Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
That's one of the main problems with the bill; it's self-contradictory. On one hand it says students will be graded "according to normal academic standards", but it OTOH it also prohibits a teacher from "penalizing" a student for expressing their religious views in their assignments and homework. So if a teacher gave a student an F for expressing his religious beliefs in a homework assignment, which part of the bill applies? The student could point to the part that prohibits him from being penalized for expressing his religious views, and the teacher could point to the part that says grades will be given according to normal academic standards.
Isn't that the same with everything then?
Interesting.
Interesting.
How do you believe public school science curricula should be determined? Should it be set by politicians? By the public? By religious leaders? Or by the scientific community working with science teachers?
Is giving a student an F for expressing his religious views on a homework assignment penalizing him?
Yeah, I know how it's done. I'm asking nPeace how he thinks it should be done.
Frankly, I don't care... what they do, or who does what?Interesting.
How do you believe public school science curricula should be determined? Should it be set by politicians? By the public? By religious leaders? Or by the scientific community working with science teachers?
You didn't answer the question. Is giving a student an F for expressing his religious views on a homework assignment penalizing him?
Where does the bill prohibit grading a student's religious views?
So basically you believe that like much of what goes on in this world, science education is controlled by Satan.Frankly, I don't care... what they do, or who does what?
Why? This system is not controlled by man, though they may think so. It's not controlled by God either so don't get that crazy idea in mind.
This system is headed in one direction, and one direction only, and the brake system has failed. I'm sure if I ask you to guess who's at the wheel, you'll get it in one try.
I understand. I was just curious because you seemed interested enough to comment.So i have no shares in this stock market. I'm waiting for the crash.
That makes me wonder....what do you think of Christians who are supportive of science education that includes things like evolution? What about Christian scientists who work in evolutionary biology and related fields?
A Christian can use the world, but not to the full. Meaning, everything in the world is not bad, including science, but one need to be able to remove the dross, or leave it where it is.
Yes. Interested in making a comment. I do that from time to time. One comment is okay on RF, unless pressed by a poster to say more.
Free world. Choose your train, and jump aboard. Enjoy your ride.
Isn't that the same with everything then?
Belief in evolution theory is no different, either.
The difference perhaps is that the Atheists seem to fear the consequences of rejecting God. So just hearing anyone speak of God, seem to torment them and give them nightmares, so they wish every religious person would either disappear, or talk about anything else, but God. That's paranoia.
Why live in that kind of denial? They are the ones putting pressure on themselves.
Bob gives me the impression that he dreams about being tormented in flames of a fiery hell. It's kinda funny.
Don't worry @bob. There is no hellfire to be tormented in.
No. My Bible does not say that. Perhaps I read a different one to the one you read?
Ouch. Judged you already.
No. That's not "genuine Christianity".
Which Bible did you read? Bob's version of the holy Bile?
Yup. It's Bob's version, alright. Dude, you need a Bible.
As I indicated, we don't judge the merit of an idea by the reproducibility of experiments.The Big Bang theory of cosmic expansion and evolution is confirmed in the main. It is correct, What you just wrote is incorrect, and is easily disproven by learning the science. Instead, you chose faith and went off the rails.
Here's a cosmology that has no basis in fact and is all (now disconfirmed) conjecture
Except that there are no crises in science, just some unsolved problems.
As I indicated, we don't judge the merit of an idea by the reproducibility of experiments. If an experiment is performed and repeated yielding widely divergent results, we should come to divergent tentative conclusions about how reality is. The idea that works best is the one we use. This might be a good time to introduce a few useful concepts that eliminate much of the semantic quibbling about truth and proof :
- Empirical adequacy - A theory is empirically adequate, roughly, if all of what it says about observable aspects of the world (past, present, and future) can be confirmed
- Fallibilism - the principle that propositions concerning empirical knowledge can be accepted even though they cannot be proved with certainty.
- Correspondence definition of truth - a statement is true to the extent that it conforms to / corresponds with / accurately reflects (objective) reality.
Consider creationism in the light of that. It fails, because it is useless.
- Instrumentalism - belief that statements or theories may be used as tools for useful prediction without reference to their possible truth or falsity. Peirce and other pragmatists defended an instrumentalist account of modern science.
In my experience, those that reject the narrative of any scientific theory don't know the scientific facts from which the theory derives. The problem is thinking by faith. Of course you won't accept the scientific theory if you choose to believe an alternative narrative by faith, nor will you have any incentive to become proficient in the sciences. They simply become irrelevant and remove the incentive to study them, just as scripture is irrelevant to me. We have chosen different epistemologies, and not surprisingly, have very different ideas about how the world is and works.
Some people care that their beliefs be correct even if they don't directly apply them themselves. I don't use evolutionary theory, but I still want to know it because it is correct by the bullet point standards I have suggested above.