Most Christians still don't mind. My former Science Teacher was a Catholic monsienier (basically a Senior Priest), and I remember he once said "I feel like spitting on anyone who interprets the bible as fact".
Printable View
Most Christians still don't mind. My former Science Teacher was a Catholic monsienier (basically a Senior Priest), and I remember he once said "I feel like spitting on anyone who interprets the bible as fact".
I even once heard a guy equal it to Washington Post so I guess he was not alone...... ~DQuote:
Originally Posted by Wazikashi
Science to maintain meaning must be constrained by the base concepts that give it meaning. To challenge this is to fail to understand the base meaning of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
An atheist Muslim is a contradiction.Quote:
I am, but belonging to a earthly religious administration doesn't automatically mean that you be believe in what it originates from. ~;)
Science is for science RE is for religion!!!!!
Now, the ultimate poll would be "What is the best flavour of ice cream?"
Both theories should be taught side by side in school. It would then be up to the children to draw the obvious parallels between the two so that they can see that science shows the Bible to be an extended metaphor rather than the big book of lies that the I've Read Dan Brown Books Brigade will have you believe.
Yes. Children should know both and then form an opinion. If they don't get one of them, they will just see it as 'normal' to believe in that one.
~;)
Yeah - that's all it is!Quote:
Originally Posted by Efrem
~D
Impossible to vote in a poll which does not reflect the question, so I voted GAH.
But clearly I think it would be absurd for creationism and other such loony beliefs to be treated as science.
In social science you have a different base concept. You are locked in to physics and non-abstracts. Your thesis is therefore based on the wrong reference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Not in social science......Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
A persons behavior in flock doesn't have to be based on the original reason for the flock. The desire to be a part of the flock as a flock is enough.....
Social science's base noun remains science. This means there must be a conceptual continuity. This is the case with the historical development of such as well as the theoretical appeal. Science is necessarily tied to physical phenomena and must have a verification schema.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
No, Islam revolves around the singularity and supremacy of Deity. Any system that denies this theistic assertion cannot be considered Muslim. Islam begins with the pronouncement of faith the Shahadah: There is no god, but God and Muhammad is His Prophet. If you claim to be an atheist you cannot be a Muslim any more than a square can be a triangle. Behavior is not the defining trait.Quote:
Not in social science......
A persons behavior in flock doesn't have to be based on the original reason for the flock. The desire to be a part of the flock as a flock is enough.....
At least creationism wasn't made up by a psychopath like Darwin :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
Take that atheists!
On the other hand, I can see how it could be taught in religion classes, and that is actually a really good idea IMHO. But the thing is, if it's religious in American schools it's out. Immediatly. More proof of the radical lefts control of our nation...
So you don't have RE classes then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
If we purely seek to teach our children the scientific facts, surely we will kill their senses of immagination, creativity and moral standards. Science can teach us what is possible, but it rarely teaches us what is right.
I dislike the idea of schools where children are only taught science and practicality.
Psychopath : A person suffering from chronic mental disorder esp. with abnormal or violent social behaviour. [OED]Quote:
At least creationism wasn't made up by a psychopath like Darwin
Any evidence, or did you just like the sound of the word?
On the contrary to be a good scientist you need a good imagination. No one yet saw an enzyme, and as for what electrons are supposed to do... *Quote:
If we purely seek to teach our children the scientific facts, surely we will kill their senses of immagination, creativity and moral standards. Science can teach us what is possible, but it rarely teaches us what is right.
And even if you were right I don't think the answer is to teach a pack of lies.
(* I apologise for making reference to enzymes and electrons, whose existence is of course only a theory and not a fact. Unlike the existence of God, apparently.)
Yes. Luckily we're (barely) left enough to keep the Christian nuts from interfering with education.
Creationism is a religious theory with nothing backing it other than the words of a long dead writer. Said writer fits the definition of psychopath more than Darwin did. No one without a chronic mental disorder can write what's contained in the Bible and keep a straight face.
:stop:
We do not want this thread to derail into Christian bashing, do we?
just like the word ~:cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by English assassin
because whereas attending religious cerimonies arent mandentory by law, school is.
Attending school is not mandatory by law . Parents can educate their children at home .
Yes, Ser Clergane, but I still have a point.
There is no factual basis for creationism or intelligent design, other than what else someone wrote down in a book that was not meant to be taken as scientific doctrine.
You are absolutely correct, the bible was written for people to use as a moral reference, not as a scientific journal. The Monks who had written the bible knew this full well, after all at the time of the Bible's creation, the Library of Alexandria was already full keel in scientific studies, the monks left the facts to the scientists. What the monks needed was a good "story" on how to make Christianity appealing to the masses, they had no reference, and wanted to make their religion Parallel to Polytheists, namely Romans. Roman and Greek Mythology, especially the creation of the world goes almost hand-in-hand with Christianities creation of the world. Adam and Eve are parallels of Prometheus and Man, Kane and Able are Parallels of Saturn and Jupiter. Many things like this can be pointed out from an astute observation. So having that said, Bible=Not True... but a good moral compass.Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonArchangel
If take a look at diachronic linguistics and for example the works of Chomsky, you will see that the verification schema has been created based on more or less a litterature study on writings, fables, poems etc with no connection to a physical phenomena. Why did the Chinese language develop as it did compare to English ? Is the difference a physical phenomena or a creation of a higher being ? Maybe somebody taught them the signs instead of the alphabet ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
In a creationistic science setup, you would be able to create a similar set of verification schema. Today there are a great amount of work to put the bible in to a historical perspective and use the events as anecdotical descriptions of at that time un-known events.
Example, 7 days for the creator to make earth, might not be the same as the days we have today. These days might be from another satellite or planet, since earth was at that time created and not inhabitable. Suddenly you have created your self a new reference for time. ~D
You don't have to vote Bush to be an US citizen, do you ? Same thing with an Islamic society. As long as you follow the rules and participate in the administrative system, you are a muslim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Further more I have never stated that I am a atheist. I stated that I don't believe in a higher deity, but can't dispute the existance of one. I guess you could say that I am a lost soul or in a president election, I don't vote..... ~;)
Efrem and Idaho-sama-who should be a mod agree.
And Pindar and I.
It is indeed the ultimate poll. :bow:
I agree. A man who thinks and acts like a Christian is still fundamntally a Christian.Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolsson
On the science note.. could magickal practice be considered science? It has its rules and is seen by magicians to be a great deal like more mainstream sciences.
Our minister of education tried to start this debate, and it wasn't very well received. I am not sure, I don't see why it shouldn't be per se, science shouldn't be the next religion. Nature baffles me, I saw a shrimp on discovery that knocks outs it's pray with compressed water, it hits like a .22 bullet instantly killing it's prey. Now how did evolution figure that one out, so the shrimp thought 'hey this works pretty good' and was more succesfull, and he passed this knowledge onto his offspring. Shrimps are incapable of rational thought so how. the. hell. did. this. happen.
Evolution is a good theory, it's the best we have anyway, but it certainly doesn't explain everything. Self-consciousness, air-bullet shrimp, electric eels, birds (really, why would you evolve wings before you could fly ? What use are half wings ??) and a whole lot of other stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
But just because one theory is wrong (or incomplete in this case) it doesn't automatically make another theory right, which is what some creationists would want people to believe.
Creationism and Evolution should both be taught in schools as theories - because that is what they are, neither is proven beyond all doubt. Teach the theories, teach the facts to back them up and the arguments against them and let the children make up their own minds.
I kind of agree with Al Khalifah, but the problem is that Children are very persuasive, so a teacher that believes more in one theory will probably teach his/her children to believe in that theory. I'd say teach them both as simple theories, don't even let people make up their minds as to which one is correct... just say "heres one way of looking at it and heres another way... but opinions aside, neither have been proven beyond a doubt." and leave it at that.
Since when is Creationism a theory ?
Let's be serious, I'm not against teaching it in religious class (though if people asked me, I would answer "NO !!"), but it is simply not equal to Darwin's theory.
Right now, there's like *nothing* that supports creationism.
The evolution theory OTOH is based on rational claims, not on a tale written thousand years ago when science was almost non-existant, and *badly* translated in several languages. It may not be fully accurate, it may be understood in a bad way (ie : people claiming they are superior to others thanks to evolution), but it can be observed.
The Bible is not, and has never been meant to be read as 'The Truth : Or What Really Happened'. Its goal was to teach moral values such as tolerance, kindness, but also steadiness, etc., kinda like Mao's Red Book, or like the French Human Rights Declaration.
When someone is using it as a science basis, he's doing the same kind of crap that Muslim extremists are doing in their Afghanistan or in Iran.
Religion is based on tales, while Science is based on facts, and although science is not always right, it has proven itself to be much more reliable than the Bible or the Koran when it cames to explains how does our world works.
You seem to be mixing moral values and real facts, and that's kinda disturbing, and IMO, it can only leads to bad things.
When I think of evolution I like to notice that it is insane, its riddles with holes and is only just substantiated by the fossil record. On the other hand Creationism is just one gaping hole with no evidence and even less reason to be correct.
Guess which one I prefer, yep that’s right!
Evolution is not perfect and it is still a theory and is likely to remain so for a long time, but the thing with this theory is that its being refined and redefined all the time, with new evidence mounting up in its favour all the time as well.
Creationism is just a bunch of misinterpreted tales that were written in a book that was badly translated and was in a large part taken from a book (old testament) that was originally written to shock and awe people to gain converts and allow the power class of the priests to retain their power over the people.
The Bible altogether is also something of a propaganda tool, its a book for a religion that is new and has enemies all around, its being faced by adversity and needs followers who will be fanatically loyal and be prepared to become martyrs for the cause. Its not going to say, "Yeah well this God Bloke, we're not entirely sure about the whole thing." What they want to do is shock and awe the people into uncompromising belief. The medieval church didn't really want this to change as it gave them power. I wouldn't put it past them to have edited the text to suit their purposes.
Simple fact, religion and religious dogma is propaganda first spiritual guidance second.
Then again as we don't know everything and the universe is a huge place and we are only insignificant specks of dust in the great scheme of things we may all be wrong, maybe God does exist, maybe he doesn't maybe none of our current theories are correct. We don't know everything.
Chances are that the dinosaurs found themselves in a forest and began to adapt to their surroundings over millions of years by developing a lighter bone structure (leading to hollowed bones that birds use) to allow quicker navigation of the forest to avoid predators. Then they found their arms useless but kept them there for balance. Eventually they grew smaller and smaller and as they did they started living exclusively in the tree tops and developing feathers for warmth. Hoping from tree to tree like monkeys or the flying squirrel. Possibly using their previously useless arms now light and feather covered to allow them to glide short distances. After that point it’s quite easy to imagine how they developed wings.Quote:
Originally Posted by doc_bean
I believe that Creationism should be taught in school but only in the RS (Religious Studies) lessons and as theories. Science is already presented as a theory, always.
Actually religious doctrines are based on social science. The rules around food, marriage, hygien etc are all based on experience gained through hundreds of years of studies of human behavior. Further more, it is a large portion of real politics in to it as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Did God create humans ? Or indirect by creating bacterias or organic chemistry ? Actually we don't really know if there is a higher deity or not. We can of course believe in it or not, but still the fact remains, we don't really know, since we can't describe the shape.
Our mind is limited to a certain level of complexity. If you try to describe eternity or the beginning of the beginning, we are stuck. It doesn't mean there is a God, but on the other hand, it is today out of our reach......