Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Creationism being taught i schools.
79 Answers
Ok call me stupid(many do) but if you WERE going to teach the above in schools....(me thinking aloud now) surely the lesson would be
"god made everything" the end?
Or is there a lot more in the bible that i dont know about?
"god made everything" the end?
Or is there a lot more in the bible that i dont know about?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sherminator. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The point is that a science grows and shows the total inconcistancies in the bible, therefore undermining faith, there had to be a new way of looking at "creation".
So cellular evelopment couldn't of been a happ(?) accident because its to complicated and because its so complicated there had to d be a designer and "creator" and so on and so on.
'member Bubba the world is only 6,000 years old and man lived with Dinosaurs becuse that woman in Phonix, or sum such found a human foot print inside a dinosaur foot print.
So cellular evelopment couldn't of been a happ(?) accident because its to complicated and because its so complicated there had to d be a designer and "creator" and so on and so on.
'member Bubba the world is only 6,000 years old and man lived with Dinosaurs becuse that woman in Phonix, or sum such found a human foot print inside a dinosaur foot print.
And in the science class the lesson would be "nature made everything" the end ?
Yes, I know you are trolling but clearly you are right when you suggest there is a lot you don't know about.
Meanwhile I have no problems with all sorts of myths and legends being taught, just so long as it isn't claimed to be science.
Yes, I know you are trolling but clearly you are right when you suggest there is a lot you don't know about.
Meanwhile I have no problems with all sorts of myths and legends being taught, just so long as it isn't claimed to be science.
I have heard that they are actually "proving" the exsistence of a God particle. I don't know much about it but that it's the force that holds us, an atom, or what have you together. I also wonder how they are so- to- speak proving it. I'm not a scientist but I am fairly educated in spiritual matters. I know it doesn't answer your question, but thought you might find it interesting.
I am a scientist - or at least I was.
The "God" particle is the Higgs Boson.
Leon Lederman - a particle physicist gave it this nick-name (and later regretted it)
He called it this because it is the explanation for why things have mass and so is pretty Universal tying everything together with gravity.
When matter is distroyed in particle accelerators new particles are formed. That is what is happening at CERN - in order to prove the existance of the Higgs particle a collision will have to be observed with the right characteristics.
As Douglas Adams said "The answer is to bang the rocks together guys"
The Higgs particle has nothing to do with some sort of search for God - sorry about that
The "God" particle is the Higgs Boson.
Leon Lederman - a particle physicist gave it this nick-name (and later regretted it)
He called it this because it is the explanation for why things have mass and so is pretty Universal tying everything together with gravity.
When matter is distroyed in particle accelerators new particles are formed. That is what is happening at CERN - in order to prove the existance of the Higgs particle a collision will have to be observed with the right characteristics.
As Douglas Adams said "The answer is to bang the rocks together guys"
The Higgs particle has nothing to do with some sort of search for God - sorry about that
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Because that doesn't convey the situation
We cannot prove for certain every step in the chain, especially the very first part. But evolution is well beyond serious doubt and is a beautiful and elegant explanation.
Creationism is on the contrary "ducking the question" it's intellectual surrender and until a creationist comes up with an explanation of where God came from it will continue to be so.
We cannot prove for certain every step in the chain, especially the very first part. But evolution is well beyond serious doubt and is a beautiful and elegant explanation.
Creationism is on the contrary "ducking the question" it's intellectual surrender and until a creationist comes up with an explanation of where God came from it will continue to be so.
ewanhoosami (clever name, but shouldn't it have a query at the end?), we certainly will know how 'we' came about. Evolution has already explained how modern complex life evolved from extremely primitive life. How that primitive life came about is being researched and my guess is that we'll know before the end of this century.
What we don't know, and perhaps never will, is how the universe came about.
What we don't know, and perhaps never will, is how the universe came about.
First, you have to question which creationism story is being taught? Because there is a different creation story for every established religion, and on that basis alone, one should question why exactly a judeo- christian creation myth and therefore God is any more likely than any other religion.
Second - No, creationism has absolutely no place in science classes except as by means of comparision ("this is what used to be believed" ) By all means, teach it in comparative religion, or myths and fables, alongside the Shinto, Greek, or Norse creation myths, but absolutely not in a science class.
@jno - Not sure if I understood you correctly. Are you saying we cannot teach evolution because we are still learning about the beginnings of the universe? I would disagree if so, largely because one has nothing at all to do with the other.
You also imply that because theories of a big bang origin are "random and inexplicable" to you, this is sufficient reason to afford a creator God an equal footing? I don't think so. Its a strawman hypothesis anyway, since we know a lot more than your comment would suggest. The genesis of the universe can be explained, with regular, mundane, non- superstitious universal forces, all the way back to about the first 1,000th or so of a second of creation.
Now, if your God wishes to hide in the remaining 1,000 th or so of a second of creation, a kind of "God of the incredibly small Gap", then fine, but that sort of a God, one that initiates universal creation, then takes no further part, seems very unlike any that are taught by established religions.
Keep religion in RE.
Second - No, creationism has absolutely no place in science classes except as by means of comparision ("this is what used to be believed" ) By all means, teach it in comparative religion, or myths and fables, alongside the Shinto, Greek, or Norse creation myths, but absolutely not in a science class.
@jno - Not sure if I understood you correctly. Are you saying we cannot teach evolution because we are still learning about the beginnings of the universe? I would disagree if so, largely because one has nothing at all to do with the other.
You also imply that because theories of a big bang origin are "random and inexplicable" to you, this is sufficient reason to afford a creator God an equal footing? I don't think so. Its a strawman hypothesis anyway, since we know a lot more than your comment would suggest. The genesis of the universe can be explained, with regular, mundane, non- superstitious universal forces, all the way back to about the first 1,000th or so of a second of creation.
Now, if your God wishes to hide in the remaining 1,000 th or so of a second of creation, a kind of "God of the incredibly small Gap", then fine, but that sort of a God, one that initiates universal creation, then takes no further part, seems very unlike any that are taught by established religions.
Keep religion in RE.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
JNO the notion of "where the big bang came from implies time before the big bang
This we know is not the case - the big bang was the start of time and physical space as well as matter as such it is completely self-consistant.
This is not theory but fact - we see time slowing in gravitational fields - Sat navs actually have to take account of it
I'll agree that it is inexplicable because all of our experience of the world is framed by the notion of time.
The big bang is also very well demonstrated - we even have a map of the "echo" of it
Now you may smile kindly and think that perhaps God made the big-bang - but I might just as well smile kindly and suggest that a Robot called sparky created god who created the big bang.
Once you start it's turtles all the way down
This we know is not the case - the big bang was the start of time and physical space as well as matter as such it is completely self-consistant.
This is not theory but fact - we see time slowing in gravitational fields - Sat navs actually have to take account of it
I'll agree that it is inexplicable because all of our experience of the world is framed by the notion of time.
The big bang is also very well demonstrated - we even have a map of the "echo" of it
Now you may smile kindly and think that perhaps God made the big-bang - but I might just as well smile kindly and suggest that a Robot called sparky created god who created the big bang.
Once you start it's turtles all the way down
Ermm... we can't explain back to the first thousandth of a second very well at all. If you ignore the imbalance of matter/anti-matter, the mystery of dark matter, dark energy and the rapid expansion phase and isotropic expansion then yes we have it all tied up.
As for the original question I think it depends on why creationism is being taught, a lot of people seem to forget that in its original form the bible doesn't counter science after genesis so if creationism is teaching that God flicked the switch or designed the first microbes or even just watches over us making sure the laws of nature run smoothly then it wouldn't affect someone's understanding of science.
As for the original question I think it depends on why creationism is being taught, a lot of people seem to forget that in its original form the bible doesn't counter science after genesis so if creationism is teaching that God flicked the switch or designed the first microbes or even just watches over us making sure the laws of nature run smoothly then it wouldn't affect someone's understanding of science.
