God vs Science Debate

[Quinton]

here's a goodie...

God versus science debate continues
28 September 2005

HARRISBURG: Members of a Pennsylvania school board were motivated by their religious beliefs when they decided "intelligent design" should be taught to biology students along with Darwin's theory of evolution, witnesses testified in United States court today.

Eleven parents are suing the Dover Area School District to stop the teaching of intelligent design, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

Proponents of the intelligent design theory say life is so complex it could only have been designed by a higher, intelligent being and not via the Darwinian natural selection theory widely accepted by scientists. Critics argue it is a thinly veiled version of creationism.

Bryan Rehm, a Dover physics teacher until June 2004, told the court about a meeting where former school board member Bill Buckingham championed the introduction of the alternative to evolution.

Buckingham complained the ninth-grade biology textbook being used was "laced with Darwinism," Rehm testified in US District Court.

Rehm recalled Buckingham making a reference to Jesus' crucifixion: "Two thousand years ago, somebody died on a cross. Can't somebody stand up and do something for him?"

Aralene Callahan, a former school board member and one of the plaintiffs, said Buckingham told a board meeting, "You can't expect me to believe that I was ever descended from apes and monkeys." The trial over teaching man's origins in US schools pits Christian conservatives against teachers and scientists in what is seen as the biggest test of the issue since the late 1980s. It also echoes the famous Scopes Monkey trial of 1925, when lawyers squared off in a Tennessee courthouse over the teaching of Darwin's work.

Callahan also said another board member, Alan Bonsell, had argued the biology curriculum should contain equal measures of evolution and creationism.

The US Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism – the belief that Earth and its beings were created by God and not by natural selection – could not be taught in public schools since it violated the separation of church and state.

More than 30 US states are considering measures to teach alternatives to evolution. The Harrisburg case is the first to challenge such initiatives in court and is widely expected to end up at the US Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome.

President George W Bush has said schools should teach both evolution and intelligent design.

The Dover school board's policy, implemented in January, requires that students are read a four-paragraph statement saying there are "gaps" in the theory of evolution and that students should consider alternative explanations of the origins of life, including intelligent design. The statement advises them of a textbook available in the school library that delves into intelligent design.

The board argues its policy does not amount to teaching intelligent design, but merely makes students aware of an alternative to evolution.

"This had absolutely nothing to do with balance or fairness," Callahan said during the second day of the trial. "It was merely intended to introduce religion into the biology curriculum and to pretend otherwise is preposterous."

Another of the Dover parents, Tammy Kitzmiller, told the court that she allowed her 14-year-old daughter to drop the biology class because she was concerned over the policy.

The trial is expected to last five weeks.

SOURCE: AP

[Noah]

This mess is insane... where to even begin?! I'll open with this. For some reason that I will never understand, since the Christianity took hold a thousand years ago every single scientific discovery, advancement, theory etc. that is introduced is, for some reason a direct attack on Christianity, God, the Church and humanity.

Evolution is absolutely a valid theory. Were we descended from little sludge-dwelling amoeba who turned into fish, grew legs, shed scales, walked upright, gained the capacity for independent thought...? that is uncertain. However, there are countless observations that certainly hold the theory of evolution upright. Take for instance the fact that English and Irish people have very fair skin. The peoples who are descended from northern European anglo-saxons have fair skin because the areas which they are indigenous to have cooler, wetter climates, and there is less sunlight. Conversely, people descended from Africans are dark skinned because Africa is a much harsher climate where sunlight is plentiful. Makes sense, eh?

So, the idea of "intelligent design"... well, this "theory" if you can call it that, allows Christians to sleep better at night because they don't have to bother themselves with scientific proofs, theoroms, observations, experiments. They can just sort of make this whole umbrella statement that "the universe and the world around you is WAY too complicated for your feable little mind to comprehend so we'll just say that some greater being created it all and he'd like to keep you in the dark about it". This idea simply holds no water.

Under no circumstances should we dilute our childrens' minds by teaching this sort of nonsense in a classroom. This theory holds about as much water as the Hindu belief that the Earth rests on an Elephent who is balancing himself on the back of a turtle. If we start teaching intelligent design we might as well designate a part of the lecture where the teacher says "now, kids, there are some schools of thought that would maintain that the Earth rests on an Elephant who is standing on the back of a turtle. We must keep this in mind too."

But, hey... that's just the way things are. In a majority Christian society, scientifically minded people are going to have to constantly fight for every inch and with every new discovery or revelation, there will be a period of the time when the Church gets its congregation into a frenzy and these nuts violently deny this discovery until FINALLY they can supress it no longer.

Let's think back to the dark ages. The Church decided that all heavenly (planetary) bodies revolved around the Earth... we lived in a geocentric universe and that simply was the way that it was because the Bible said it was. The Church searched for a theory and a model to support this claim and the philosopher Ptolemy had created a model of the geocentric universe, so the Church adopted this as law. For hundreds of years the church even went so far as to burn astronomers at the steak, or anyone else that had the audacity to contradict the Church.

It wasn't until later astronomers, including Galileo, discovered the suppresed works of Copernicus that the Church was no longer able to dispell the fact that the Earth was not the center of all things. The Church even went so far as to put Galileo on house arrest and forbade him to study the heavens, they couldn't execute him because of his popularity, which after being denied to study the heavens, he discovered gravity.

So, something as silly as the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun as do the other known planets- something that we all think is "common knowledge" was also onced violently denied by the Church.

This is all so silly. I think the Christians just need to get over it. They need to embrace science and stop being opponents of progress. If they had it their way we'd still be living in the dark ages... and wouldn't that be fun.

[Heather]

Well, Im a Christian, Catholic, actually. And when I was in college, wrote an article for the paper on the Intellectual Design theory.

I dont see why we cant believe in both, honestly. I am grateful to science, and all the technological advances of our civilization. But at the same time, I also like the idea that there was some sort of higher power leading us.

As ridiculous as it may sound, I am a believer in both Darwinism, and Intellectual Design. I dont really see one as negating the other. Survival of the fittest, yes, evolution, yes...but who is to say that there wasnt some higher power guiding us all along?

[oclover24]

I read an article on this in the paper. Not sure what I believe. I would choose science and facts over opinion, but that's just me.

[Summer_Roberts2]

^I agree with you Heather. I also believe in both. I tend to lean a bit more towards intelligent design, but I also believe evolution. I'm a little confused about evolution, maybe someone can explain this to me, I've always wondered about it. What is Darwin's theory on how everything started?

[oclover24]

We've been learning about old, old history in AP World, but I'm not sure about Darwin's theory.

[Heather]

The Church decided that all heavenly (planetary) bodies revolved around the Earth... we lived in a geocentric universe and that simply was the way that it was because the Bible said it was. The Church searched for a theory and a model to support this claim and the philosopher Ptolemy had created a model of the geocentric universe, so the Church adopted this as law. For hundreds of years the church even went so far as to burn astronomers at the steak, or anyone else that had the audacity to contradict the Church.

It wasn't until later astronomers, including Galileo, discovered the suppresed works of Copernicus that the Church was no longer able to dispell the fact that the Earth was not the center of all things. The Church even went so far as to put Galileo on house arrest and forbade him to study the heavens, they couldn't execute him because of his popularity, which after being denied to study the heavens, he discovered gravity.

So, something as silly as the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun as do the other known planets- something that we all think is "common knowledge" was also onced violently denied by the Church.

This is all so silly. I think the Christians just need to get over it. They need to embrace science and stop being opponents of progress. If they had it their way we'd still be living in the dark ages... and wouldn't that be fun.

First, of all, that wasnt the Dark Ages, that was the Middle Ages, two extremely different periods in World History. It was during that periods, that Copernicus' findings validated the beliefs sanctified by the Church.

Enter the Renaissance. Galileo disproved the theory of Copernicus, in a new age of history. However, the reason the Chruch has such a problem with Galileo, was because the Church's teachings were considered Holy Doctrine, and by him saying that the sun was the center of the universe, he was also creating a new wave of political theories that questioned the authority of the Church. Im not condoning the actions taken by the Catholic Church back then, just explaining the reasonings behind it.

There is nothing for Christians to get over, Noah. We have accepted Galileo's theories for centuries now. On the other hand, I would say its time for secularlists to get over it. They are the ones who are so close minded as to even contemplate the idea that there is another reason for creation outside of science. Who is to say that there wasnt some kind of "Grand Architect" behind creation, evolution, and all the scientific discoveries the world has enjoyed?

I find it humorous, how Christians are always accused of being so close minded, when in reality, we are open to much more possibility in the Universe. While the other side simply disregards any theories other than the ones they have adopted as "law".

[Quinton]

There is nothing for Christians to get over, Noah. We have accepted Galileo's theories for centuries now. On the other hand, I would say its time for secularlists to get over it. They are the ones who are so close minded as to even contemplate the idea that there is another reason for creation outside of science. Who is to say that there wasnt some kind of "Grand Architect" behind creation, evolution, and all the scientific discoveries the world has enjoyed?And that's why we have Athiests.

[amberdawn]

Originally Posted by Heather
I find it humorous, how Christians are always accused of being so close minded, when in reality, we are open to much more possibility in the Universe. While the other side simply disregards any theories other than the ones they have adopted as "law".
Absolutely Heather. I love the way you explained it. No need for me too.

This is all so silly. I think the Christians just need to get over it.
What? We should get over what exactly Noah? Kind of rude to say.

[Noah]

For the record I believe in God. I believe in a higher power, and I do not believe that this universe was created by chance. I believe that there is a higher power out, in, up, or outside there somewhere and I believe we all have souls, and a unique energy. When referring to the Dark Ages, keep in mind, I am referring to the period before Enlightenment... (note the elementary difference in the terms used to define these periods)

The Christians need to get over this notion that every scientific advancement or theory is somehow an attack on the Church. And I will say that I do subscribe to some sort of Judaism/Christianity and try to govern myself on the teachings of Jesus. Honestly, would I be so naive as to make a statement like "Christians need to get over the fact that the Earth is NOT the center of the universe"??

With regards to astronomy and the search for extraterrestrial life, I don't understand why there has to be some sort of religious implication to this. This intelligent design business is just a masked version of creationism. When there is evidence to prove this theory, then it should be taught in school. It shouldn't be taught in school just because a group of Christians think that this is a Christian nation and in every aspect the "Christian" point of view must be inserted. It's as absurd as having to include Astrology in the Astronomy part of science. I believe that there is a higher power out there and that is a wonderful idea. For affirmation of this idea, however, may we point children to sunday school class where they can learn all about Creationism, God, Jesus, Noah, and the Apostles.

Secularists are close-minded? I don't draw a distinction between someone who finds it personally, and intellectually difficult to deal with a higher power, or a concept of the soul because he or she has no physical proof, or hard evidence to perpetuate this idea.

I believe in a higher power and that we all posess a soul. I will say, however, that physical evidence and relying simply on logic alone certainly suggests otherwise. I'll admit that a large part of my beliefe and faith in a higher power is that I can't deal with the fact that my life has a beginning and an end and that is simply it. That I am here for a short amount of time and after my body can no longer function I will cease to be.

Religion does not have a place in the classroom. There are other avenues where people may receive their religious fix. The home, church, church clubs, activities etc.

[Summer_Roberts2]

How do secularlists explain the creation of everything, though? That's what's got me confused. I understand the evolving, but what about the stuff that things were evolved from?

[Heather]

Ok, I get your "Dark Ages" analogy, Noah. But I still dont agree. The Renaissance came before the Age of Enlightment, and look at all that was accomplished there. It was the beggining of the scientific age. Look at DaVinci. The ideas for scientific discovery where there, they just lacked the technology to make it a reality

Religion does not have a place in the classroom. There are other avenues where people may receive their religious fix. The home, church, church clubs, activities etc.

Are you serious? While preaching religion doesnt belong in the classroom, it is impossible for students to learn history, without religion. Judaism, Islam, and the rise of Christianity are all fundamental parts of world history, as is The Protestant Reformation. How do you teach the Puritans without bringing up the subject of religion, when their entire lives revolved around it? How do you teach about Rhode Island, Anne Hutchinson, Calvert, William Penn, the Founding of Utah, without the subject of religion? How do you teach about Montezuma, and Tenotichlan without talking about religion? You cant. Because religion has always been a vital part of our history. (and by our I mean world history, not US history)

With regards to astronomy and the search for extraterrestrial life, I don't understand why there has to be some sort of religious implication to this.
There isnt. Christians believe that God created that universe, and that includes outer space, and whatever other life forms may be out there.

Enjoy! (http://www.themontclarion.org/media/paper374/news/2001/04/26/Opinion/A.More.Creative.View.Of.The.Universe-72219.shtml)
Continued... (http://www.themontclarion.org/media/paper374/news/2001/04/26/Opinion/A.More.Creative.View.Of.The.Universe-72219.shtml?page=2)

[Jon]

I'll definitely agree with Heather, you can't learn history, ours or other country's history without preaching some sort of religion.

Now about Science Vs. God, I've chosen not to post just because, there will always be two sides to this argument. It's taken myself quite a while, but at this point and I'm sure always, I'll stick with my Christian beliefs. God created the universe. :)

I can't believe in God, and then say science created part of the world. If you believe in God, you should believe he masterminded everything in our world.

[Heather]

Well, I wouldnt say "preach" per se, because we dont teach the tenents of any faith, unless you are in a Catholic or Hebrew school. We do however teach the fundamentals of those faiths, because it is necessary in order to fully understand how it impacted not only history, but historical figures.

[Jon]

Well I should probably change what I wrote, I didn't necessarily mean preach either, but some people could construe what happens in a class that discusses religion as "preaching" it.

[Aga]

god vs science is one debate that will never be won or solved
i believe in God and i believe in science.
i dont wantto argue with this topic so ill stay out of it.
but i haveto say thathe universre is one thing i cantexplain or even begin to understand

[Kari]

Are you serious? While preaching religion doesnt belong in the classroom, it is impossible for students to learn history, without religion. Judaism, Islam, and the rise of Christianity are all fundamental parts of world history, as is The Protestant Reformation. How do you teach the Puritans without bringing up the subject of religion, when their entire lives revolved around it? How do you teach about Rhode Island, Anne Hutchinson, Calvert, William Penn, the Founding of Utah, without the subject of religion? How do you teach about Montezuma, and Tenotichlan without talking about religion? You cant. Because religion has always been a vital part of our history. (and by our I mean world history, not US history)
Religion in general is something that should totally be taught, in my opinion. We do have Religion class here at schools. It doesn't have anything to do with preaching or brainwashing. It has to do with learning about religions. Learning what Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are founded on, what forms them, who formed them. We also learn a lot about the religion criticism by Marx for example, Feuerbach etc. It is important, I think.

I don't the least get how Science and Religion contradict each other.
I learn about "cells" in biology at the moment. It is so intriguing and for me it keeps on proving how a god must exist.
I would write more about it, but I have absolutely no idea what "Stammzellen" "Zellteilung" etc are in english :lol:

[Noah]

Ok, I get your "Dark Ages" analogy, Noah. But I still dont agree. The Renaissance came before the Age of Enlightment, and look at all that was accomplished there. It was the beggining of the scientific age. Look at DaVinci. The ideas for scientific discovery where there, they just lacked the technology to make it a reality



Are you serious? While preaching religion doesnt belong in the classroom, it is impossible for students to learn history, without religion. Judaism, Islam, and the rise of Christianity are all fundamental parts of world history, as is The Protestant Reformation. How do you teach the Puritans without bringing up the subject of religion, when their entire lives revolved around it? How do you teach about Rhode Island, Anne Hutchinson, Calvert, William Penn, the Founding of Utah, without the subject of religion? How do you teach about Montezuma, and Tenotichlan without talking about religion? You cant. Because religion has always been a vital part of our history. (and by our I mean world history, not US history)


There isnt. Christians believe that God created that universe, and that includes outer space, and whatever other life forms may be out there.

Enjoy! (http://www.themontclarion.org/media/paper374/news/2001/04/26/Opinion/A.More.Creative.View.Of.The.Universe-72219.shtml)
Continued... (http://www.themontclarion.org/media/paper374/news/2001/04/26/Opinion/A.More.Creative.View.Of.The.Universe-72219.shtml?page=2)

lordy... I was simply stating that the Catholic Church would not tolerate the belief that the Earth was not the center of the universe to the point that they punished the opposition by, in some cases, burning them. You still don't agree? What's not to agree with. The Catholic Church pursecuted these people, there's nothing to really disagree with.

Ok, with regard to "religion has no place in the classroom". It's amazing!! It boggles my mind, honestly... can people not draw the distinction between history class and giving children a documented, historical view of religion and civilizations from the past in a historical sense, and teaching children that God created the universe, and is the creator of all things?!

It's not that difficult here. The classroom is not the place for sunday school class. In public institutions children should not be taught that the people, animals and the earth were created by the hand of God.

There is a HUUUUUUGE difference between teaching kids in history class... "look these are the Zoroastrians, this is their society and their government based upon their religious beliefs. Over here we have the Egyptians, and we can see that this culture that relied on their rivers and irrigation to survive believed in Sun gods, rain gods, gods of the underworld etc." There is a clear difference between teaching children history class and then telling them that the world was created by God.

In the United States we have freedom of religion... the freedom to worship and believe as you please, but we also have freedom FROM religion as well. There is absolutely no reason why children should be taught that the Earth was created by God. If their parents see it fit that they receive a well-rounded education in Christianity there is ample opportunity for this in Sunday school.

Religion in general is something that should totally be taught, in my opinion. We do have Religion class here at schools. It doesn't have anything to do with preaching or brainwashing. It has to do with learning about religions. Learning what Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism are founded on, what forms them, who formed them. We also learn a lot about the religion criticism by Marx for example, Feuerbach etc. It is important, I think.

I don't the least get how Science and Religion contradict each other.
I learn about "cells" in biology at the moment. It is so intriguing and for me it keeps on proving how a god must exist.
I would write more about it, but I have absolutely no idea what "Stammzellen" "Zellteilung" etc are in english :lol:


In a public institution I believe it is a great idea to teach a "Religions of the World" class. Children need to be taught about other religions of the world, the history of those religions etc. However, if a "Religions of the world" class taught other religions but always taught them under the context that "christianity is the only TRUE religion, these other people are just hethens and we are teaching this for historical purposes" then that isn't the right way to teach.

In a Science (science being knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method) something that has no scientific or physical proof, like Intelligent Design, does not have a place being taught in science class.

[Kari]

Yes, I agree, it is important that the lessons are aboutreligion, not religion itself. I don't know something as Sunday School here, though I know the concept of it, and religion class has always been something objective.

I would totally object to a religion class with the assumption that Christianity is the one true religion. There are people from all religions at my school as well as atheists and lessons that are biased towards one religion would be offensive.
I guess I am just satisfied the way it is handled here.

[Heather]

lordy... I was simply stating that the Catholic Church would not tolerate the belief that the Earth was not the center of the universe to the point that they punished the opposition by, in some cases, burning them. You still don't agree? What's not to agree with. The Catholic Church pursecuted these people, there's nothing to really disagree with.

Noah, I already admitted that they did in my earlier post. I dont condone it, or agree with it, but I admitted that it was something that happened.

Ok, with regard to "religion has no place in the classroom". It's amazing!! It boggles my mind, honestly... can people not draw the distinction between history class and giving children a documented, historical view of religion and civilizations from the past in a historical sense, and teaching children that God created the universe, and is the creator of all things?!

It's not that difficult here. The classroom is not the place for sunday school class. In public institutions children should not be taught that the people, animals and the earth were created by the hand of God.

There is a HUUUUUUGE difference between teaching kids in history class... "look these are the Zoroastrians, this is their society and their government based upon their religious beliefs. Over here we have the Egyptians, and we can see that this culture that relied on their rivers and irrigation to survive believed in Sun gods, rain gods, gods of the underworld etc." There is a clear difference between teaching children history class and then telling them that the world was created by God.
You originally said that "religion does not belong in the classroom" which is what I was disagreeing with. Had you said "preaching religion does not belong in the classroom, I would have agreed with you."

But the subject of religion cannot be a tabboo when studying history and religion. When I teach my kids about the Greek Gods, their temples, oracles, and how they were conisdered to walk the Earth, and were a part of the peoples daily lives, that is not preaching, but it is also bringing a religious belief into the classroom.

When I teach Judaism, and outline the history of the Jewish people from Abraham through Moses, that is not preaching, yet it is a fundamental part of the Jewish faith.

That was my point.

There is absolutely no reason why children should be taught that the Earth was created by God.
No, there isnt. But it is imperative that children understand that "They believed the Earth was created by God."

In a public institution I believe it is a great idea to teach a "Religions of the World" class.
Its called World History, Noah. In world, I taught Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity. I also taught the Protestant Reformation and the Glorious Revolution. So, my student did learn about major religions, and not only enjoyed it, but it gave them a greater understanding of those with different beliefs.

However, if a "Religions of the world" class taught other religions but always taught them under the context that "christianity is the only TRUE religion, these other people are just hethens and we are teaching this for historical purposes" then that isn't the right way to teach.
While I dont believe christianity is the only "true" religion, I have been able to teach both Judaism and Christianity using the Bible as a historical text. Do I shove scripture down my kids throats? Absolutely not. I simply refer to the historical passages found in it, that have been proven by other sources. Like it or not, the Bible is is historical text in addition to a religious one.

In a Science (science being knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method) something that has no scientific or physical proof, like Intelligent Design, does not have a place being taught in science class.
Darwinism wasnt always the accepted norm. There was a time when people thought he was insane with his ideas of evolution. It only became an accepted theory through time.

All we're asking is that you at least be open minded enough to think that it is a possibility. Because one day, it very well might be as fundamental a truth as Darwinism (if it werent academic scholars wouldnt support it.)

[Noah]

Everything you've said I've addressed in my posts. So, let's recap.

There was a time when people thought darwinism was just plain wacky. Indeed. Why I posted that once people thought the idea that the Earth was not the center of the universe was crazy insane.

I already stated that I personally believe that there is a creator out there responsible for the universe around us. Alrighty.

I apologise that I did not use the word "preach". I did, however, make it abundantly clear that religion in the context of teaching that the universe came from some almighty creator should not be taught in the classroom while world religions in a historical sense are something that absolutely should be taught in schools.

World Religions class is not merely "History" class. Obviously World Religions is a focus on religions of the world. I can certainly say down here in good 'ole Georgia, %99 per cent of the children graduating high school are completely oblivious to the teachings of Buddha, the Hindu caste system and the tenets of Islam.

It's called Governer Sonny Purdue's revolutionary new 'Every Child Left Behind' plan. You haven't heard of it?



Hey, where the heck is Quinton at? He's not saying anything. With his comment about Atheism and his Nietzche quote I was wondering if he's Atheist or what...

[Heather]

Well, you also live in the Bible Belt, Noah. Thats probably a big reason why world religions arent taught in your public schools. Its not right, but its probably the reason why.

I was also curious about Quinton's Nietzche quote...I read something interesting about the work that included the "God Is Dead", statement.

eta
Just to let you know, a few weeks ago, I was at a barbeque at my brothers best friends house, who is from India. He just became a citizen, and moved here in high school. His family is Hindu. When I asked him about the caste system he looked at me like I was insane. The Hindu Caste system doesnt exist there like it once did. For example, there is no such thing as "the untouchables" any more.

[oclover24]

^We've been learning about the Caste System in our AP World class. No untouchables anymore? I guess that's a good thing - the untouchables were hated. Their name implies what they are.

In my bio book, I found a chapter on Darwin. Next time I bring my bio book home, I'll post it.

[OTH man]

wow, this thread is going to make me maaaad

my first opinion:

I, am a Christian, Catholic, and I totally disagree with almost everything we learn in science calss, like "The Big Bang Theory" no way elvolution-no

My religion runs way deeper then my belife in any scientist, if God tells us its true, and its in the Bible, I will most likely belive it over anything, even if it was a law insted of a theory, I'd go with my religion

[oclover24]

I totally disagree with almost everything we learn in science calss, like "The Big Bang Theory"

Can I ask you why? I know you said you believe god over theory, but you don't agree with things you learn because god said they didn't happen?

[Quinton]

I, am a Christian, Catholic, and I totally disagree with almost everything we learn in science class, like "The Big Bang Theory"? no way evolution? no

My religion runs way deeper than my belief in any scientist, if God tells us its true, and its in the Bible, I will most likely believe it over anything, even if it was a law insted of a theory, I'd go with my religionI really can't do that. If the past few months are anything to go by, I don't have faith in anything to even slightly be that way. I can't believe a book, I can't believe the religious ideals presented to me by anybody. I need something tangible to "prove" what exists to me. Anything else is unacceptable.

Here comes the hypocrisy. In so much as I don't believe in that, I do believe in supernatural occurances (personal experiences better left unshared). So while I'm comfortable being totally oblivious to the idea that some omnipotent being created the universe, I'm equally aware that some things exist outside of science simply because they do and for now they have no explanation.

That's it for me. I want to believe someone's watching over us but I just can't.

[Melanie]

Got to go with Aga on this one. I'd rather not think about it, because how are we really to know?

[Andrew]

If the past few months are anything to go by, I don't have faith in anything to even slightly be that way. I can't believe a book, I can't believe the religious ideals presented to me by anybody. I need something tangible to "prove" what exists to me. Anything else is unacceptable.

I myself, would go back as far as years... but toma(y)to, toma(h)to

And I agree. Like I said in another thread when asked if believed in God or not:

"Nope... Atheist.... although i'm agnostic to an extent; show me undeniable proof and i'll show Him undeniable devotion"

And Yes, there is religion in the Global Studies/History, but it's more of a "What they/people before us/people today/others believe(d) in" than anything else (I don't recall ever being advocated any religious-persuasion-context when learning about, for example The Middle Ages)

But i think it's kind of "apples and oranges" when comparing Global Studies/History and Science; the latter being pretty much objective (it's either correct or wrong) while the former is more subjective (to an extent, open to intepretation)

In terms of whether or not "Intelligent Design" should be taught or not, i don't think it should... or at least not until it (or if it ever does) have some concrete evidence backing it up. The scientific method (and science for that matter) is evidentially based. Although Darwinism is still dubbed a "theory," there is evidence behind it, which is a form of validity.

And just for practical reasons: juxtaposing Darwinism with Intelligent Design is just an overly-complicating contradiction. Even if you do believe in evolutionism and creationism, certain aspects stemming from both sides are polar opposites from each other. Imagine a teacher saying this:

"Okay, well, we just finished the whole section on Darwinism. Now lets begin the section that totally contradicts everything we just did, making our previous correct answers possibly wrong. Won't that be fun?"

:ebraise:

Oh... and BTW, i do think Intelligent Design is just masked-creationism.

[Heather]

I need something tangible to "prove" what exists to me.
Thats where the word faith comes in.

In terms of whether or not "Intelligent Design" should be taught or not, i don't think it should... or at least not until it (or if it ever does) have some concrete evidence backing it up.
Have you heard of the Scopes Monkey Trial, Andrew?

"Okay, well, we just finished the whole section on Darwinism. Now lets begin the section that totally contradicts everything we just did, making our previous correct answers possibly wrong. Won't that be fun?"
How do you think it was when Darwinism was first introduced to the classroom? Does that mean it should never be introduced? Of course not. Once again, I reiterate, all we are asking for is some open-mindedness here.

Oh... and BTW, i do think Intelligent Design is just masked-creationism.
If that were the case, it wouldnt be supported by scholars...and no, I dont mean biblical scholars.

[Aga]

just a quick question what are the caste system and the untouchables?

[Heather]

Hinuds in India, had what was called a caste system, a sort of religious social class breakdown. It was all tied in with their beliefs on reincarnation. The "untouchables" as they were called, were the lowest class in the system. They were called that because they were considered the lowest of the low, dirty...etc.

[Aga]

thats horible
and i am glad thatthey do not have that now :)

[Webeh]

Hinuds in India, had what was called a caste system, a sort of religious social class breakdown. It was all tied in with their beliefs on reincarnation. The "untouchables" as they were called, were the lowest class in the system. They were called that because they were considered the lowest of the low, dirty...etc.

As an add-on, I believe this also tied in with karma. In this lifetime if you did some not so good things, it'll come back to bite you in the butt by pulling you down a caste or two in the next life. However, if you did super chipper things, I think there was some possibility to move up a caste. (Am I at all correct here or just mixing up concepts? It's really late right now and I'm not feeling too intelligent at this moment.)

[Quinton]

Thats where the word faith comes in.Yeah... faith is such a quixotic word for me right now but hey, that's life.

lol Andrew... couple of years sounds really bad. Funny that no matter how good things may be going... something will come along to just mess everything up and you come out of the other end questioning everything.

[Heather]

My sis actually had a talk about that today, Q. She had a devasating day, final day of court in a divorce, and called me in tears. The ruling was beyond awful.

Anyway, I said something along the lines of "When it rains, it pours." And she agreed, not understanding why any good stuff cant happen. I told her, "It does. But the good things are sprinkled over time, while the bad seems to hit us all at once. But the good does happen, we just dont realize it, or appreciate it, until its too late."

[Webeh]

This only further proves God's existance and his relivance to everyone's lives. If he didn't exist, then why all the hush hush? They must be pretty scared of him to want him banned from school

I think it's meant to be more about equality than anything else. If one particular religious teachings are used in a school setting, how can you justify not allowing other kinds?

Interestingly enough, I went to a Catholic school in high school and we had students from other religions there. (Catholic schools in Canada are publicly funded, so they have to follow governmental guidelines.) Students were given the option to opt out of religion class, which I only found out in my final year of high school.

Religion class in grade 9, 10, and 11 were all exactly the same in terms of content. (Grade 12, I actually enjoyed because it was Philosophy.) Luckily, I got saddled with the more open religion teachers, which allowed me to express my skeptism without failing the course. (However, if I were failed for my views, I would have challenged it quite passionately.)

[Heather]

Webeh, you are right about the Caste system.

The way I teach it is by using a ladder as an analogy. Your first life, you are at the bottom, and depending on your good deeds, you move up. If you live a bad life, you move down. The ultimate goal is the top of the ladder, which is spiritual enlightenment. Reincarnation and karma are tied together in the caste system, and the advancing or retreating from lifetime to lifetime.

Catholic school in the US is much different, it is privately funded. I know as a student of Catholic school, it was basically indoctrination from grades K-8. I dared to question....bad move.

Its not until high school that you are allowed to talk about the faith intellectually, and even then, its tricky. Case in point, my freshmen year of HS, I said in religion class, how the teacher was wrong...how Jesus had a brother named James. She replied with, "you are mistaken" and the whole class laughed at me. You learn real quick to keep your truths to yourself, rather than to rock the boat. Its a God thing I didnt press the whole "Mary didnt die a virgin" thing.

[Aga]

jesus had a brother?
dear god i went to catholic school for 5 years was literugy prefect and i didnt even know that!
but i do know that eve only had two sons

[amberdawn]

Jesus had brothers and sisters.

[Webeh]

Equality eh? Sounds more like censorship. How can you call banning one "religion" [i put the quotes because Christianity it's really a religion, it's a lifestyle] equality when evolution is the ONLY one being taught.

Besides, there is no mention [atleast not to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong] of Christianity, rather "intelligent design." It is creationism, which is what polythestic religions teach.

^ I was referring to the government's line of thinking. Not mine.

You know what, I think it would be interesting to learn about all the different theories deriving from religions. But, not necessarily in a science course because those are packed full enough (with material) as they are. Maybe in a humanities-type course instead?

Its a God thing I didnt press the whole "Mary didnt die a virgin" thing.

Because the baby had to come out some how?

I find it humorous, how Christians are always accused of being so close minded, when in reality, we are open to much more possibility in the Universe. While the other side simply disregards any theories other than the ones they have adopted as "law".

To be perfectly honest, non-religious people are often given the same accusation as well.

How I see it is that both the religious (because there's more than one religion) and non-religious can be open/close minded in different ways. For those who follow a religion, they can be open in that they'd be more willing to consider the non-scientific. However, they can also be closed minded because certain religious beliefs/rules/etc prevents them from considering certain newer ideas, which can be beneficial later. Now, if you were to flip it around, that is how the non-religious could be open/closed minded.

What I think is that society needs both the religious and the non-religious to function. Without the non-religious, the religious may still be stuck with some of their more dated (due to human interpretation) ideas/beliefs/practices (ex. Salem witch trials). Without the religious, I think we might now be living in a paranoid society (sans faith/trust) without too many practices/traditions differentiating the different cultures. Basically, I believe that a balance of the two is good. It's when one dominates (that's not right now) too much is when we start to run into trouble.

[Heather]

lmao...yes, he did. Mary conceived Jesus as a Virgin, but she didnt die as one. That was something the Church added later on.

Historians actually found James' tomb a few years ago (several years after I said it in religion class). The tomb reads: Here lies James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"

[Aga]

welll there you go!
i just spoke to my sister aboutthis and they also wonder if on of his disiples was his brother as jesus refers to hima s hello brother.. they are unsure if it was brother as in family or brother as in close friend

[Heather]

No, Aga...the Apostle that refers to is John, not James. His brother wasnt there at his crucifixtion...at least not by any accounts.

Its like the name John today, or Mary. Popular names. While they have the same name, they were completely different individuals.

[Webeh]

lmao...yes, he did. Mary conceived Jesus as a Virgin, but she didnt die as one. That was something the Church added later on.

Historians actually found James' tomb a few years ago (several years after I said it in religion class). The tomb reads: Here lies James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"

On a semi-related note, I once had this English teacher who would not consider at all any alternative views. She followed the Bible strictly word for word. Felt that women should only be giving birth, cleaning the home, and not working. (< Didn't go over so well with the students at the all girls Catholic school.) Also, she thought that all people whose jobs (ex. morticians, forensic scientists, doctors, cops, soldiers, etc) involved any contact with the dead (bodies) were the children of the devil. (I thought someone had to do those jobs, so you shouldn't be so judgemental.) And worse of all, she thought all blacks should be slaves. Very white supremist of her.

[Heather]

People will deny this notion because it goes against the Traditional View that Mary was "pure." If this was true then Mary did not stay a virgin after she was wed to Joseph and goes against the Traditional Chruch's View.

I would like to take this moment to quote Chris Rock:

"Mary gave birth to Jesus a virgin, that is true. But do you honestly think that Joseph would have stayed married to her all those years, if he werent getting some? Now, thats just plain gullibility!"

While not a religious text, I always found that funny.

Mary was a wife, as well as Jesus' mother, and as so, had obligations to her husband, Joseph. Being the woman we know her to be, the idea that she didnt live up to those obligations is just ridiculous.

[Heather]

Aww...you did?? That is soooo sweet!!!! *hugs*

[amberdawn]

You are an inspiration to me as well Heather!

[Heather]

Guys, you're gonna make me cry!!! *sniff*

Seriously, every teachers dream is to effect the life of just ONE of their students...and knowing that, knowing that I inspired them, was always enough for me. I never even imagined inspiring anyone here.

[Aga]

heather is a sap!
but no you are very inspirtational and i love you :)

[Heather]

heather is a sap!
Yeah, like you didnt already know that, Aga. :lol:

[OTH man]

heather is a sap!


yes, but shes an INSPIRATIONAL sap

[Heather]

Aww....you're too sweet.

I feel like we've gotten off on a tangent though. :lol: Any new thoughts on this?

[OTH man]

YEAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!! God so won!

[Kari]

:lol: I still think the both can very well work hand in hand...

[Fading Shadow]

This whole debate has gone on for way too long I'm not saying I'm against it by any means I'm Christian but like Heather said I don't see why we can't believe in both.Why can't we I mean don't you think it's kind of unfair? Who says we can't? Who would try and stop us? it's a free country for gosh sake.

[oclover24]

Today at school, we started talking about this. Somehow, evolution/creation got brought up. This kid said, "are you going to teach us about creation" meaning like the story of how God created the earth. Our teacher said, "I legally can't teach that. There's no proof that that theory happened."

[Quinton]

And there you have it.

Yes, you absolutely are able to make your own mind up about things :) God said so. He just wants you to make the right decision. But you can decide that for yourself. It'd better be the right one though, or else.

[Faith]

I think you can believe in bot God and science.

It all depends on how fundamental you are. If you believe that Adam and Eve are absolutely 100% factually the first man and woman, I can see why you would have a problem with science, particularly the theory of evolution. However, if you are the type of christian that excepts this story for the metaphorical and spiritual guidance it gives, there is no reason that I can see why the pair cannot work hand in hand. I mean, taken literally, how did the world progress from Adam and Eve? It would have involved incest, surely?!

Anyway, yes, to me, science + God = best pals :)

[OTH man]

i belive in God and yea if they can teach you the big bang theory (which how did the matter get there in the first place? doesnt make sence)

God created it and he let us have CHOICE wheather to belive in him and CHOICE to live where we want and CHOICE to do whatever but sometimes there are right choices which to me beliveing in God is the right CHOICE

[Prue14Fan]

I mean, taken literally, how did the world progress from Adam and Eve? It would have involved incest, surely?!

I've always wondered that too. According to the story, Adam & Eve had 3 sons so for mankind to progress from there incest definetely would have happened but another thing I've wondered is how did all the different races get created?

[Faith]

Read the Bible. Understand the Bible. You cannot simply say that the Bible's creation story is not valid simply because you dont "think" it's valid.

You can't see why the two theories don't go hand in hand? Why not? How can two contradicting theories each other go hand in hand? Evolution teaches billions of years of "chance." Creation considers thousands of years of growing as created beings.

True, everything you say is true, but how can you say that they don't go hand in hand? Again, as I said, it is all a question of faith. Some people choose to be fundamental... saying mass in latin, taking all events in the Bible literally, and that is fine and good. But some people don't - some people draw the spiritual message from the bible that is under the surface layers. Whether or not that is your view, doesn't mean it is the wrong way to go about it, surely? There is no rule about how to read the bible... what kind of a Jesus would condemn a person for drawing spiritual meaning from the bible... In this way, I think it is possible for God/Science to work as one. God created the world, hence, he created the events that happened in it.

It's all about perception :)

Noone can ever be right or wrong in this debate ;)

[Heather]

Interesting articles...

NEW YORK (Oct. 23) - Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved.

These views are similar to what they were in November 2004 shortly after the presidential election.

This question on the origin of human beings, asked both this month and in November 2004, offered the public three alternatives: 1. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process; 2. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, but God guided this process; or 3. God created human beings in their present form.

The results were not much different between the answers to that question and those given when a specific timeline was included in the final alternative: God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are liberals (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).

White evangelicals (77 percent), weekly churchgoers (74 percent) and conservatives (64 percent), are mostly likely to say God created humans in their present form.

Still, most Americans think it is possible to believe in both God and evolution. Sixty-seven percent say this is possible, while 29 percent disagree. Most demographic groups say it is possible to believe in both God and evolution, but just over half of white evangelical Christians say it is not possible.

Opinions on this question are tied to one’s views on the origin of human beings. Those who believe in evolution, whether guided by God or not, overwhelmingly think it is possible to believe in both God and evolution – 90 percent say this. However, people who believe God created humans in their present form are more divided: 48 percent think it possible to believe in both God and evolution, but the same number disagrees.
-CBS News

[Quinton]

Ugg... statisics urgh.

I say there's only one way to end this once and for all... I will flip a coin. Heads, God wins... tails, science wins... if it lands on its side, everyone is required to believe in both... here goes...

*flips...

lol God wins! Congrats. :)

[Faith]

Wow...

Why didn't Einstein think of that? :tongue:

[Quinton]

He can't (past tense) be expected to think of everything, sheesh :tongue:

[Faith]

Thank goodness he has you continuing his good work, Kiwi :lol:

[oclover24]

The Editor in Chief of our school paper wrote a opinion article about why he doesn't believe in intelligent design.

[Andrew]

Here's an interesting article written by a conservative columnist from the 'New York Daily News':

Let's be clear: "Intelligent design" may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge - in this case, evolution - they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species, but that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science - that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution - or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?

Source (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/366662p-312134c.html)