I'm a Christian. And I don't "believe" in evolution. I do, however, accept evolution. It is, hands down, the best current explanation for the data that we have from multiple fields of study.thwart wrote:What about if a Christian believes in evolution: Because a religious belief is used between multiple faiths does not mean it is not a religious belief. Both Muslims and Christians believe in Creation and it is a religious belief. The only difference is almost all atheists refuse to admit that evolution is also a religious belief.
I'll be happy to accept any new theory that does a better job.
Evolution is science, therefore it should be taught in science class. (FIFY)1) Evolution is true therefore it must be taught.
In order for something to be true it must be proven true through experimentation.
Scientists do not prove things true; they prove them false. As a friend of mine says, "proof" only exists in mathematics and alcohol, or something to that effect.
A good theory of science will serve to explain the known data on a topic, and will also be able to make predictions. If the predictions of the theory are found to be true with further experimentation the theory is strengthened. If the predictions are false, then either the experiment had a problem, or the theory itself has a problem (perhaps both).
FTR, I have no problem at all with teaching about religion in the public schools. I don't see how students are to make sense of history, art, literature and many other topics unless they have some grounding in religious studies. You might as well be teaching a course in atmospheric science without telling the students about air.
But religion isn't part of science. So leave the evolution in the biology classrooms and go to other parts of the curriculum for implications, etc of religion.
Odd. This doesn't appear to be the Big Bang theory at all (even at Wikipedia).Lets limit this discussion to the big bang.
Show me where someone was able to create matter out of a complete vacuum. They haven't so the big bang is obviously a big (fill in the blank)
or this one,wiki article wrote:As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago[3]),
Clearly, cosmologists have a different idea of "nothing" than you do. If you want to criticize their view of nothing, then you'll need to find out a bit more about it.NASA WMAP page wrote:The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.
At any rate, the Big Bang theory, like any theory, is not the last word on the subject. When it fails to have explanatory or predictive power, scientists will have to come up with something else.
um, yeah. ok.2) Science is just the study of daydreams.
... {noise} ...