientific explanation of the Big Bang that could conceivably be filled by the existence of some sort of God?
7) Is there any harm in presenting this as one alternative hypothesis?
My answers:
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76The problem is that the term "Creationist" can have multiple meanings.
Once more, with feeling this time:
You can be a creationist AND believe in evolution.
How do I know?
Because I am and I do.
A lot of people think it means "Young Earth Creationist" which means you believe the earth is ~6000 years old.
There is also "Old Earth Creationism" that acknowledges that the earth is as old as it is, but still thinks god created it. Depending on how you think god created the earth and the universe, this could or could not be contradictory to evolution.
There are also other variances too. I think that's where some of the confusion is.
07 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoI'm not even 100% sure that Genesis is inconsistent with evolution, but that's another matter for another time.
Oh, I get your point.
I thought you were talking about genesis being literal.
I have an interesting story about that issue; but I have to work a little today. Maybe I'll post it tonight.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh761) It's a question that science and religion are attempting to answer. I'd argue the procedures of science are better equipped to answer it.
Okay. We're getting closer to agreement.
Let's see if we can crystalize this.
1) Is the origin of the Universe a scientific issue?
2) Is there a completely reliable scientific explanation for the origin of the Universe?
3) Is action by some sort of God one hypothesis?
4) Can some sort God be consistent with the Big Bang theory?
5) Is there any ...[text shortened]... resenting this as one alternative hypothesis?
My answers:
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
2) I agree on this. We have some good theories, but nothing as solid as evolution or gravity for sure.
3) It's a hypothesis, but not a scientific hypothesis or scientific theory by any stretch.
4). Yes. Of course there are almost as many sorts of god as there are people - or more, so it depends on the sort.
5) No because the Big Bang is a scientific theory, god is supernatural and science doesn't handle the supernatural.
6) The god of the gaps is a common argument. It's not a reason to include that as part of any science curriculum since it's not science.
7) In science class, yes. If you are presenting this as one scientific alternative - yes. If you are saying that it's religion and not science at all then ok - but then it also doesn't belong in science class since it's religion and not science.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnOkay; we're close to an agreement, though not quite there. Seems like the only difference between us is the exact phraseology that the teacher should use to present essentially the same idea.
1) It's a question that science and religion are attempting to answer. I'd argue the procedures of science are better equipped to answer it.
2) I agree on this. We have some good theories, but nothing as solid as evolution or gravity for sure.
3) It's a hypothesis, but not a scientific hypothesis or scientific theory by any stretch.
4). Yes. O ...[text shortened]... - but then it also doesn't belong in science class since it's religion and not science.
Let's go back to the original reason this was brought up.
All I originally said that lead to this whole brouhaha was that there's no need for atheists to complain about non-substantive things like the mottos on coins and bills when atheism is taught in schools, which is a substantive matter.
I postulate:
- Teaching the Big Bang theory without mentioning the possibility of God is akin to teaching atheism (not that there's anything inherently wrong with that). You're saying that the World came into existence through natural processes and are not mentioning the possibility of a deity.
Everything everyone has said against that has been along the lines of "Well, atheism is the only doctrine that is scientifically provable." Fine. The issue wasn't whether atheism should be taught, it is whether it is taught.
As it clearly is taught in public schools throughout the USA, I find atheists' claims of discrimination by the government against them to ring a bit hollow.
I would also like to thank everyone for going through this entire discussion without a single reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This truly is one of the more mature groups of posters on the net.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76You obviously are unable to differentiate between 'secular' and 'atheistic.' A secular education makes no mention of god. It doesn't teach that there is no god. I strenuously disagree with your claim that a secular education equals an atheistic one.
Okay; we're close to an agreement, though not quite there. Seems like the only difference between us is the exact phraseology that the teacher should use to present essentially the same idea.
Let's go back to the original reason this was brought up.
All I originally said that lead to this whole brouhaha was that there's no need for atheists to complain ab ...[text shortened]... g Spaghetti Monster. This truly is one of the more mature groups of posters on the net.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettwe agree that it shouldn't mention God, however, it shouldn't say God doesn't exist.
You obviously are unable to differentiate between 'secular' and 'atheistic.' A secular education makes no mention of god. It doesn't teach that there is no god. I strenuously disagree with your claim that a secular education equals an atheistic one.
I agree with psychopawn that in science lessons, students should learn about science not religious/supernatural exaplanations.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettOkay.
You obviously are unable to differentiate between 'secular' and 'atheistic.' A secular education makes no mention of god. It doesn't teach that there is no god. I strenuously disagree with your claim that a secular education equals an atheistic one.
You're a science teacher. You're explaining the Big Bang.
14 year old Tommy raises his hand and asks, "But didn't God create the Universe?"
What do you answer?