Teaching science in schools

[Landlord]

 

Here's my question, where to neanderthals and the like fit in with the creationist view?

 

The default young-earth view is that neanderthals weren't primitive pre-humans from pre-history, they were actually diseased or defective 'normal' humans that were exiled or cast out from civilization.

[ZRod]

 

Here's my question, where to neanderthals and the like fit in with the creationist view?

 

The default young-earth view is that neanderthals weren't primitive pre-humans from pre-history, they were actually diseased or defective 'normal' humans that were exiled or cast out from civilization.

I mean I guess that works, we share 99% of our DNA.

[tschu]

The history of our species is pretty interesting. There's that one guy recently, who I think actually has a "Dr." in front of his name and is labeled an "expert" on something or other in the articles, who postulated that humans came into being from the mating of chimpanzees and pigs. That appears to be totally idle speculation based on a two external characteristics (pigs' eye color and hairless skin) and ignoring what I think is a pretty darn broad consensus on the common descent of humans and modern-day primates (rather than 'from').

 

[strigori]

I tried my best not to comment in this thread but....finally.....I'm diving in.

 

I'm in the same boat as whoever said above that there really isn't some label that best describes my feelings on this topic. I believe in science and have no problem with the subjects that it has proven. I also don't have a problem with the thought there is a higher power that has it's hand in it.

 

I personally really don't want Christianity to be taught in school simply because they would find a way to do a pathetically horrible job of it. AND, it's not their job to teach that stuff and I get sick and tired of religious people who act like the world is falling apart simply because their school might not pray or teach creationism. However, I would have a problem if my kid came home telling me that his science teacher told him/her that all religion is full of crap and you shouldn't believe a word of it.

 

The teacher's job is to teach the subject at hand. There would be no reason to bring their own particular feelings about religion into the class room.

 

I would have just as big of a problem with a minister that tries to teach my children that science is a bunch of hog wash. You don't need to discredit one to believe in the other.

 

My personal feelings are that there are certain things that science just has not been able to prove to me personally to prove there isn't a higher power involved. That is my personal opinion and I have no problem if you disagree or agree.

If more of the religious shared your view we would not need to have this discussion even. I think most people would be happy with keeping science in schools and religion in church, and no need to mix the two.

[tschu]

I tried my best not to comment in this thread but....finally.....I'm diving in.

 

I'm in the same boat as whoever said above that there really isn't some label that best describes my feelings on this topic. I believe in science and have no problem with the subjects that it has proven. I also don't have a problem with the thought there is a higher power that has it's hand in it.

 

I personally really don't want Christianity to be taught in school simply because they would find a way to do a pathetically horrible job of it. AND, it's not their job to teach that stuff and I get sick and tired of religious people who act like the world is falling apart simply because their school might not pray or teach creationism. However, I would have a problem if my kid came home telling me that his science teacher told him/her that all religion is full of crap and you shouldn't believe a word of it.

 

The teacher's job is to teach the subject at hand. There would be no reason to bring their own particular feelings about religion into the class room.

 

I would have just as big of a problem with a minister that tries to teach my children that science is a bunch of hog wash. You don't need to discredit one to believe in the other.

 

My personal feelings are that there are certain things that science just has not been able to prove to me personally to prove there isn't a higher power involved. That is my personal opinion and I have no problem if you disagree or agree.

If more of the religious shared your view we would not need to have this discussion even. I think most people would be happy with keeping science in schools and religion in church, and no need to mix the two.

I agree. A very reasonable viewpoint.

[BigRedBuster]

My personal feelings are that there are certain things that science just has not been able to prove to me personally to prove there isn't a higher power involved. That is my personal opinion and I have no problem if you disagree or agree.

I think that's an easy conclusion to come to. Personally I have yet to hear a valid explanation of how there is something instead of nothing. I think Knap referenced Lawrence Krauss in another thread about something from nothing, but I don't really find his argument fulfilling. He's definition of nothing is, I think, dark matter and dark energy. Which to me is something not nothing. I think the more we learn about our world and universe the more "god" becomes a receding idea used to justify things we don't have an explanation for yet. To me it would be much more beautiful and elegant if this "creator" set all his rules (that we know as physics, biology, etc.) and then just said go (the big bang) and left everything else alone, and it's played out the way it has.

 

 

 

Here's my question, where to neanderthals and the like fit in with the creationist view?

That is your belief and you are entitled to that. But, to me, nothing science has proven has diminished the existence of a higher power involved in the process.

[zoogs]

...and I think the large number of highly educated scientists who are also devoutly religious is a testament to that, BRB.

 

Proving or disproving that isn't even a goal of science; it's beyond the scope. I'm not religious not because of proof, but mostly because it seems unlikely that it's more than human and because that's how I grew up.

[Ulty]

 

Here's my question, where to neanderthals and the like fit in with the creationist view?

 

The default young-earth view is that neanderthals weren't primitive pre-humans from pre-history, they were actually diseased or defective 'normal' humans that were exiled or cast out from civilization.

So in other words...neanderthals were modern-day creationists?

[Junior]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/02/12/creationism_in_charter_schools_texas_charter_school_yanks_creationsim_curriculum.html

 

A public charter school organization with a campus in Little Rock says it has pulled science workbooks amid allegations it promotes creationism over evolution. ...

Chuck Cook, CEO of [Texas-based] Responsive Education, addressed the allegations in a letter to the Arkansas Department of Education and obtained by KARK. "Because of the seriousness of the allegations, we removed the Biology workbook in question from our inventory and conducted an immediate and thorough review of the legal concerns expressed in the Slate article," Cook says.

The allegations stem from a Slate.com article published in January that states Responsive Ed's biology course unconstitutionally teaches creationism and that the curriculum undermines evolution.

 

[tschu]

...and I think the large number of highly educated scientists who are also devoutly religious is a testament to that, BRB.

 

Proving or disproving that isn't even a goal of science; it's beyond the scope. I'm not religious not because of proof, but mostly because it seems unlikely that it's more than human and because that's how I grew up.

Not only this, but since a "creator" is something completely outside the observable universe, it's an idea that doesn't even qualify as science or pertain to anything that science studies. Like I've stated many times before, creationism is in no way shape or form ever going to be a part of science. We cannot make observations or testable hypotheses.

[ZRod]

That is your belief and you are entitled to that. But, to me, nothing science has proven has diminished the existence of a higher power involved in the process.

I want to ask specifically where you see a higher power involved, because I am genuinely curious. But I don't want to have you get ripped apart like it tends to happen in these threads.

[Landlord]

That is your belief and you are entitled to that. But, to me, nothing science has proven has diminished the existence of a higher power involved in the process.

I want to ask specifically where you see a higher power involved, because I am genuinely curious. But I don't want to have you get ripped apart like it tends to happen in these threads.

 

As a fellow Christian that generally doesn't confuse science and the natural with the supernatural, the way I see God "involved", if you can call it that (speaking only about nature and not about human hearts) is really just through the odds and the likelihoods that things are the way that they are. I'm fully cognizant of how that can turn into a logical fallacy, but I don't think there is anything illogical in concluding that a very finely tuned universe can be attributed to a catalyst that wasn't random or lacking intelligence.

[JJ Husker]

Well here goes, I haven't been ripped on in quite awhile so I'll take my turn in the barrel.

 

I find myself most closely identifying with brb in this thread but I also would say I don't really take issue with anyone, except possibly husker x. I won't say I'm right or X is wrong but personally I just don't like it when someone takes such an absolute position on something that I don't believe can be treated so absolutely.

 

I have no problem in accepting all of the supported science as it pertains to this. I also believe and am personally convinced beyond any doubt in a creator and intelligent design. We can ignore any religions, religious beliefs, the Bible, etc. to address why I believe in an all powerful creator. Science does not answer "why". Science is also not fit to deal with the idea of a supernatural, all powerful creature. It can't be observed or tested. The science of origin simply cannot and will not ever be able to explain something from nothing. And, if it could, would not be able to answer "why" or disprove a creator who also would be responsible for the creation of all evidence and even the ideas and methods used to study it. I agree that this in no way proves the existence of a creator and I will not tell anyone who doesn't believe as I do that they are wrong. But I am convinced beyond all doubt that there is a reason we are here that science has not and cannot address. There really is no more to say than that. Similarities to ancient myths and religions, fundamentalist beliefs, hokey creation museums, etc. may all contribute as evidence against any specific religion being right but they don't have to be right to say a person believes in a creator.

[zoogs]

I hope that neither of you have ever been 'ripped' for having that viewpoint -- I can't possibly understand why someone would do so. It sounds completely reasonable.

 

A lack of science literacy is a totally different matter and one that can be addressed, and plenty of us don't know about something or other. Of course, some people use their religion as a pretext for refusing science literacy, which is silliness....but the issue there isn't their religion, but their application of it.

 

The science of origin simply cannot and will not ever be able to explain something from nothing.

 

Oh, I don't know about that. It's just getting into physics that is really hard to wrap one's head around. Still doesn't rule out religion, and it's not meant to. Quantum mechanics is weird stuff.

[JJ Husker]

I hope that neither of you have ever been 'ripped' for having that viewpoint -- I can't possibly understand why someone would do so. It sounds completely reasonable.

 

A lack of science literacy is a totally different matter and one that can be addressed, and plenty of us don't know about something or other. Of course, some people use their religion as a pretext for refusing science literacy, which is silliness....but the issue there isn't their religion, but their application of it.

 

The science of origin simply cannot and will not ever be able to explain something from nothing.

 

Oh, I don't know about that. It's just getting into physics that is really hard to wrap one's head around. Still doesn't rule out religion, and it's not meant to. Quantum mechanics is weird stuff.

 

Ha, I knew as soon as I typed that one sentence that it wasn't necessarily true or exactly what I was trying to say. But I just let it go. Kudos for picking up on that. I would agree that science can and has some theories on something from nothing.