Should teaching science in schools be banned in favor of religion?

[Emsworth]

Oh boy, the creationist senatortombstone is back. I don't think I'll bother arguing about it this time, though I'm curious as to how creationism is somehow scientific.

Yes, I doubt that there is any point in arguing with him. It's even worse than arguing with opebo, because opebo at least makes some attempt at sounding reasonable.

[senatortombstone]

Oh boy, the creationist senatortombstone is back. I don't think I'll bother arguing about it this time, though I'm curious as to how creationism is somehow scientific.

Before I explain, why don't you explain how hydrogen evolves into humans.  Because in order for evolution to be true, we had to have evolve from hydrogen.  If you cannot explain, then admit your beliefs are religous and stop masquerading them as scientific.

Here is another good example of how evolutionist can only berate and not debate their opponents.

[Emsworth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be brief: The fusion of hydrogen and helium over billions of years leads to the formation of the heavier elements, which in turn react and form inorganic compounds, which then (due to various conditions on the primordial Earth) yielded organic molecules (as has been shown to be possible by the Miller experiments), which spawned RNA molecules, which then formed a protocell, which evolved into the beings we know today by natural selection.

There: it's explained. Now you explain how God evolved from hydrogen.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's exactly what you've been doing, actually.

[John Dibble]

Oh boy, the creationist senatortombstone is back. I don't think I'll bother arguing about it this time, though I'm curious as to how creationism is somehow scientific.

Before I explain, why don't you explain how hydrogen evolves into humans.  Because in order for evolution to be true, we had to have evolve from hydrogen.  If you cannot explain, then admit your beliefs are religous and stop masquerading them as scientific.

Here is another good example of how evolutionist can only berate and not debate their opponents.

Fine then. FUSION. Fuse two hydrogen atoms, you get helium. Fuse a hydrogen atom with helium, you get the next element. Fuse two heliums together or one hydrogen with one of the third element you get the fourth element. And so on and so forth. Just noticed Emsworth said the same thing.

I've tried explaining the whole thing to you before but it's like explaining things to a brick wall.

[angus]

No. Teach science and teach about religion and religions. Teach about everything ideally. No limits.

outstanding.  No one's ever gonna confuse you for a yankee, Al.  I say that between the religious fanatics and the anti-religious bigots, we're going to end up teaching nothing just to satisfy everyone.

Hmmm.  I smell an episode of South Park in there somewhere.

[A18]

Although I don't personally believe in evolution, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be taught.

[Emsworth]

I don't personally believe in evolution.

Well, that's certainly quite a pity, A18.

[A18]

How so?

[Emsworth]

How so?

I find that it's not a matter of mere belief. The theory is supported by a large body of evidence, and is, moreover, scientific.

But, I suppose, if you choose to personally reject evolution, I can't say that I have any problem with your private views, given that you don't seem bent on telling schools what to teach.

[Gabu]

I would have voted yes for science but I decided not to because of how the topic writer falsely defined science in this topic.  ID and creationism are much more scientific than evolution.

That's a rather bold assertion.

Evolution has been called, by evolutionists, a "fairytale for grown ups.”

Who are these evolutionists who have called it that?

So, yes, I think schools should teach scientific theories like creation or ID instead of religious ones like evolution.  You can teach evolution in a philosophy or comparative religions class, but please do not mix your religion with science anymore.

Define what a scientific theory is.

Evolution and all the theories accompanying it (like the big bang) are not scientific.

Define what "scientific" means.

If the big bang actually happened, then that means that all matter in the universe was once hydrogen or helium.  Explain to me the evolutionary process from hydrogen to human?

John Dibble has covered this one.

The odds against the universe assembling itself out of an explosion are in insurmountable.  A centillion years would not be enough.

Very low odds are not equivalent with impossibility.

It is impossible for even the "simplest" of a lifeform to assemble itself out of inorganic matter.  Even when given the most generous assumptions for a primordial earth, the odds of that happening are much greater than 1 in the number of pica-seconds that have passed since the alleged big bang.

See above.

Take this into consideration.  Today evolutionists witness the "changes" in microscopic bacteria that can reproduce several millions of times in a single year.  Yet, even after millions of generations these bacteria are still the same bacteria they were a hundred million generations ago.  If a "simple" bacterium is still a bacterium after millions of generations.  How do ape-like primates evolve into humans in only about 200,000 generations?

The fact that the vast majority are not observed to evolve does not mean that none are able to.

As I said before, if evolution were true and really happened, we wouldn't exist today.  There simple hasn't been enough time, under evolutionary guidelines, for humans to evolve in only 3 billion years.

No, there hasn't been under enough time under what you perceive as the necessary guidelines - guidelines which you have likely set specifically so you can say that there hasn't been enough time.  It's very easy to reject everything that might prove you wrong and then claim that you're right; sadly, it does not mean that you are.

And the so-called evidences for evolution are not so.

Okay, let's go through examples you've provided.

Radiometric dating doesn't work.  Only dates compliant with the evolutionary theory are accepted.  All other ones are thrown out.

That's a rather bold assertion.  Do you have any proof?

Carbon-14 dating doesn't work.  Coal, oil, and diamonds whenever tested, reveal traceable amounts of C-14.  Even dinosaur bones, when found unfossilized, date between 9,000-30,000 years old, not 65 million or more.

That's because Carbon-14 dating is not meant to work for anything prior to a few thousand years ago.

By the way, Carbon-14 dating is a form of radiometric dating.  Smooth work bolstering your credibility by mentioning it after "radiometric" dating as if it's separate.  Do you even know what radiometric dating is?

All the evidence, scientific, biological, geological, historical, archeological points to a recent creation, not billions of years of random chance.

All of the evidence that you have accepted as valid, which I would wager is not exactly a whole lot.

Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that some people want to live lives in rebellion against God, so they come up with all sorts of crazy and zany theories to explain away God's direct role in their existence.  God has given us all the free will to do that, but we will all be judged.

Nice job, you've managed to fit the fallacies of both ad hominem and appealing to consequences of a belief in one tight, two-sentence paragraph.  It's a pity that neither tactic refutes any argument.

So mock me all you like (that is all evolutionists can do, because all of their arguments are scientifically invalid) write smart-assed letters to the liberal, God-hating editors of you local newspapers, and post more God-hating rhetoric on web-forums like this one, but remember this:
There is no escaping the judgment and if you deny God for evolution, you will be judged a fool very harshly.

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin!

Wow, you've now completed the trifecta in this paragraph by using all of ad hominem, appealing to consequences of a belief, and appealing to fear.  You get an A.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh boy, the creationist senatortombstone is back. I don't think I'll bother arguing about it this time, though I'm curious as to how creationism is somehow scientific.

Before I explain, why don't you explain how hydrogen evolves into humans.  Because in order for evolution to be true, we had to have evolve from hydrogen.  If you cannot explain, then admit your beliefs are religous and stop masquerading them as scientific.

Here is another good example of how evolutionist can only berate and not debate their opponents.

Fine then. FUSION. Fuse two hydrogen atoms, you get helium. Fuse a hydrogen atom with helium, you get the next element. Fuse two heliums together or one hydrogen with one of the third element you get the fourth element. And so on and so forth. Just noticed Emsworth said the same thing.

I've tried explaining the whole thing to you before but it's like explaining things to a brick wall.

Don't you know that fusion isn't a scientific theory?

[Gabu]

Oh boy, the creationist senatortombstone is back. I don't think I'll bother arguing about it this time, though I'm curious as to how creationism is somehow scientific.

Before I explain, why don't you explain how hydrogen evolves into humans.  Because in order for evolution to be true, we had to have evolve from hydrogen.  If you cannot explain, then admit your beliefs are religous and stop masquerading them as scientific.

Here is another good example of how evolutionist can only berate and not debate their opponents.

Fine then. FUSION. Fuse two hydrogen atoms, you get helium. Fuse a hydrogen atom with helium, you get the next element. Fuse two heliums together or one hydrogen with one of the third element you get the fourth element. And so on and so forth. Just noticed Emsworth said the same thing.

I've tried explaining the whole thing to you before but it's like explaining things to a brick wall.

Don't you know that fusion isn't a scientific theory?

I'd love to know what he thinks a scientific theory is... given that he thinks creationism is scientific, I have a feeling a scientific theory is defined as "one in accordance with the Bible".

[Inverted Things]

Obviously not, and no, it's not happening in Kansas. Intelligent design is not the equivalent of "banning science" in favor evangelizing. The idea that everything was created is a serious inquiry and many scientists are engaging in the discussion and speculation. Public school education is also a secular institution, they are not interested in evangelizing.

Intelligent design may or may not be religious, but I would hardly call it science. It makes no testable hypotheses, and is (as far as one can tell) unverifiable.

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

From what I can tell, Intelligent design is interested in explaining how a creator *could have* created the Earth and what we see and so forth. Sounds like a serious inquiry to me.

When I took physics classes in college, my professors were quick to express their disdain for untestable systems, such as string theory.

I would think that it's not much of a leap to suppose that many physicists feel this way. Untestable pseudo-scientific theories tend to get a bit more scientific press than theological one like intelligent design.

String theory makes great mathematics, and may one day make great physics... if we get to the point where we can test it.

By the same token, intelligent design is great theological speculation, and may one day make great science... if we get to the point where we can test it.

String theory gets some respect because is is mathematical in nature, and physics and mathematics have always has a symbotic nature. Intelligent design gets little scientific respect since Judeo-Christian religions have a poor record at determining scientific facts.

The problem with intelligent design is that all attempts to detect a diety have failed. If we cannot detect a diety, then we cannot determine if intelligent design is true.

[ATFFL]

Micro-Intelligent design is very, very real.  One of the more oft-cited examples of micro-evolution is actually an example of ID in work.  The breeding of dogs is an example of ID at work.  The example I am referring to is the breeding of dogs.

Let’s say I want a dog that is capable of surviving in cold temperatures, has good endurance and works well in packs.  I have several.  I have a breed that is good in the cold, a second that has tremendous endurance and a third that is a natural pack hunter.  Through cross breeding for a few generations I produce the dog I want.

This is Intelligent Design, not evolution.  I have created the breed I wanted.  ID does not have to mean God in his heaven created species at the time and place of his choosing.  It can mean I in my backyard create a new species to meet my needs.

The problem with evolution is that the predicted transition species are not in the fossil records.  The problem with ID is that it is, essentially, cannot be proven at this time, and possibly ever.  For both of them the absence of evidence cannot be considered evidence of absence.

However, at the micro level, both are demonstrably true.

[Inverted Things]

Micro-Intelligent design is very, very real.  One of the more oft-cited examples of micro-evolution is actually an example of ID in work.  The breeding of dogs is an example of ID at work.  The example I am referring to is the breeding of dogs.

Let’s say I want a dog that is capable of surviving in cold temperatures, has good endurance and works well in packs.  I have several.  I have a breed that is good in the cold, a second that has tremendous endurance and a third that is a natural pack hunter.  Through cross breeding for a few generations I produce the dog I want.

This is Intelligent Design, not evolution.  I have created the breed I wanted.  ID does not have to mean God in his heaven created species at the time and place of his choosing.  It can mean I in my backyard create a new species to meet my needs.

The problem with evolution is that the predicted transition species are not in the fossil records.  The problem with ID is that it is, essentially, cannot be proven at this time, and possibly ever.  For both of them the absence of evidence cannot be considered evidence of absence.

However, at the micro level, both are demonstrably true.

You assume humans are intelligent.

[ATFFL]

You assume humans are intelligent.

Notice how I carefully use myself in the example.  As a memeber of homo sapien danorian, a confirmed intelligent subspiecies of human, I know the designer is intelligent.

[A18]

[Democratic Hawk]

No, both religion and science should be taught in schools

Dave

[John Dibble]

No, both religion and science should be taught in schools

Dave

Which religions?

[angus]

I agree with Dave and Al.  This idea that we shouldn't do religious survey courses in public schools is assinine.  It's as shortsighted as the idea that we shouldn't do evolution.  Both are important in understanding the world.  No reason our schools shouldn't be teaching about not only the physical, biological evolution of species, but also the social evolution of thought, which certainly includes religions.  Failure to study religion leads to a serious gap in the understanding of the human condition.

Which ones?  Any and all.  I'm not saying we need to be experts in all philosphy, but just introduce them.  They fall into three broad categories, based on the number of deities worshipped:  monotheistic (e.g., Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam), polytheistic (e.g., Greeks, Romans, Maya, Hindu, Mahayana Buddhism, Wicca), and atheistic (e.g., Theravada Buddhism, animism, some native american tribal systems).  I'm sure there are other classification systems as well.  And we can look at pluralistic religious affiliation (Taoism, Confucianism) and its affect on the cultures.  Does collectivism follow confucianism or vice-versa?  How do we deal with the Emerging Markets in the East?  Does individualism follow Protestantism?  Or vice-versa?  These are important sociological issues.

Do you want an entire generation of Americans as uninformed as Miss Catholic (or his online persona)?  If so, then, by all means, leave out big chunks of the curriculum like comparative religion, sociology, philosophy, and evolution via natural selection.

[angus]

Sorry John, the rant was probably not called for.  You know my major beef with Libertarianism is its refusal to recognize that some things are worth spending money on, though.  No offense.

[John Dibble]

Sorry John, the rant was probably not called for.  You know my major beef with Libertarianism is its refusal to recognize that some things are worth spending money on, though.  No offense.

Well, I wasn't offended by the rant to begin with, so no worries(didn't think it was directed at me). My question is actually a serious one - if we teach about religions in schools, which ones should be covered? Clearly, we shouldn't be biased towards one, but the problem is we can't cover all of them. We could practically cover a number of the major religions, but that might leave out some very interesting ones, or could be construed as some as a government endorsement of certain religions and not others(likely resulting in nasty court battles, which we all would rather avoid).

I don't like the absolute avoidence of religious topics by many teachers and schools, but certainly I think we do need to draw a line somewhere. Personally, I think the most appropriate place to put religion in school is in the context of history - how major religions came to be, how their beliefs evolved over time, and how they influences historical events. Also, I think religious literature could also be discussed(one of my favorite high school in class discussions was on Genesis[creation part] as a piece of literature), provided the teachers are able to view it as literature(my teacher for the Genesis discussion, while a Catholic, seemed to think it was rather poorly written).

[angus]

yeah, I suppose I read far too much into your question (i.e., "where the hell in the constitution does it say we should have public schools anyway?!")

anyway, thanks for the clarification.  yes, of course, that's the issue:  does our sue-happy mentality imply that teaching about any religion would be tantamount to the endorsement thereof?  but don't you think that's more a statement about tort than about teaching of religion, per se?

anyway, I think I agree with what you said in your clarification.  In fact, I agree completely with what you said in your second paragraph.  Two things are worth remarking on, then:  One, the question is absurd, since the teaching of one has no bearing on the decision to teach the other.  (I support presenting, not suppressing, knowledge, and would say lay it all out there.  And certainly science doesn't compete with religion anyway.  Certainly, I can learn about the history of, say, Catholocism, and still learn to explain how species evolve via natural selection.)  And, I did not vote in this poll.

[RBH]

No. Don't make such trollish polls.

Evolution is a sin.

So stop evolving. Problem solved.

[Democratic Hawk]

No, both religion and science should be taught in schools

Dave

Which religions?

Primarily, Christianity - since its the majority faith but there should be some basic (i.e. superficial) teaching of all major world faiths (Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism). Knowledge is a wonderful thing since much of the blame for the wrongs of our age can be levelled at ignorance

Dave