Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
Which version of creationism? No, we should not teach mythology as fact. In the beginning, man created god.
I believe he was referring to the fact that every religion of the world today, has a theory of creation. Your use of the term "mythology" is interesting. Because about 3/4 of the planet consider Jesus and your god to be just that....mythology.
Originally posted by Spelljammer
So then you're saying evolution says we are to primates as dogs are to wolves? More domestic?And the cow/dolphin thing, I think it would be easier to say they were just never related..
And what about cultures they're finding in archelogical studies? Like those hobbit bones? Then you have to admit religoun and science are not that far apart when the Aztecs made thier calender of the rise and fall of multiple races of men..
Infact, I believe that's half of the problem, you both want to seperate God from science. And if you do that, you will learn nothing..
And it would also be easier to say that the earth is a square and we don't move around, so what? Science isn't looking for the easy way out but for the right way out. If you find it complicated, so be it, then follow any religion you please but don't deny the research that went into it and the truth (to the extend it has been proven) to others.
what hobbit bones are you refering to? Those on Java or something? They're if I'm not mistaken from the Homo Ergaster, 5 million years ago. What archaeologists stress about those multiple Homo's is that the situation we have now with only one Homo being around is extremely rare and hasn't happened before.
And the greeks have the story of the gold men, silver men, bronze men and in the end flesh. What's your point? Have I ever said religion is ALWAYS wrong? Here and there things are right cause the stories they are derived of have a base of truth in them... minus devine powers, gods, and more of that fairytale doings. Like, if you talk about Jezus, you talk about Jeruzalem and Nazareth too, those are real cities, religion or not. So that's a base too, doesn't mean the story is right
Can anyone give any valid reasons as to why creationism is a valid alternative to evolution. Everyone who has argued creationism just decides to picks holes in evolutionism and never support creationism at all. You can't just say something else is wrong and then add in your own ideas without some proof that your ideas work.
science is not devoid of religion already, people just choose to ignore the wonders of creation or attribute them to randomness. (yes I know I oversimplified evo)
valid reasons for creationism...hmmm check out some ID sites if you really want to know.
this whole God vs Science thing is just weird...why are they polar opposites?
The "valid" reasons for creationism are not scientific in nature and thus shouldn't be taught in science. The ID sites are biased for creationism as I've pointed out before and are not of sound information, as such they shouldn't be thought of as valid sources.
They are opposites because that's how many religious people make it. Many supporters of ID/creationism have a "use or break" mentality for science. They want to use it to try and gain credibility in the subject if at all possible and help their agenda. When this doesn't work they turn and attack science itself and attack scientists and assume that they are biased for not treating ID as a valid scientific theory, when in reality it's just because they don't see it as scientific in nature.
Originally posted by Julie
science is not devoid of religion already, people just choose to ignore the wonders of creation or attribute them to randomness. (yes I know I oversimplified evo)valid reasons for creationism...hmmm check out some ID sites if you really want to know.
this whole God vs Science thing is just weird...why are they polar opposites?
I agree with you, I don't see why they have to be - I am not very religious but I believe a bit.
It doesn't have to be sunday class. They could also included during mass or even during bible studies. I'm in between both religion and science. And quite frankly....I think we could use both. Or if you're prefer choose one and not the other. However you feel comfortable. The issue is not getting stress out. In the end it is the individual who makes the choice. I chose neither. I'm feel quite comfy in between them. 😉
Originally posted by WindDancer
It doesn't have to be sunday class. They could also included during mass or even during bible studies. I'm in between both religion and science. And quite frankly....I think we could use both. Or if you're prefer choose one and not the other. However you feel comfortable. The issue is not getting stress out. In the end it is the individual who makes the choice. I chose neither. I'm feel quite comfy in between them. 😉
I am a Scientist who believes in God I am quite comfortable with that as was Gregor Mendel - Abbott and father of Genetics.
I remember once in Sunday school we were taught that a long time ago peep thought that simple things like the water process (evaporation, ect) was crazy and unbelieveable so they thought that a much bigger thing had to of created it. That made me think that someday, we might know everythings reasons. Like how the things we think today that can't be explained except by God (like the big bang). We might know the answers to those things just like how we know that answers to simple things like the water process.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is simple.Evolutioin meets the definition of Science.
Creaitonism only meets the definition of faith.
You CANNOT equate them, and they cannot be taught equally. One is a matter for science classes. The other is matter for religious education.
If you are trying to teach these simply as two interpretations of the same area, you are simply setting back the progress of humanity to a time without rationality.
It absolutley must not be done.
Intelligent design is, at this point, lacking in anything approaching suffiicent back-up to be taught alongside evolution theory in general. Save that kind of thing for Uni.
Originally posted by Lana
I was actually quite shocked at the replies to this.Creationism and evolution cannot be compared to be the same thing. There is no evidence for creationism, it is based wholly on faith, and what about the people who do not believe that religion? Evolution is a scientific theory with loads of evidence for it. SCIENCE should be taught in science textbooks. Creationism does NOT fall in the realm of science by any stretch of the imagination. Keep creationism to being taught in a class about religion.
Originally posted by MageeI agree. Science and Religion both search for truth in different ways.
How could u possibly teach creationism in schools? What would a teacher say? "Ok well God created everything, we dont really know how or why but he did, honest". However it could create a really good debating topic amongst teenagers in schools, but at the same time could also divide a school.I think if a pupil wishes to learn about creationism and religion then he/she should be able to. It should be a choice given to every pupil in every school, which it is in Scotland.
Religion has absolutely nothing to do with science. Science postulates theories and publishes results of tests, so that other scientists can run the same tests and see if they get the same results.
Religion expects one to take everything on faith, to question nothing. Therefore, BY DEFINITION, science is exactly the opposite of religion.
www.video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4225985675446958159
Michael Shermer is an intelligent man, Kent Hovind is a retard. That is my opinion after watching this video.