Faith vs Science in Schools

Nobody that matters wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: There's a very vocal minority that think the earth is flat. There's a very vocal minority that think any number of things. Creation MYTHS are "myths." Myths do not belong in school, particularly in science classes. "Facing the world" should not include "creation myths from around the world", or even the kind of insanity that causes some wackos to picket the funerals of dead soldiers.

Keep your myths out of the science classes.

Just a clarification, it ain't my myth.

It falls under being a well rounded individual. Knowing that there are those that disagree with what you have learned is valuable knowledge.

I remember a science teacher using the flat earth as an assignment in class - we were to try and prove or disprove it. It was an good exercise in the scientific method.

I wasn't using "your" as representing you-personally... But you knew that.

LadyJazzer wrote: I wasn't using "your" as representing you-personally... But you knew that.

I didn't know it at the time I posted, but now I do.

Keep your myths out of the science classes.

It is a myth according to you. Why do you feel only your opinion matters? Teach evolution and intelligent design in science class. Compromise or leave it all out. Sorry but science is not always right. They tell us something then it changes later so I don't look as science as the end all. Eggs come to mind. First they were not good for you then weren't. Same with space.

Evolution fills their own holes of things they can't explain with unproven facts. It is not full proof and I have issues with people in science that misrepresent it as being concrete. It is not. If string theory is ever proven science is going to be turned upside down on it's head. And string theory fits very well in my view of the universe. My view is complicated. Even Darwin said that evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive. Just like religion humans are interpreting Darwin. That is why I have an issue with all religion. Because it turns into others interpreting for you.


One cannot look at this Universe with all living productions & man without believing that all has been intelligently designed

Charles Darwin, 1861

Because "intelligent design" is not science. It is not an opinion--It is a fact that it is NOT SCIENCE. It doesn't belong in a science classroom, any more than the Hindu belief that the world is balancing on the back of a big turtle deserves to be taught.

Yes, evolution can be proven, however as a theory, can intelligent design be dis proven?

You are doing kids a disservice by not bringing it all in. If you look at it all together you get a clearer picture. Science is not static. And the two are not mutually exclusive.

If you look at string theory. Even science is based on perception.

Yes... It can...And has been... There are thousands of articles...

Here's one:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Disproving ... ent_Design

You don't do "kids a disservice" by keeping non-scientific irrelevant belief systems out of science classes. It's not science.

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes... It can...And has been... There are thousands of articles...

Here's one:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Disproving ... ent_Design

You don't do "kids a disservice" by keeping non-scientific irrelevant belief systems out of science classes. It's not science.

That article is nothing but a rant, it disproves nothing. Intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Couldn't evolution be the mechanism for change in an ID process?

Listen, evolution is important for science down the road in college. Part of the theory around evolution is the way groups and entities have similar structures like having the same bone showing up in all reptiles, etc. This is very important information for science. I am saying don't take away, add. Bring it all in. So, we can talk about it together. Science can be really egocentric in that they think they are the only thing out there. Measurements can be concrete but that is where it ends. And even then they are not all concrete. Why did they believe the world was flat for so long? They did not have the infomation or technology to know otherwise. We are the same, and to be so self absorbed to think that science is our only measurement is the problem.

The reason string theory fascinates me is that I do believe we humans can only perceive what we can within our capabilities. There is evidence that things are happening around us that is sort of like other dimensions that humans cannot pick up. If that is true then science may be wrong because we are basing it on something we know now but in 100 years may not be true. Bring it all in and discuss it all. This will actually help our children and may bring more answers than we have now.

The problem is when we all fight for our own thoughts and this stunts learning. Learning less is not the answer. Bring it all in!

Grady wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes... It can...And has been... There are thousands of articles...

Here's one:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Disproving ... ent_Design

You don't do "kids a disservice" by keeping non-scientific irrelevant belief systems out of science classes. It's not science.

That article is nothing but a rant, it disproves nothing. Intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Couldn't evolution be the mechanism for change in an ID process?

I said there were thousands of articles...and there are... You don't like this one?...Ask me if I care....

Effective Arguments For Disproving Biblical Creation

Easy Way to Disprove Biblical Creationism - Parry and Carney

Top Ten Creationist Arguments (& How To Disprove Them) ...

Disproving creationism - RationalWiki

7 Tips on How to Defend Evolution Against Creationism - wikiHow

Disproving Creationism - YouTube

Logically disproving the Christian God

I.D. is not science, and doesn't belong in a classroom.