Should religion be taught in science class?

[The Voice of Reason]

Put it on the shelf right next to miraculous healing.

Perfect! On the shelf is where it belongs (along with miraculous healing).

... Yet science (should) keeps an open mind... as it does regarding creationism.. but there isnt enough information to introduce it into the classroom.

While I agree with the intent, I consider this statement a little misleading. At this point in time, there is absolutely no evidence for creationism.

TVOR

 

[Sunstone]

Damn it, Tawn! You've been making so many good points in this thread today that I can't frubal you for all of them. Have some decent respect, man! Slow down! Poor old Sunstone is at his wits end how to get you all the frubals you deserve!

Same goes for you, TVOR!

 

[Sunstone]

Whatever scientific evidence there is for creationism should be introduced into science classrooms. But since there is no scientific evidence for creationism at this time, the question is pretty much moot, isn't it?

 

[Druidus]

Wait, what is this argument for? Of course we should allow religion to be taught in science class! It should be mandatory! As well, sasquatch, aliens, and magic should bne included! Otherwise, society will collapse (something to do with family values and such).

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Damn it, Tawn! You've been making so many good points in this thread today that I can't frubal you for all of them. Have some decent respect, man! Slow down! Poor old Sunstone is at his wits end how to get you all the frubals you deserve!

Same goes for you, TVOR!

You could donate some coins so he could go shopping. I am rather enjoying my debate on the other side of the fence here.

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Perfect! On the shelf is where it belongs (along with miraculous healing).


While I agree with the intent, I consider this statement a little misleading. At this point in time, there is absolutely no evidence for creationism.

TVOR

Not Yet

 

[Sunstone]

You could donate some coins so he could go shopping. I am rather enjoying my debate on the other side of the fence here.

Good idea, Enhanced Spirit! (I love your name).

 

[Tawn]

While I agree with the intent, I consider this statement a little misleading. At this point in time, there is absolutely no evidence for creationism.
TVOR

Yep.. but science should never be a closed door. If anything can be found to support it then it should be given proper consideration.
If people seriously think Creationism should enter the science class then as Druidus said, Aliens and Ghosts should come first..

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Not Yet

Enhanced Spirit - please do not misunderstand me. If (or when) creationism comes up with some evidence, I will be the first to argue for it's consideration. Until such time, I will argue just as vehemently against it's introduction into the science classroom.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

Enhanced Spirit - please do not misunderstand me. If (or when) creationism comes up with some evidence, I will be the first to argue for it's consideration. Until such time, I will argue just as vehemently against it's introduction into the science classroom.

Thanks,
TVOR

Don't make me say I told you so.:biglaugh: (I say that to my kids a lot) We have really blown up this thread.

 

[Tawn]

Feel free to do so in the afterlife if there is one... unfortunately we wont get that chance..

 

[Mathematician]

I think religion should be kept for History class if anything. I don't know about you, but I learn the basics of Christianity, Hindiusm, Buddhism, Islam, Juadism, Satanism, and even atheism in History..

Mixing science and religion can be very bitter. Religion teaches things that science is objectively against. For example the whole 'blind faith' idea. Science says that things aren't true unless they are proven. Would that mean God is true or not?

On a similiar note I'm not too sure about the Bible being taught in English. It is the biggest form of literature known to man, but it could really influence the students in both ways...

 

[Melody]

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.

Haven't they made an incredible leap of faith with the big bang theory? I mean *nowhere* in science does something come from absolutely nothing...and yet they believe that some gas and dust went kaboom and created the universe.

 

[Druidus]

Haven't they made an incredible leap of faith with the big bang theory? I mean *nowhere* in science does something come from absolutely nothing...and yet they believe that some gas and dust went kaboom and created the universe.

These few sentences demonstrate a lack of understanding of the big bang theory.

 

[Tawn]

The big bang could easily be viewed as a divine event..

but anyway.. I dont think the big bang theory is taught in schools.. at least I wasnt taught it..
and if it is - I dont think it should be... since it is still largely theory.

 

[Melody]

These few sentences demonstrate a lack of understanding of the big bang theory.

Enlighten me. I thought it summed it up pretty well. Start with nothing and get something. Did I miss something?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Enlighten me. I thought it summed it up pretty well.

Hence the problem. But pervasive ignorance seems a poor foundation for a belief system. Perhaps you might start here. You might also suggest how your counterposed 'theory' of 'God did it, is anything more than the most superficial bombast devoid of any substance whatsoever.

 

[Druidus]

Start with nothing and get something.

It wasn't nothing. It was a singularity point of mass and energy, from which all that exists today has come. I believe that the Source initiated it, and then left it be.

But it definately wasn't "nothing".

 

[Melody]

It wasn't nothing. It was a singularity point of mass and energy, from which all that exists today has come. I believe that the Source initiated it, and then left it be.

But it definately wasn't "nothing".

I don't recall the science books talking about a "source' (or creator?). They just started with gas and dust...making a leap of faith over where these things come from.

 

[Druidus]

I don't recall the science books talking about a "source' (or creator?). They just started with gas and dust...making a leap of faith over where these things come from.

Which is why I singled that point out as my personal belief (on the off-hand, I'd appreciate it if you capitalized "Source". It refers to the ultimatee realm/being in Druidry, of which all beings are part of). Yes, the Source was the initiator, but not the creator. The fact is that they started with "something" and not with "nothing", which is where most misconceptions arise.