• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Creationism in science lessons

Smoke

Smoke

Done here.
c0da2006 said:
Do you think this is right or should it be kept in the religious education lessons?
Click to expand...
Yes, they should discuss creationism. These days, with fundamentalism on the rise, a good education should include a solid refutation of creationist claims.
 
ChrisP

ChrisP

Veteran Member
I don't think creationism should be discussed if the big bang theory is not discussed. It's a case of several different points of view, all unprovable to a certainty. Certainly teach the sciences, but anything that is beyond the scope of how things work are unimportant from a schooling point of view. Let people make up their own minds how things got the way they are.
 
c0da

c0da

Active Member
I'm undecided to be honest. In the UK, not many people would accept creationism as fact nowadays, so there is an argument against its inclusion in the science curriculum, but I also think a point that should be made is the fact that the theories which are currently taught in science lessons are, just like creationism, only theories and not completely proven, thus cannot truly be accepted as the hard truth.:)
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
c0da2006 said:
... I also think a point that should be made is the fact that the theories which are currently taught in science lessons are, just like creationism, only theories and not completely proven, thus cannot truly be accepted as the hard truth.
Click to expand...
Absolute rubbish. This "it's only a theory" mantra demonstrates a remarkable ignorance. Go read a science book.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A more cogent point: The big bang theory is open to disproof, and scientists are actively trying to find flaws in it.
Creationism is based on an axiomatic article of faith. It is untestable. There is no science involved because science is the technology of testing and disproving.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
c0da2006 said:
I'm undecided to be honest. In the UK, not many people would accept creationism as fact nowadays, so there is an argument against its inclusion in the science curriculum, but I also think a point that should be made is the fact that the theories which are currently taught in science lessons are, just like creationism, only theories and not completely proven, thus cannot truly be accepted as the hard truth.:)
Click to expand...

Perhpas there is a slight, subtle, but discernable difference in the quality and quantity of evidence for such theories as the big bang and evolution when compared to creationism.
 
c0da

c0da

Active Member
I do accept that point and I wasn't trying to put the validity of creationism on par with the validity of the big bang theory, I was just stating that even the big bang has holes in it and has not been 100% proven.
 
Yerda

Yerda

Veteran Member
c0da2006 said:
I do accept that point and I wasn't trying to put the validity of creationism on par with the validity of the big bang theory, I was just stating that even the big bang has holes in it and has not been 100% proven.
Click to expand...
Do you study science at all, mate? Even the best theories are tentative explanations always open to new evidence.

Science looks at natural phenomena and explains them in terms of laws that govern. To appeal to the supernatural you are arresting the very principles of the methodology of science.
 
finalfrogo

finalfrogo

Well-Known Member
c0da2006 said:
I do accept that point and I wasn't trying to put the validity of creationism on par with the validity of the big bang theory, I was just stating that even the big bang has holes in it and has not been 100% proven.
Click to expand...

Nothing is 100% proven... there will always be holes when dealing with such big concepts as how life has changed over the past billion years, or how the universe began. Humanity must settle on the explanation with significantly less holes than any other.
 
Ormiston

Ormiston

Well-Known Member
Leave the science to the scientists, PLEASE!! The most important feature of the Big Bang, which is supported by VISUAL evidence, is that the universe used to be smaller. THAT'S IT! How come the theologions won't go bother English or Cooking class for a change and stop riding the coat-tales of Science? Claiming "a theory is a theory is a theory" in a pathetic attempt to spread your religious beliefs is appalling. My child should not have to be subjected to your B.S. unless she ELECTS to take a religion class.
 
d.

d.

_______
MidnightBlue said:
Yes, they should discuss creationism. These days, with fundamentalism on the rise, a good education should include a solid refutation of creationist claims.
Click to expand...

nothing to add, really.

completely ignoring it would make some people believe they are being 'hushed up'.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Good points guys.

Science does not prove anything. Proof is the task of mathematics.
Science formulates theories and then tries to disprove them. If a theory resists all attempts at disproof it is accepted (provisionally) as fact.

Creationism begins with a conclusion then scrambles for evidence to bolster its "conclusion."
 
  • Like
Reactions: d.
Ormiston

Ormiston

Well-Known Member
Sunstone said:
Perhpas there is a slight, subtle, but discernable difference in the quality and quantity of evidence for such theories as the big bang and evolution when compared to creationism.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and don't forget that they actually use telescopes and microscopes to study these things. Maybe that's why they are taught in Science...:sarcastic I could accept the Bible as a scientific tool if was used, let's say, under a short leg on a scientist's table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top