Should religion be taught in science class?

[The Voice of Reason]

Creationism on the other hand seems to turn up no evidence...

This could be because science has not up to that yet.

It is because creationism is, by definition, outside the concerns of science. Science is not capable of, and is totally unconcerned with, anything that is untestable and not falsifiable. Science does not currently, and will not (in the future) address creationism - or anything else that is based on revealed faith.

TVOR

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

It is because creationism is, by definition, outside the concerns of science. Science is not capable of, and is totally unconcerned with, anything that is untestable and not falsifiable. Science does not currently, and will not (in the future) address creationism - or anything else that is based on revealed faith.

TVOR

Tell that to edison or einstein or galileo. All their ideas were concerned with things that up till their time had been untestable.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Uh, Edison, Einstein, and Gallileo are all dead. I doubt that I'll be conversing with any of them anytime soon.

Each of the men you reference were addressing the world that we live in. The fact that the organized religions of their day were mistakenly brazen enough to claim divine knowledge of the real world (when nothing could be further from the truth) was a mistake on the part of religion - not science. As science observes the world around us, it will, inevitably look for evidence as to the beginning of universe. It will find evidence that will be interpreted as it arises, and if enough evidence becomes available to reach a conclusion that approaches certainty, it will be embraced as such. Well - some will refuse to embrace it - due to an amazing ability to intentionally misunderstand what is in front of them.

IF - and that is a HUGE if - a creationist ever discovers evidence that a supernatural being snapped his fingers and put the ball in motion, science will then address said evidence. Since none is forthcoming, science will turn a deaf ear to such myths - just as it has never put together a concerted effort to hunt for the remains of Paul Bunyan and his Blue Ox, Babe.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[painted wolf]

wow... all from twenty or more years ago...

funny how science moves foward with time... but some arguments don't.

wa:do

 

[Tawn]

Whilst it may the opinion of some people that it isnt enough evidence to prove evolution absolutely. What you cannot deny is that there is a lot of evidence and it is very persuasive. Evolution is more than a strong possibility.

What supports the notion of creationism? A leap of faith which requires you to make the (rather huge) assumption that things are so complicated that they must have been made by something.
We used to think that thunder storms were the anger of the gods... but that was because we didnt understand electrostatic charges. We should not rely on metaphysics for answers to questions which cannot be answered yet. Unless you really cant cope with uncertainty.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

wow... all from twenty or more years ago...

funny how science moves foward with time... but some arguments don't.

wa:do

Have they since come up with the evidence they needed?

 

[Melody]

IF - and that is a HUGE if - a creationist ever discovers evidence that a supernatural being snapped his fingers and put the ball in motion, science will then address said evidence.

When that happens it will be too late for science to address it.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Whilst it may the opinion of some people that it isnt enough evidence to prove evolution absolutely. What you cannot deny is that there is a lot of evidence and it is very persuasive. Evolution is a very strong possibility.

What supports the notion of creationism? A leap of faith which requires you to make the (rather huge) assumption that things are so complicated that they must have been made by something.
We used to think that thunder storms were the anger of the gods... but that was because we didnt understand electrostatic charges. We should not rely on metaphysics for answers to questions which cannot be answered yet. Unless you really cant cope with uncertainty.

Columbus took a very big leap of faith.

 

[Tawn]

Did he?

Everyone recognizes that many people were in America long before Columbus. The Asiatic peoples who became Native Americans were certainly the first, tens of thousands of years ago. Also Norse expeditions to North America, starting with Bjarni Herjolfsson in 986, are well established historically. Many other pre-Columbian discoveries are not well established: claims have been made for St. Brendan, Basque fishermen, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, and even Carthaginians.

He took a risk, thats for sure.. but he probably knew something was out there.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Have they since come up with the evidence they needed?

I think it would be fair to say that they have uncovered slightly more evidence than the creationists have...

TVOR

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Did he?


He took a risk, thats for sure.. but he probably knew something was out there.

But it took him many many years to get support for his theory. He was riduculed and chastised for his belief. It was not evidence that drove him but, faith.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Columbus took a very big leap of faith.

AND I, FOR ONE, AM GLAD HE DID!!

What's your point?

But it took him many many years to get support for his theory. He was riduculed and chastised for his belief. It was not evidence that drove him but, faith.

Columbus was an explorer - probably driven by a combination of curiousity and greed - what does that have to do with science?



TVOR

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

I think it would be fair to say that they have uncovered slightly more evidence than the creationists have...

TVOR

Creationists don't need evidence. Lack of evidence does not mean lack of truth.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

AND I, FOR ONE, AM GLAD HE DID!!

What's your point?

TVOR

I answered that already

But it took him many many years to get support for his theory. He was riduculed and chastised for his belief. It was not evidence that drove him but, faith.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Creationists don't need evidence. Lack of evidence does not mean lack of truth.

Exactly - but lack of evidence renders it beyond the realm of science.

TVOR

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Exactly - but lack of evidence renders it beyond the realm of science.

TVOR

Put it on the shelf right next to miraculous healing.

 

[Druidus]

Everyone recognizes that many people were in America long before Columbus. The Asiatic peoples who became Native Americans were certainly the first, tens of thousands of years ago. Also Norse expeditions to North America, starting with Bjarni Herjolfsson in 986, are well established historically. Many other pre-Columbian discoveries are not well established: claims have been made for St. Brendan, Basque fishermen, Portuguese, Chinese, Japanese, and even Carthaginians.

Don't forget the Numidians, Egyptians, Seleucids, Romans, Druids, and many others. who might have gone there.

 

[Sunstone]

Creationists don't need evidence. Lack of evidence does not mean lack of truth.

:woohoo: Anything goes!

 

[Tawn]

Put it on the shelf right next to miraculous healing.

But there is evidence for that which science does investigate. Likewise some scientists go ghost hunting.
The problem is the evidence isnt substantial enough and is inconsistent and untestible.
Yet science (should) keeps an open mind... as it does regarding creationism.. but there isnt enough information to introduce it into the classroom.

Creationists don't need evidence. Lack of evidence does not mean lack of truth.

Absolutely, but we cant go around introducing things with no evidence into science classes.

 

[Tawn]

I answered that already

No you didnt. How does columbuses supposed 'leap of faith' show that we should introduce creationism into science classes? Science doesnt make leaps of faith.