Religion or Atheism? An open forum.

[denuseri]

Untested, perhaps. A theory can be so new that tests are still being conducted, or we may not yet have the ability to test them, like the theories of life on other planets. But untestable? That would require teaching ANY inane speculation just because someone claims it is true. This smacks more of philosophy than science.

Poor word choice on my part then...and inteligent design as well as other creationsits theories still fit the catagory of untested just fine.


Ahh, but who decides what is plausible?

The community.

Here is an "alternate theory" of the Earth's structure. Should we include this in our science classrooms?

The hollow earth theory would require that allmost all the laws of physicis are actually wrong and that gravity and acretion dont function the way we know them to do. It is also not relevant to the discussion at hand.

What about other Creation myths?

I never said it was supposed to be a Christianity as Thorne knows it vs The "theory" of evolution did I? No... yes relevant creation theories are acceptable...of course one will have to tailor the relevance to the student body...one doesnt have to cover anything mor than generalities.

Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science?

No

As for the opinions of students, that is NOT what teachers are there for.

They certiantly shouldnt be there to tell the students that they are not allowed to have thier own opinions or that their beliefs or the beliefs of their parents are stupid etc eaither. They should present the information and leave such judgments up to the individuals.

Students are there to learn, and hopefully HOW to learn. They shouldn't have to learn analytical chemistry in a history class, and they shouldn't have to learn theology in a science class. Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science, they are theology. By all means, teach them in a comparative religion class, where they belong.

Cross disiplinarian approaches to learning are far more educationally valuable and inclussive however and teach one how to think for themselves and respect the beliefs of others and promotes secularism as opposed to the current system, and that applies equally to all types of classess, science or otherwise.

(I wonder, though, how many of those parents who demand their theology be taught in science would really want to risk putting their children into a comparative religion class, where their particular brand of religion would have to stand against every other brand. My "guess" would be, not many.)

Thats there decission to make, and I could care less about such speculations, especially since it equally applies I am sure to Atheist parents who are afriad their children might get even a glimpse of a cross or other holy symbol.


So you're implying that the teacher should say something like, "The Bible teaches this, Intelligent Design teaches that. Now that that's out of the way, let's deal with reality for the rest of the semester." What's the point?

Minus the intollerance disrespectful sophist subbjective comment of "now that thats out of the way lets deal with reality" part...yes.

The point is to respect each other and our beliefs and make science and what we can prove for ourselfves an intregal part of our society instead of setting it at odds with it. To show that it is ok to have beliefs of one's own that may differ from one another...especially when it comes to those things science is as yet unable to make determinations about with any kind of consensus.


YES! Finally you agree with me! Now, explain to me the experiments which show the evidence for Creationism or Intelligent Design. I haven't been able to find ANY! All I have been able to find are denials of science based on nothing but faith. No experiments, no tests.

Alas you will have to at least for the time being wait, since the only way to find out for sure currently is to die. And again...the sophistry and belicosity are completely unnessesary. The issue doesnt have to be testable for it to be addressed by science.

No, there are older texts, such as the Code of Hammurabi from ca. 1790BC, which long predates Mosaic Law which is no older than about 1000BC. There are even references to a Code of Urukagina (2,380-2,360 BC), though no copies of this law are currently known to exist.

But no evidence that eaither of those things mentioning loving thy nieghbor as thyself. Another moot sidestep, but not worth giving you anymore sophistry points.

Just because a person is raised in a particular faith does not automatically mean that his faith is teaching the one true law. Virtually ALL faiths make the claim that we should treat others as we wish to be treated. Some, however, differ in the application of that claim. Sometimes "others" means "others of that faith."

Which is even more of a reason to respect each others faiths since they do indeed seem to be coming from the same source.


Which says nothing as to the validity of the religious argument. Again, just because everyone believes it does not make it true.

Nor does it make it un-true.


And again, I've never claimed otherwise. That doesn't give them the right to force their beliefs on others, or to use those beliefs to infringe on the beliefs, or non-beliefs, of others.


And again I agree.

Yet you said just the opposite of what you said now several times as it suited you to try and sully anything religious, and that my friend is why I am in opposition to you.

It's when unscrupulous con artists attain authority and start twisting the ideology to suit their own ends that the problems arise. And that applies to more than just religion.

Yes it applies to Atheism with equal zeal.

That sounds positively ... divine!

See theism has its advantages after all sugar....bites my finger and gives you one of those cum hither looks as I go up the temple steps.

[Thorne]

inteligent design as well as other creationsits theories still fit the catagory of untested just fine.

And also untestable. They do not have workable theories which can be tested for evidence of their validity, nor any way that they can be falsified. And the one main claim of the Christian creationists, that the world was created ~6000 years ago HAS been falsified. The primary theme of ID seems to be that macro-evolution can not occur, and that, too, has been falsified. Neither qualify as science.

The hollow earth theory would require that allmost all the laws of physicis are actually wrong and that gravity and acretion dont function the way we know them to do.

The Creation theories require the same thing! That somehow a supernatural being defied (or ignored) all of the laws of physics and magically created the universe/world/humans.

It is also not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Once you allow ONE non-scientific theory to be excepted, ALL inane theories become relevant.

Do we at least agree that any claim which relies upon the supernatural is, by definition, outside of science?
No

No? You and others have repeatedly stated that God is beyond or above the rules of science! If you are now stating that God CAN be tested by science, then please explain how.

Minus the intollerance disrespectful sophist subbjective comment of "now that thats out of the way lets deal with reality" part...yes.

I don't quite understand why you're so worried about tone. But if you feel that theology is relevant in science classes, then you cannot object to teaching evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and half a dozen other -ologies which refute theology in religion classes, can you? And you can keep the disrespect in, for all I care.

The point is to respect each other and our beliefs and make science and what we can prove for ourselfves an intregal part of our society instead of setting it at odds with it. To show that it is ok to have beliefs of one's own that may differ from one another...especially when it comes to those things science is as yet unable to make determinations about with any kind of consensus.

The point is to teach SCIENCE not beliefs! Science which has been shown, through experimentation and observation, to explain the world around us. Evidence, not belief!

The issue doesnt have to be testable for it to be addressed by science.

Yes, it does!
"Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter."
and
"Theories whose subject matter consists not in empirical data, but rather in ideas are in the realm of philosophical theories as contrasted with scientific theories. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation."
and
"Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world."
and, most telling,
"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena,"

Theological claims may be classified as philosophical theories, but not scientific theories.

See theism has its advantages after all sugar....bites my finger and gives you one of those cum hither looks as I go up the temple steps.

Pointing to the flames burning at the top of the temple. "Your choice, my dear. Heaven?"
Raising my whip: "Or Hell?"

[denuseri]

And also untestable.

Just as untestable as atheist assumptions and theories.

They do not have workable theories (actually a good number of them do) which can be tested for evidence of their validity, (yet) nor any way that they can be falsified (oh lots of things can be falsified). And the one main claim of the Christian creationists, that the world was created ~6000 years ago HAS been falsified. That was an assumption only made by some. not all Christians...not too mention all the other theists your leaving out of the equation in your crsade against the chirstians...and there is nothing wrong with them believing it if they wish.The primary theme of ID seems to be that macro-evolution can not occur, and that, too, has been falsified. Neither qualify as science. Apparently you havnt been keeping up with the ID theories.


The Creation theories require the same thing! That somehow a supernatural being defied (or ignored) all of the laws of physics and magically created the universe/world/humans. Again your deliberatly trying to paint things differently...most creationsist theories say that the creator made the laws of physics to begin with...made in fact everything, so in essence science is only showing us how it was maby made and how what was made works.


Once you allow ONE non-scientific theory to be excepted, ALL inane theories become relevant. Only they are not all nessesarally "inane". At least not any more or less inane than the theory of atheism.


No? You and others have repeatedly stated that God is beyond or above the rules of science! If you are now stating that God CAN be tested by science, then please explain how. Ive allready covered the field of noetics a long time ago in a thread far far away...additonally, since I believe that the laws of physics are part of creation, the thing is tested every day, but thats not what you said...you said outside of science...where as I say what science cant prove today doesnt mean it may not be able to prove tomarrow.


I don't quite understand why you're so worried about tone. But if you feel that theology is relevant in science classes, then you cannot object to teaching evolution, cosmology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and half a dozen other -ologies which refute theology in religion classes, can you? Well now perhaps we are finally getting somewhere...you see, every single class Ive taken on a religion, or philosophy (even the ones held by thesists) have done that very thing. So why shouldnt science do it as well.

The point is to teach SCIENCE not beliefs! Science which has been shown, through experimentation and observation, to explain the world around us. Evidence, not belief! So atheism is equally out then...since it has zero evidence to support its claims?

The theory of atheism is just as much a philosophical claim as any other. Not a scientific hypotheisis. So science by your line of thought as no place whatsoever in any discussion about it...so why keep bringing it up?




Pointing to the flames burning at the top of the temple. "Your choice, my dear. Heaven?"
Raising my whip: "Or Hell?"

Points to the clouds above those flames and then down to my virginia...oh darling...why not both?