Holy Bible!

[Nowhere]

It's all in part because people don't realise that theory in science means something little different than in common language...

[cjolley]

It's all in part because people don't realise that theory in science means something little different than in common language...

Yup, "little different" meaning "completely different".

[Jessterw]

I think it would be a good idea to teach this as one and the creationist version as another and then compare how well they explain things.

Oddly enough, the science class, at a Christian school I attended for a couple years, had segments on the theories of evolution, the big bang, and creationism, as well as one on how these theories correlate. The purpose was as much about reinforcing creationism as showing that believing in said theory does not negate the others. This requires a non-literal stance on the scriptures, especially those found in Genesis, but it goes a long way towards bridging the gaps.

[Umfriend]

Oddly enough, the science class, at a Christian school I attended for a couple years, had segments on the theories of evolution, the big bang, and creationism, as well as one on how these theories correlate. The purpose was as much about reinforcing creationism as showing that believing in said theory does not negate the others. This requires a non-literal stance on the scriptures, especially those found in Genesis, but it goes a long way towards bridging the gaps.

That was not exactly what I tried to suggest This appears to me to be extremely biased and aimed at improving the acceptability of a version 2 of whatever creationism is taught there. This isn't science, it is indoctrination, stretching whatever brand of creationism, which is hard to prove, to fit contemprary scientific views, which are hard to refute.

[Jessterw]

That was not exactly what I tried to suggest This appears to me to be extremely biased and aimed at improving the acceptability of a version 2 of whatever creationism is taught there. This isn't science, it is indoctrination, stretching whatever brand of creationism, which is hard to prove, to fit contemprary scientific views, which are hard to refute.

Of course it is biased, we are talking about a science class at a Christian school; however, the segment I was referring to had no bearing on the other segments and was given as a way for Christians to bridge their faith with that of scientific theories that might otherwise appear to contradict their very faith. It isn't Creationism version 2, it is merely Creationism viewed with modern knowledge; allowing for Christians to move beyond the confined belief structure that had little basis in reality or in scripture.

[Gurm]

I do find it a bit amusing how ignorant the religious right has a tendency to be.

In science theory doesn't mean "theory". The word that means "theory" in common speech is hypothesis. If it were the hypothesis of evolution that'd be one thing. A theory is a hypothesis which has stood up to extensive debate and scrutiny.

Can it be proven beyond shadow of a doubt? No. That would make it an axiom - and you'll note that relativity, gravity, and any of a number of other universal "truths" are also only theories.

[xortam]

Gravity

... - and you'll note that relativity, gravity, and any of a number of other universal "truths" are also only theories.

I thought it was a given fact that the planet sucked.

[Jammrock]

I thought it was a given fact that the planet sucked.

ROFL!!!

Good explanation, Gurm!

Jammrock

[Umfriend]

Of course it is biased, we are talking about a science class at a Christian school;

'nuff said I guess.

however, the segment I was referring to had no bearing on the other segments

I do not understand what you mean to say with this.

and was given as a way for Christians to bridge their faith with that of scientific theories that might otherwise appear to contradict their very faith.

I have two issues with this. First it sounds like "bending" which I take comes from the unwillingness to accept that Creationism may simply be false. An attitude I find to be at tension with science. Second, given that Creationism has not contributed a single thing towards our limited understanding of the universe I don't see how it belongs in a science class like this

It isn't Creationism version 2, it is merely Creationism viewed with modern knowledge; allowing for Christians to move beyond the confined belief structure that had little basis in reality or in scripture.

I believe it is C v.2 (or C++ ). I belief this is a move to conserve certain aspects of, in this case, the bible as being god-given and thus beyond doubt, true and everlasting. It's a neccessary move as continuing to denounce scientific knowledge would be untrustworhty, and so would simply scrapping whatever part of the doctrine that could not be fixed. It'd be so much easier if we agreed it is all man-made(-up) and may have a lot of things that work well and should be upheld.

[Jessterw]

'nuff said I guess. I do not understand what you mean to say with this.

What I mean is that each of the scientific theories were covered without any overtones of Christianity or Creationism. Also, whereas the scientific theories were covered over a period of time, the Creationism segment and how it relates to scientific theory were briefly covered and occurred partly in a Q&A type format.

I have two issues with this. First it sounds like "bending" which I take comes from the unwillingness to accept that Creationism may simply be false. An attitude I find to be at tension with science. Second, given that Creationism has not contributed a single thing towards our limited understanding of the universe I don't see how it belongs in a science class like this

As far as I was concerned, there was no "bending" apparent. What was presented was simply a logical (as much as it can be) explanation of Biblical history and how it correlates to scientific theories.

I believe it is C v.2 (or C++ ). I belief this is a move to conserve certain aspects of, in this case, the bible as being god-given and thus beyond doubt, true and everlasting. It's a neccessary move as continuing to denounce scientific knowledge would be untrustworhty, and so would simply scrapping whatever part of the doctrine that could not be fixed. It'd be so much easier if we agreed it is all man-made(-up) and may have a lot of things that work well and should be upheld.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I saw it as a way to throw out the nonsense that has polluted the teachings of Creationism and other Christian beliefs. Examples being that the creation of the heavens and the Earth in Genesis is completely literal, or that evolution is an affront to god. You can call it C v.2 if you like, but it is more a re-examination of the core scriptures that relate to scientific theories such as evolution and the big bang. Instead of believing in the literal hand of god shaping things every step of the way, it supports the belief that god simply set things in motion.

Obviously, if you aren't Christian it has no bearing and would appear to you as it does. I will say that I believe much of the past and current thoughts on Creationism were driven more by the beliefs of men rather than the scriptures they claimed to be basing these thoughts on. This is true of much of modern Christianity. So while it may rub you the wrong way, I applaud any attempts at rectifying the wrongs that have been wrought in the name of God and Christianity. Now if we could only get Christians to actually read the Bible instead of participating in games of scripture memory.

[DukeP]

I guess my position on this will be clear to most already, but I have to say that is actually true. It happens to be the best theory around to the extent that it explains some of the things we observe, but it is still just a theory. I think it would be a good idea to teach this as one and the creationist version as another and then compare how well they explain things.

Theres a HUGE difference between a viable and proven-as-far-as-possible theory, and a madeup "its-right-if-you-believe-in-it" piece of crap as creationism.
Theres absolutely NO room for creationism in science teachings, since this "theory" isnt scientific.

For a theory to be scientific, it needs to be possible to disprove it.

Try and browse this link.

~~DukeP~~

[Umfriend]

Theres a HUGE difference between a viable and proven-as-far-as-possible theory, and a madeup "its-right-if-you-believe-in-it" piece of crap as creationism.
Theres absolutely NO room for creationism in science teachings, since this "theory" isnt scientific.

For a theory to be scientific, it needs to be possible to disprove it.

Try and browse this link.

~~DukeP~~

WHich is something that could be very well explained in science class. To explain the difference between scientific theory and creationism, which has had a huge impact on how we view life and the universe and deserves a bit of attention because of that anyway, if only yo point out that it has not contributed to any of our scientific understanding, au contraire.

Good read that. I do realise there is a strong creationist movement behind this and I do not support them (in case anyone wondered), which would be clear from my response to JW.

[DukeP]

To clarify my post:
History is just a theory. You cant "prove" it, only state some facts and ratifie based on those.

The Matrix is only a theory. You cant really prove that The Matrix dosent exists.


Imagine having to teach History, and say: "
Well, the modern political system in the USA is just a theory. Theres another theory, stating that we are all just living inside a personality construct know as the matrix. We cant prove its wrong, so You have to imagine that it could be right and take your own descision."

Why doesnt they teach about The Matrix when you take a major in political sciences?
Because The matrix is just a load of crap. Pure specualtion, meant to entertain.

Same goes for creationism. Its just a slighty entertaining figment of imagination. As such, it might be material for a drama class (as would The Matrix) - but not for any class that pertains to science.

~~DukeP~~

[Umfriend]

The point being DukeP, that Creationism in all its forms does represent the belief in a purposeful creation and is wide-spread. Given that it is a "theory" on how the universe came into being and a lot of other stuff, which is to an extent within the scope of science it might be a good idea to compare the two views on it's scientific merits. That the conclusion will be that creationism contributed nothing to science is not an issue for me.

[cjolley]

The point being DukeP, that Creationism in all its forms does represent the belief in a purposeful creation and is wide-spread. Given that it is a "theory" on how the universe came into being and a lot of other stuff, which is to an extent within the scope of science it might be a good idea to compare the two views on it's scientific merits. That the conclusion will be that creationism contributed nothing to science is not an issue for me.

It is not a "theory" in any sense that that word is used in science.
It's a deus ex machina
And so is "Intelligent Design"
It simply has no place in a science class.