64% in US think creationism should be taught in school.

[mdwh]

If your willing to believe that some explosion came out of no where, and made everything, why not God?

There is evidence for the big bang. There isn't for any God.

As for what happened before the big bang, or where it came from - no we don't know. But then, that isn't taught in science lessons either.

And evolution is nothing to do with where the Universe came from (or even where life came from).

 

[RoboPig]

I'm just going to stop this 'debate' now. Why? Because it's pointless, and I'm not going to be able to convert anyone because they just want to ignore that there is a chance that they are wrong. It's a waste of time telling you anything, because you just ignore it and use the "I'm right! Your Wrong!!!!111" arguement. You all want to teach the 1 thing you believe, and stop people from teaching anything else. You tell me you can't for a moment keep consider inteligent design as a posibility because you can't You are just like the Fundamentalist 'Christians' of the Middle ages. You only use science to try to deny God, but that's not what Science is all about. You are not real scientists, even though you claim you are. I don't want to talk to a bunch of fundamentalist Atheistic Religion-hatrs. Fortunately, 64% of my fellow Americans believe in open mindedness in our education, and want to teach us both sides of the arguement.

64% according to some crackpot religous foundation. i am not a religion hater, i can just accept that the church makes mistakes. unlike you.

 

[mdwh]

You only use science to try to deny God,

I don't see anyone denying God. Evolution and God are quite compatible - in Europe for example, few people who believe in God believe in creationism.

[snipped flamebait]

and want to teach us both sides of the arguement.

Ah, now we see your true colours. You claim you want to teach "all" points of view, but in practice, you think there is only one other point of view to evolution, namely creationism. What about all the other possible stories we could make up? Should they be given "equal time" in science lessons?

 

[Masquerouge]

Fortunately, 64% of my fellow Americans believe in open mindedness in our education, and want to teach us both sides of the arguement.

Except that a. there is no argument and b. only Americans believe there is an argument.

How far should open mindedness go ? People believe the Earth is flat. Should we teach that too ? And if you think not, why ?

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

 

[Perfection]

I'm just going to stop this 'debate' now.

You'll be back

Why? Because it's pointless, and I'm not going to be able to convert anyone because they just want to ignore that there is a chance that they are wrong.

We don't ignore it, we just understand that the chance is minimal enough that it doesn't require us to teach it.

It's a waste of time telling you anything, because you just ignore it and use the "I'm right! Your Wrong!!!!111" arguement.

Ignoring and rejection are two different things. We don't ignore your idea, we reject, because it lacks scientific merit.

You all want to teach the 1 thing you believe, and stop people from teaching anything else.

That's false, Christianity can be taught, just not in science class

You tell me you can't for a moment keep consider inteligent design as a posibility because you can't

I've considered it, and it provides no evidence. The arguements are ascientific. I've given it fair time. I've personally discussed intelligent design with Dr. Behe. While, he is a very smart man, he makes some very flawed arguements

You are just like the Fundamentalist 'Christians' of the Middle ages. You only use science to try to deny God, but that's not what Science is all about.

I'm insulted. I use science for everything. I use it explore the wonders of nature. Scientific exploration is one of the most satisfying experiences I know.

You are not real scientists, even though you claim you are. I don't want to talk to a bunch of fundamentalist Atheistic Religion-hatrs.

I don't hate religion. I hate religion-disgused as science.

 

[Fifty]

People believe the Earth is flat

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

Isn't that a joke?

 

[Fox Mccloud]

How would you feel if I insisted on teaching about Unicorns in science class? That's how I feel about you insisting on teaching about "invisible man in the sky" in science class.

NO, It's not the same thing!

When I say God, I don't mean the Christian God, and I don't mean we should teach that Quetzalcoatl or any God specific to any religion should be taught as fact! 'God' could mean any inteligent being that created everything, and It should be taught as a theory, as in the theory that someone inteligent created the universe, and not that the universe came up out of nowhere!

 

[LordRahl]

NO, It's not the same thing!

When I say God, I don't mean the Christian God, and I don't mean we should teach that Quetzalcoatl or any God specific to any religion should be taught as fact! 'God' could mean any inteligent being that created everything, and It should be taught as a theory, as in the theory that someone inteligent created the universe, and not that the universe came up out of nowhere!

Why not teach Greek Myths then? Shouldn't they get an equal chance?

 

[Moss]

You only use science to try to deny God, but that's not what Science is all about.

Yeah, science is about providing new medical technologies that save millions of lives, it's about providing new technological advances including the computer you are using at this very momnet...science cannot prove or disprove the existance of a deity, but religion certainly cannot disprove science.

 

[mdwh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Please read that if you're going to start talking about "theories".

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Why not teach Greek Myths then? Shouldn't they get an equal chance?

Omg! You just completely missed the whole dang point. Read through the post again please.

 

[Perfection]

NO, It's not the same thing!

When I say God, I don't mean the Christian God, and I don't mean we should teach that Quetzalcoatl or any God specific to any religion should be taught as fact! 'God' could mean any inteligent being that created everything, and It should be taught as a theory, as in the theory that someone inteligent created the universe,

The problem is, is that this explaination lacks scientific merit.
It doesn't have testible predictions
It doesn't have unique evidence to make it stand out as a theory.
These are neccesary to make it a scientific.

and not that the universe came up out of nowhere!

The Big Bagn says nothing about what came before it. It only says that the universe was once a tiny point that has subsequently expanded.

 

[Perfection]

Yeah, science is about providing new medical technologies that save millions of lives, it's about providing new technological advances including the computer you are using at this very momnet...science cannot prove or disprove the existance of a deity, but religion certainly cannot disprove science.

These are parts of it Moss, but in the Words of Richard Feynman...
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it."

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Isn't that a joke?

Yeah, just look around, it's definitely a joke.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

Yeah, science is about providing new medical technologies that save millions of lives, it's about providing new technological advances including the computer you are using at this very momnet...science cannot prove or disprove the existance of a deity, but religion certainly cannot disprove science.

I'm not even trying to disprove Science. You can't disprove science, science is the search for more knowledge of the universe. You can only prove or disprove theories.

The bold words are the reason why I think students should be taught inteligent design as a theory.

 

[Cheetah]

There are plenty of other theories that people can come up for that in 5 minuetes, why not just believe those?

With all due respect, that would almost be like saying "There are plenty of other Gods that people can come up for that in 5 minutes, why not just believe those?"

The theory of evolution (which is being debated here), isn't a theory that someone just came up with 5 minutes ago. Neither is the theory of the Big Bang. And if you wonder, there are other theories about how the universe began, ie the theory of a Plasma universe. These theories have some evidence for them, they are testible and the make predictions.

If your willing to believe that some explosion came out of no where, and made everything, why not God? Why do you want to believe your theories, but call all ours 'fairy tales'? Doesn't that make you hypocrites?

Indeed, why not God? I can tell you right now that there are lots of people who believe that:
God made the Big Bang, and things has evolved much like astrophysical, geological and biological sciences explains, with God having a greater or lesser influence on things since the Big Bang, depending on who you ask.

This, I think, is what most religious people today believe. It is what my Christian friends believe, it is what my parents belive. It is what the Vatican and almost all denominations of Christianity believe. While I was a christian, this was the way I looked at it as well.

Note that, in this belief, there is no conflict between religion and science at all. The problem starts when some people, who are unable to reflect over their own holy scriptures, finds out that science must be wrong and wish to make a new branch of science called Creationism.

The problem is that Creationism is not a scientific theory. It doesn't predict anything, it isn't testible, it can't be disproven. Therefore it conflicts with the definition of science and can't be thaught in a Biology class.



To call your God a 'fairy-tale', isn't very polite, but when people say it that way (as long as it isn't just to provoke), they try to show you that there is as much scientific backing of your God as there is for Unicorns, fairies and similar things.

Religion and science are simply two different things, and as long as one of them isn't trying to be both, there is no conflict between them either.

 

[Kozmos]

I'm just going to stop this 'debate' now. Why? Because it's pointless, and I'm not going to be able to convert anyone because they just want to ignore that there is a chance that they are wrong. It's a waste of time telling you anything, because you just ignore it and use the "I'm right! Your Wrong!!!!111" arguement. You all want to teach the 1 thing you believe, and stop people from teaching anything else. You tell me you can't for a moment keep consider inteligent design as a posibility because you can't You are just like the Fundamentalist 'Christians' of the Middle ages. You only use science to try to deny God, but that's not what Science is all about. You are not real scientists, even though you claim you are. I don't want to talk to a bunch of fundamentalist Atheistic Religion-hatrs. Fortunately, 64% of my fellow Americans believe in open mindedness in our education, and want to teach us both sides of the arguement.

The before mentioned quote was from a videogame didnt think anyone would take it seriously.But it is right that I dont want creationsim in a science class.

However the Flying Spaghetti Monster is another thing.Do not mock His Noodlyness or he will smite you as he did the cave men.

 

[Perfection]

The bold words are the reason why I think students should be taught inteligent design as a theory.

That's not a valid reason. The fact that it may be logically consistant doesn't mean that it is scientific. You are still required to have empircal data to support your conclusion.

 

[Fox Mccloud]

The before mentioned quote was from a videogame

What are you talking about?

 

[LordRahl]

Omg! You just completely missed the whole dang point. Read through the post again please.

I didn't miss the point. I'm just trying to understand, why are you so eager to dismiss polytheistic religions, in favor of your monotheism? Do you have any proof their views are less valid then yours?