Plea from a Christian: Keep My Religion out of the Science Classroom!!!!

reply to post by Lilitu


The scientific method cannot bear out everything. There are certain truths of human rights, caring for one another, etc, that are best 'proven/solved' by a social consensus, not measurements. Religion can have a great positive effect in forging social consensus that will make us a healthier, safer, and even freer species, just as science can. But they are two different realms. Putting them in conflict with one another cheapens science by putting God in the science classroom and cheapens religion by reducing its deeper questions down to what we can measure. We can have both.

reply to post by Culdeeson

John Paul Sartre is probably responsible for so many students taking their lives in the 1960's.

This is a serious charge. It is also completely unfounded and I ask you to withdraw it.

Existentialism is an attempt to understand and ease the widespread feelings of alienation and despair that were born out of the discovery of humanity's true--and insignificant--place in the universe. The scientific discoveries of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the mechanized, highly structured industrial societies they helped create made people feel like machine-parts themselves, dumb cogs forever engaged in repetitious, mechanical tasks--cogs whose existence was meaningless and not worth the trouble of it. The students you mention were among these victims of 'existential despair'.

Recognizing that to argue against the empirically demonstrated truths of science was impossible, existentialist philosophers, including Sartre, accepted Nietzsche's notice of the death of God, acknowledged the ultimate pointlessness of human striving when set against the unheeding vastness of the universe, and then said: Very well. If there is no empirical value to human existence, let each of us create his own, by making of his life something that is meaningful and valuable to himself at least. As Sartre put it (roughly), each man's life should be an experiment in how a human life should be lived.

That is the premise of existentialism: never mind how meaningless our lives are in the eyes of eternity, we can still imbue them with meaning from within ourselves.

In short, Sartre was trying to talk those suicidal young intellectuals down from the ledge. You are saying he drove them to the ledge in the first place. This is deeply unfair and wrong.

Today, you don't hear much talk about existentialism. Partly, I think, that's because Sartre and his kind were so successful. We have grown used to being mere motes in the eyes of the universe and by and large, we don't worry about it. We take the Existentialists' advice and follow our own worldly ideals and obsessions, which we pick off an ever-expanding menu of consumer choices.

Also, nowadays, thoughtful people often discover a kind of meaning to existence--and for answers, more or less satisfying to Life's Big Questions--in naturalism, a philosophy that looks for support to the ideas of physics and evolutionary biology. Naturalism has gained much currency, first in intellectual and now in popular culture, during the past decade or two.

reply to post by rnaa

Don't teach kids evolution and there won't be anymore doctors

Are serious with that statement, WOW !
Your perspective is too far gone to reason with, I won't waste anymore keystrokes trying

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Are serious with that statement, WOW !

Are you serious with that complaint?

Of course I'm serious. How do you think you can train doctors without a knowledge of biology? WOW ! Just WOW!

reply to post by rnaa


Doctors don't need to equate the scientific facts of biology to the theory of evolution to do their job. You can teach biology in public schools without the evolution component quite easily, my public high school did it. They taught evolution in the lower grades, but biology classes in high school had nothing to do with evolution. The same goes for university too.

Some doctors are christian and believe the bible and not in evolution and it doesn't impede their abilities, nor does it discourage them from becoming doctors.
Sorry but your thoughts that if we don't teach evolution in public schools so that a person ends up not believing in evolution they won't want to learn about biology or become doctors is one of the most ludicrous statements I have seen posted on ATS.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


How can you teach biology without evolution at a university level?

Especially for doctors!

No mention of how antibiotic resistance occurs? No mention of genetic markers for pathologists? No mention of genetic mutations to oncologists?

Modern medicine requires evolutionary theory to stand. The only other theory that's more necessary is germ theory.

Now, if the doctors are bible-believing and reject evolution, do they reject antibiotic resistance? Do they think that 'evil spirits' cause cancer? Can they deal with birth defects?

All of these things are explained by evolutionary theory. Not by the Bible.

Remember, a Bible-believing doctor would think that the cure for a leper would be to kill a bird...it's in the Bible, isn't it?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Some of the scientific facts that you mention are different than a one celled organism coming into existence then developing into a full human form. Your classify some forms of science as proof of evolution, believing and understanding what your talking about is vastly different. One is science, the other theory, and yes you can separate the two.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Some of the scientific facts that you mention are different than a one celled organism coming into existence then developing into a full human form.

Here's a direct instance of ignorance.

Evolution speaks nothing of the origin of single celled organisms, nor does it preoccupy itself solely with the origin of the modern human form.

Your classify some forms of science as proof of evolution, believing and understanding what your talking about is vastly different.

Genetics and phylogeny and phylogenetics are definitive proof of evolution.
Mutations inherited by bacterial cultures over generations is definitive proof of evolution.

One is science, the other theory, and yes you can separate the two.

...science is a series of theories. This is just the moronic talking point that keeps getting chanted by creationists who don't understand science.

Cell theory
Theory of evolution
Germ theory
Theory of gravitation
Circuit theory


...how many times do I have to make these sorts of lists before people realize that a theory is the highest level of certainty that can be found in science?

I would not be in favor of teaching literal creationism in the classroom, myself. I might be in favor of a brief statement about a designer as an alternative theory to non-directed evolution, but not until design theory is more developed. Each person has his or her own conspiracy theory; I see a conspiracy in that science wants to keep the status quo and not having people raise pesky questions about evolution. Many see these questions as going backward, but in actuality they should move science forward. Darwin did not of course know about DNA and its implications, that the complexity or directions in the cell might have existed from the beginning. It was not just a flash on the pond.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Obviously I disagree strongly with BlueJay's general position, but I think I have to take his side on this doctor business. It's amazing how people can keep their thoughts in separate compartments; I think it's quite possible for a doctor to accept the concepts of antibiotic resistance, inherited pathologies, etc., without necessarily buying the whole NeoDarwinian nine yards. I mean, back in Germany only a lifetime ago there were doctors who went along with the whole Teutonic übermensch/subhuman Jew palaver. That was eighty years after Darwin.

I know a Bible-believing kid who got a degree in genetics from some college in Utah. I don't know what they taught him there, but it seems to have been enough to have got him some kind of drone job in the biotech industry in America. This I know for a fact. His parents, incidentally, once burnt a book I wrote. Because it had photos of Hindu gods in it. They are seriously over-the-top-Biblebelievers.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I thought there were also laws in science; although I realize a theory does not necessarily become a law. Probabilities and predictions exist in intelligent design and these have been accepted as having a high level of certainty. An example of a prediction may be:

Finding increasing evidence of fine tuning

for one. There have already been probabilities put forth in intelligent design. I hope that people have an open mind about this and not see it as retreating to Genesis.

reply to post by Raiment

Originally posted by Raiment
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I thought there were also laws in science; although I realize a theory does not necessarily become a law.

A law is merely a description.

A good example is the laws of gravity versus the theory of gravitation.
Both deal with the exact same thing, but the laws of gravity merely state what will happen due to gravity, while the theory attempts to describe what gravity is, how and why it functions etc.

Probabilities and predictions exist in intelligent design and these have been accepted as having a high level of certainty.

No, they haven't. At least not to my knowledge. Can you please show me a source?

An example of a prediction may be:

Finding increasing evidence of fine tuning

That's the teleological argument, it's been around for ages.

There is evidence that the universe can exist without one of its fundamental forces, the weak force, and yet the universe is somehow fine-tuned?

And I liken this to the puddle that thinks the entire universe and the pot-hole it formed in came into being to simply allow for its existence.

for one. There have already been probabilities put forth in intelligent design.

...where are the probabilities? Show me your sources and their numbers, I'm sure they are either incredibly wrong or mislabeling something, or irrelevant.

I hope that people have an open mind about this and not see it as retreating to Genesis.

The entirety of the western ID movement sprung up from Biblical creationism. Show me a Christian "intelligent design proponent" who doesn't think that their deity was the intelligent designer.

The same way the Muslim ID people think it was their deity.

etc.

My mind is open, just not open enough for it to fall out.

reply to post by Raiment

Yeh, I'm curious too. You sound like you have information not available, or at least unknown, to the rest of us.

So I'm adding my request to Madness's. Tell us more.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


It's all semantics, and I think you know that.
I love it when atheists and evolutionists try and get cute with scientific semantic terms that involve a play on the word "theory"

The theory of gravity is vastly different than the theory of evolution, I can prove what is scientifically called the theory of gravity by dropping a pen to the ground. The same can not be said about the totality of the theory evolution from A to Z and all it implies to the development of the human species.
And you guys know that, but you play that card anyways, and think you've won the argument.

Originally posted by snusfanatic
Plea from a Christian: Keep My Religion out of the Science Classroom!!!!

I am a Christian. I believe that God spoke the universe, and all life in it, into existence - in whatever manner it is that God speaks. I believe that natural world, its four dimensions of space and time, was a designed one - planned out in the mind's-eyes of an all powerful being.


Fair enough - you appear, thus far, to be a Christian.


Originally posted by snusfanatic
Christianity has changed over time, it has accepted new scientific and social insights and incorporated them into its world-view.

I hope your mind stays open just enough. I did probabilities on the 'common sense' thread so it is repetitious to repeat them. A theory being around for a while does not discredit it, in and of itself. Darwinian theory been around for some time, has it not. I related fine-tuning to the scientific process of making predictions, like continuing to prove there was a front-loading design process, or demonstrating that virulent bacteria had a functional logic (or) represented decay of an originally good design.

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
You are not a true Christian.

Are you? If you are then you are qualified to debate what a "true Christian" is or is not. If you are not one, then you have no basis to stand on.

My God. Do I have to be a "war criminal" before I possess the qualifications to debate what a "war criminal" is?

That depends. Is being a "war criminal" a new type of religion?

reply to post by cutout23


I fail to see what your point is. I was born in 1986, my beliefs are going to vary to some degree from a christian born in 1600, 1300, 1000, 300, 90, etc. And all of their beliefs will vary to some degree with the beliefs of the others.

Look Stuff Changes Over Time, even the Vatican.

Every christian recognizes that if Jesus was around to tell us exactly what to do and believe about every single thing, that would be best. But that's not reality.

So what? Is someone not a real christian unless they believe the earth is flat? OR that the sun revolves around the earth? These things have changed. Even the most fundamentalist people I've ever met will admit to you that the earth revolves around the sun. Those things are not CENTRAL to the faith.

Things change, but that doesn't make them inauthentic.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

It's all semantics, and I think you know that. I love it when atheists and evolutionists try and get cute with scientific semantic terms that involve a play on the word "theory".

Here's the dictionary:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
   
   
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
   
   
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
   
   
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
   
   
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
   
   
6. contemplation or speculation.
   
   
7. guess or conjecture.

Kindly note the sliding scale of confidence involved. The first definition is essentially equivalent to certainty. The last explicitly refers to guesswork. You are trying to mix up all these definitions so that you can claim that a theory is, by definition, unproven and imprecise. You are wrong.

Just in case you want to understand this more clearly (which I beg leave to doubt, since I'm sure it's not news to you), here's Wikipedia on the very special meaning the term 'theory' has in science.

The theory of gravity is vastly different than the theory of evolution, I can prove what is scientifically called the theory of gravity by dropping a pen to the ground.

Oh, yes? What do you think the 'theory of gravity' is? 'Dropped stuff falls to the ground'?

It took Sir Isaac Newton years of poring over data on observations of tides and the orbits of celestial bodies, including Halley's Comet and the Jovian satellites, before he could explain why Kepler was right; and thence, what the principles of universal gravitation are. He had to develop a new kind mathematics--the infinitesimal calculus--in order to do it, and got into a lifelong quarrel over precedence with Liebniz as a result.

That's how 'simple' it is to prove even Newtonian universal gravitation. And let's not even get into Einstein's ideas about gravity, or we'll be here all week.

*

I have had occasion to remark before on the simplemindedness of creationist arguments. But I know why they have to be simple--political propaganda needs to be pitched at the level of the simpleton in the street for it to be effective on a mass scale.

Science, unfortunately, is not that simple. People who can't understand how a word can mean two different things probably aren't going to get it.

The same can not be said about the totality of the theory evolution from A to Z and all it implies to the development of the human species.

Have you heard of the three-body problem?

How precise is Newton's theory of gravitation when called upon to predict the gravitational interaction of more than three bodies?

What if some of those bodies are massive enough to appreciably distort spacetime so that light bends and the lines of sight you use for your measurements become crooked?

Does gravity work at the speed of light, as Einstein thought it must, or instantaneously, as Newton thought it did?

In either case, how does it work? Do distant objects actually exchange particles of 'gravitational force' that no-one has ever detected? Or is there really a 'luminiferous aether' through which gravitational 'waves' are rippling?

Why does matter distort spacetime? Is that what matter is--a distortion of spacetime?

You thought gravity was all done and dusted, did you?

Welcome to the wonderful world of science.

You play that card anyways, and think you've won the argument.

There is no argument any longer. Just because some poor savage from Irian Jaya still thinks the sun is a great big fire in the sky doesn't mean there's any argument about the nature of stars.

reply to post by Astyanax


Hi, I don't have special information (wish I did) but it is out there to look at and (I am sure) debate. I don't dis-believe in evolutionary theory per se. It has been given a god-like status, though. That is why I see a conspiracy more in trying to prevent people from asking obvious questions. Let's just put high heels and lipstick on a chimp, and a microphone in her hand, and anyone who ever had common sense questions about evolution will now sit down and be quiet. (How I see the scientific approach to the questions).