Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Cat

Creationism in Private Schools

227 posts in this topic

Well, you take a look at how the uiniverse is expanding and at what rate, then play that in reverse. Everything ends up at a single point billions of years ago. Cool huh?

Except there are non-Christian scientists who think the whole "Big Bang" thing is crap.

There are alternative non-Christian theories of intelligent design as well (comet spewing clouds and such).

You still haven't explained to me how not acknowledging that some people believe in alternative theories of how the universe came to be is a good thing.

We're supposed to be tolerant after all, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how exactly do you verify the "big bang"? Why so much fear of even acknowledging that alternative theories exist?

I am fine with any theories that have some evidence to back them up. Those that don't belong in philosophy/religion class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So tell me, should a scientist who believes in a higher power or the possibility of a higher power be accepted as a legitimate scientist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So tell me, should a scientist who believes in a higher power or the possibility of a higher power be accepted as a legitimate scientist?

Sure, why not? How is this even a question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how exactly do you verify the "big bang"?

Why so much fear of even acknowledging that alternative theories exist?

You are incorrect in your assumption that their isn't scientific evidence that supports the big bang.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence

You acknowledge alternative theories in a science class if there is scientific evidence behind it. Creationism doesn't have scientific evidence to back it up.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It confuses me as to why you would want any ideas with zero evidence taught in a science class? DO you know how many zero evidence theories I can come up with over the next hour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basis for Science= Empirical data

Basis for Religion=Faith

Using that logic the two cannot co-exist in the same space as the base belief's are polar opposites.. that being said a scientist that believes in religion cannot be considered a legitmate scientist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, why not? How is this even a question?

Because we have the whole notion that even acknowledging the existence of intelligent design theories is somehow unscientific. In other words, it's only "real science" if it agrees with a certain viewpoint.

It's intellectually dishonest, smacks of fear and quite frankly, intolerance.

It amazes me that people think having a science teacher simply say "some people believe that a higher power exists, and that higher power created everything" is such a big deal to people.

It confuses me as to why you would want any ideas with zero evidence taught in a science class? DO you know how many zero evidence theories I can come up with over the next hour?

Not everyone interprets the "evidence" the same way you guys do. But you're not willing to accept the idea that an alternate interpretation is even possible.

That's just intellectual cowardice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So tell me, should a scientist who believes in a higher power or the possibility of a higher power be accepted as a legitimate scientist?

Yes.

Example Ken Miller. He is a highly respected scientist at Brown University. He is also known for his role in opposition to the creationism and ID movement. He has some really great videos online regarding human evolution and Intelligent design.

Another famous scientist is Francis Collins. He's very religious and highly regarded. Of course he doesn't believe creationism or ID because most scientist don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we have the whole notion that even acknowledging the existence of intelligent design theories is somehow unscientific. In other words, it's only "real science" if it agrees with a certain viewpoint.

It's intellectually dishonest, smacks of fear and quite frankly, intolerance.

It amazes me that people think having a science teacher simply say "some people believe that a higher power exists, and that higher power created everything" is such a big deal to people.

Probably shouldn't wade into this, but why the hell not...

I guess the question would be not that whether they could be a legitimate scientist because I think that they could, but could they be non-biased and look at the facts and data objectively.

If someone has faith in a religion that says the universe was created, as the bible says in "days", can they objectively look at data that says the universe is so old it's beyond comprehension? What do they then believe? Their faith or the data? Can you truly study something and come up with answers that you personally believe to be false?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites