Forums → WEPR → Evolution, creationism and the school cirriculum
| 697 | 104852 |
Well to start out i dont beleive in evoltuion so the fact that other things cant be taught really ticks me off but i just want to see what people think and why.
- 697 Replies
Well not really,but the big bang theory could be argued as a religious belief of atheists.
I am sure not all atheists believe that though, and I doubt that it is part of their religion. Just as there are many Christian scientists who support evolution.
If you want I can supply a link if I can find it,but its old news so it may be a bit of a pain to find.
Don't worry, I can see it happening. Some people are ridiculous.
It was to further the arguement concerning the fact that they are the main activists for legal issues that go against other religions,including tons of things that they have needlessly used the church and state part of the constitution to implement.
That can be said for both sides. More recently, the Mormon church donated millions of dollars to the "Yes on Proposition 8" Campaign. Any beliefs can be further advanced through such undertakings.
Not necessarily. You can believe in God and believe in the Big Bang. I mean, what caused the big bang in the first place? Can you really get something out of nothing? Something had to be there and cause it. As to whether it was just natural processes, or if it was a being, that is not necessarily defined. I do know people who are Christian, and who believe in the big bang. They just believe that God is behind it. Science and God only conflict if you want them to.
Well the problem with the Big Bang Theory that many are concerned with is that it states that the Big Bang Theory happened millions of years ago,and that life started also millions of years ago.The problem with this is that many Christians,going by evidence within the bible believe that life started around 5,000 years ago.So the beliefs contradict each other in that way.In fact that's all we ever hear in Earth Science is how everything happened millions of years ago.It tends to get annoying after awhile.Also an interesting fact that they discovered awhile back is that the moon is in theory only 5,000 years old,and if it was around for as long as the Earth then this would help show evidence that the Earth is only 5,000 years old.Of course afterwords scientists created the theory that the moon smashed into the Earth from somewhere else after it was formed and that's why it is somehow younger.I am just saying that some things concerning scientific theories are not always made just because a scientist is doing it for the better of scientific theory,but really for the gain of their own beliefs.Yes that is a conspiracy theory,and I will acknowledge it as such.
That can be said for both sides. More recently, the Mormon church donated millions of dollars to the "Yes on Proposition 8" Campaign. Any beliefs can be further advanced through such undertakings.
I never really made the connection there.I think on that issue though that civil unions would be a pretty good idea,as it does not redefine marriage,which is considered holy matrimony,but also gives homosexual couples the same rights as a regular married couple and many people don't have a problem with it,but yet many states don't even allow that from what I know.Anyways back on topic...
I am sure not all atheists believe that though, and I doubt that it is part of their religion. Just as there are many Christian scientists who support evolution.
Yes,well there are also Christians who don't believe that the story of Noah's Arc even exists for some reason,as well as all of the beliefs of all the different denominations of Christianity.They all still believe in the same cause or main belief in a sense.
going by evidence within the bible believe that life started around 5,000 years ago
Only if you're about as literal as the late Rev. Ussher! I believe his proposed date was about 4004 BC (Roman calendar).
Thing is, modern Christian beliefs vary, but a large proportion of those, particularly those who have attempted to reconcile the words and modern theory, believe that large portions of the Bible ought to be treated allegorically, or metaphorically. There appears to be little reason to give everything right down to Genesis a concrete timeline- it is only applicable insofar as numerical values and family trees have been delineated in the canon texts (which would inevitably involve supporting texts outside of the Bible.
That said some of my fellow medical students had a hard time getting rid of that "six thousand years ago" figure. I think some of them still insist on exclusive Creationism, which is going to pose severe problems down the road. It requires one to actually start using their brain.
That can be said for both sides. More recently, the Mormon church donated millions of dollars to the "Yes on Proposition 8" Campaign. Any beliefs can be further advanced through such undertakings.
Scientific research competes vigorously for funding, as funding drives science...funding drives everything because it provides leverage for resources and services, simple as that. It is therefore inevitable that there will be competition between various political bodies, including the Church and science and social groups etc. etc.
Where "Church and government should stay separate" comes in relevant here is that traditional interpretations of Church doctrine, as far as I understand it, is such that the Church should make every effort not to in itself become affiliated/synonymous with governing institution (refer to Martin Luther King and the Great Schism). This includes funding- the Church traditionally relies on community-based funding for community-based activities, as is their purpose.
Therefore there are many ways to criticse the Mormon church for making such a move, in terms of interpretation of doctrine (its own bag of worms) and in terms of social responsibility.
But what about such things as science, one might ask. Science seems to have become established because of government support, and I'd say this is mainly to do with the fact that philosophically speaking, our method of legislation relies largely on the evidence-based approach that science provides: think of all the reports that have been commissioned on pressing health and environment issues. Simply put, science focuses on different things from the Church.
But nonetheless there is tension because there is a debate on how effective scientific knowledge is and how important it is to distribute to society. I myself am acutely aware of the issue of a lack of communication and appreciation for a multitude of reasons, so my personal stance would be to push as strongly for the results of scientific research to be made known and understood, so that social reform may be made more compelling.
And this will generally be at odds with the sensibilities of conservatives.
Well to start out i dont beleive in evoltuion so the fact that other things cant be taught really ticks me off but i just want to see what people think and why.
You're looking at this all wrong. Evolution doesn't explain the origins of life, it only shows how it changes over time.
1. Evolution does not explain how life originated, it only explains how life changes over time. One does not "believe" in evolution, because it is not a system of belief, it is merely the best explaination we have given the evidence.
2. Evolution is a scientific theory, and therefore a proper study of it belongs in a science classroom. Most of the so-called "competition" isn't even related to science, therefore, it does not belong in the science classroom.
3. Science has not tackled the origins of life, therefore it is left to philosophers and theologians.
I am sure not all atheists believe that though, and I doubt that it is part of their religion. Just as there are many Christian scientists who support evolution.
No theres not there are some christians who believe in evolution but the majority do not
Well the problem with the Big Bang Theory that many are concerned with is that it states that the Big Bang Theory happened millions of years ago,and that life started also millions of years ago.The problem with this is that many Christians,going by evidence within the bible believe that life started around 5,000 years ago.So the beliefs contradict each other in that way.In fact that's all we ever hear in Earth Science is how everything happened millions of years ago.
Not necessarily. There is a chemistry professor at my university for example, who is very religiously Christian, and yet a firm supporter of science. How he interprets it, is that '6 days' does not necessarily correspond to what we experience as 6 days. Each day could technically be millions of years long. So the bible would still be right, but our literal interpretation of it may not be correct. I have heard quite a few people who interpret it as this way. It is a harmonious blending of religion and science, without one negating the truth of the other.
No theres not there are some christians who believe in evolution but the majority do not
As you will see from my word choice, I said 'many', not 'most' or 'majority'. So in no way did I say more Christians believe in evolution than not. Pay closer attention to word use before attacking it.
Not necessarily. There is a chemistry professor at my university for example, who is very religiously Christian, and yet a firm supporter of science. How he interprets it, is that '6 days' does not necessarily correspond to what we experience as 6 days. Each day could technically be millions of years long. So the bible would still be right, but our literal interpretation of it may not be correct. I have heard quite a few people who interpret it as this way. It is a harmonious blending of religion and science, without one negating the truth of the other.
The 5,000 year date actually came from some biblical scholars adding up all the "begats" in the Old Testament. Before that...no written records...
The 5,000 year date actually came from some biblical scholars adding up all the "begats" in the Old Testament. Before that...no written records...
because theres is nothing before it
No, we DO have things before it.
We have precursors to the one of the earliest forms of writing, cuneiform, dating back from the 4th millenium B.C.E, or 6,000 years ago.
Logically, there were people before writing developed, so...
We have precursors to the one of the earliest forms of writing, cuneiform, dating back from the 4th millenium B.C.E, or 6,000 years ago.
I'm saying around 5,00 years but more realisticaly it could be from 5,000-8,000 years
We have precursors to the one of the earliest forms of writing, cuneiform, dating back from the 4th millenium B.C.E, or 6,000 years ago.
Yup. This was around the time that the tale of Gilgamesh was being told. I don't think it was written down for another two thousand years or something like that though.
because theres is nothing before it
All the guy did was add up the dates that are listed in Genesis for how long everyone lived.
Pretty sure cave drawings came before writing existed...
Pretty sure cave drawings came before writing existed...
We dont know how old they are and people drew on walls in pompeii as far as we know it could be something like this
You must be logged in to post a reply!