Anybody. I've looked it up on google and read it all and watched the news and such, isn't this creationism under another name, shouldn't it be taught separately from science. ?
I am confused. When i was little babies were found under gooseberry bushes and this kind of talk was anathema.
America's going to hell in a handbasket, and i don't even know what one of those is.
Someone bright and shiny please explain.
Feeling dim regards... neutral
Intelligent Design, means its was all planned out, rather than what Darwin said, or what people think he said. H e was actually a very religious man. To me it was abit of both.
After all what was there, before there was a there.
Anybody. I've looked it up on google and read it all and watched the news and such, isn't this creationism under another name, shouldn't it be taught separately from science. ?
I am confused. When i was little babies were found under gooseberry bushes and this kind of talk was anathema.
America's going to hell in a handbasket, and i don't even know what one of those is.
Someone bright and shiny please explain.
Feeling dim regards... :neutral:
Yes it is creationism in disguise. Natural selection is an incomplete theory, it is impossible for it ever to be complete, but they are picking on the unexplained bits and saying the whole theory is busted. That leaves intelligent design.
With this kind of argument, we would have to say that relativity and quantum mechanics are false because they don't agree; when they simply have different domains and we haven't yet figured the interface.
/Ook.
//concept of a creator is pretty much everywhere :mrgreen:
Shouldn't be more than a passing mention in the science class. In a philosphy or religion class, then it could be taught.
I like to watch the reilgious cable channel TCT Network when they have the "we can prove that we are right about creationism" lectures on. They are truly hysterical and very scary at the same time. Usually it's the same presenter who pretends to be more shocked by the "facts" than he actually is. Along with him are a variety of professors and doctors who all seem to be from the same land of the undead. They go through a presentation featuring examples of "the lies, the damn lies!!" of those who reject creationism.
In other words, by poiting out flaws in someone elses argument, they wildly jump to the bizarre conclusion that the Earth is only 10 thousand years old.
Personally I don't think Darwin's evolution theories need much discussion in class either. They are just theories, and seriously flawed.
And what about Einstein? He was a very religious man whose goal was to prove his beliefs in a scientific way. E=MC2 was part of that work. It devastated him to find out his Godly work had been taken for use by man to destroy fellow man.
Shall we ban Einstein and his theories from class too?
As for the post about the earth only being 10,000 years old, that theory comes from a misunderstanding of Genesis 12.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(insert Jeopardy music here for an undefined and unknown period)
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
There is no word "to be" in Hebrew. In most cases, the words "is", "was", etc., are superfluous in the English translation. However in this case, it is the Hebrew word for "to become". The earth *became* without form and void.
Even the Bible in its second verse accepts that there may have been creatures before us (dinosaurs, Neanderthals) and things that have created all these ancient fossils. And it also leaves the door open for the meteor they think hit the earth to kill off all this early life.
One mistake people make when they read the Bible is to take each verse as a specific period of time, a constant chronological unit. It is not necessarily so. There are many other examples of this elsewhere.
Personally I don't think Darwin's evolution theories need much discussion in class either. They are just theories, and seriously flawed.
And what about Einstein? He was a very religious man whose goal was to prove his beliefs in a scientific way. E=MC2 was part of that work. It devastated him to find out his Godly work had been taken for use by man to destroy fellow man.
Shall we ban Einstein and his theories from class too?
Totally untrue. Einstein believed in a god who made sure that the physical rules of the universe are followed. He believed that God took no interest in anything else. he stated that he believed in Spinoza's God
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings." -A. Einstein (Einstein Archive 33-272)
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein
Personally I don't think Darwin's evolution theories need much discussion in class either. They are just theories, and seriously flawed.
Darwin's theories make more sense than creationism,
God created the earth, he must have done because it is written in a book so it must be so...........
that's the theory.
no rationale
no research
no proof
no science
Creationism is Man's way of explaining something that they neither have the power nor the knowledge to explain, so the intellects of the time just made something up.
And for all the quotes from the bible, at the end of the day, it's still just a book, nothing more, nothing less. It's like believing something that Enid Blyton wrote.
I agree with you. I think Darwin's theories might be flawed, but there is significant scientific basis in them to form a coherant theory. On the other hand, creationism, taken from a scientific standpoint is seriously flawed. Which is the basis of faith. You can't explain faith scientifically, so religious faith has no place in the science class. I do however, believe this discussion is needed in Religion or Philosphy class, along with a teaching of world religions.
Atomic theory or the theory of relativity are theories but it doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught in science classes.
Personally I don't think Darwin's evolution theories need much discussion in class either. They are just theories, and seriously flawed.
Darwin's theories make more sense than creationism,
God created the earth, he must have done because it is written in a book so it must be so...........
that's the theory.
no rationale
no research
no proof
no science
Creationism is Man's way of explaining something that they neither have the power nor the knowledge to explain, so the intellects of the time just made something up.
I do however, believe this discussion is needed in Religion or Philosphy class, along with a teaching of world religions.
oooh I totally agree.
I think most of us in the UK have some sort of religious education.
something which has it's place in the world as prominent as religious needs to be taught to some degree,
just as biology and maths and literature has its place in the world.
The point is made well here by previous posters .
Because darwins theory or any other theory of evolution may be flawed ..dont make the creation theory true .
Religious fanatics making smoke again .
There is a proposition that religion originated from scientific exploration but lost it's way. There is a word for this but I can't remenber it.
The proposition says that early attempts to define what happened in death led to the idea of a spirit that left the body. But other things, such as trees, grew and then died so they too had spirits. But, over time, the forests "moved" their edges grew and receded, so forests had spirits. By the same reasoning, the sea and sky had spirits
At various stages, the theories fell in the hands of people who used them as authoritative text and they became religion; and resisted change until forced to back off and allow more thought and experiment. The history of the Roman Catholic church shows such incidents. I only picked the Roman Church because it has a long history.
As for the post about the earth only being 10,000 years old, that theory comes from a misunderstanding of Genesis 1:2.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
(insert Jeopardy music here for an undefined and unknown period)
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
There is no word "to be" in Hebrew. In most cases, the words "is", "was", etc., are superfluous in the English translation. However in this case, it is the Hebrew word for "to become". The earth *became* without form and void.
Even the Bible in its second verse accepts that there may have been creatures before us (dinosaurs, Neanderthals) and things that have created all these ancient fossils. And it also leaves the door open for the meteor they think hit the earth to kill off all this early life.
One mistake people make when they read the Bible is to take each verse as a specific period of time, a constant chronological unit. It is not necessarily so. There are many other examples of this elsewhere.
Here we go again if *GOD * greated heaven and earth FROM NOTHING who greated him and made him god??? depends on how far back you want to go to get to the beginning .
And who then created the metoer that hit the earth ?? if he made heaven and earth out of nothing where did the meteor came from ....... ? nothing is nothing and always will be .?