DescentBB

Have you ever noticed that the atheists are fine with government schools supposed \"lack of religion\". There is a very simple answer for this. Only their religion is being taught. However government is very careful not to call it that, instead they call it science.

It helps to understand what science actually is to understand what is happening. Science is not a sea of daydreams. Science is an idea that is proven through experimentation to be the truth. Take the pull of gravity for example.

Issac Newton proved that the force of gravity causes objects to accelerate toward Earth at the same speed regardless of weight. This can be proven through experimentation by dropping objects of different weight and checking if both hit the ground at the same time. As you can see we have the idea and tests to prove it. That is science.

Science requires ideas to be “falsifiable”. Say for example someone said that a billion years ago the moon was made of cheese then turned to what it is today. There is no scientific way to prove that statement wrong since there are no experiments that can be done to prove or disprove it. It is unfalsifiable therefore is not science. You may be thinking that since there is no example of this happening before no one would ever believe it. You would be correct in that it never happened before but that doesn't stop the “scientific” community from coming up with nonsense just like this that never happened either. If someone still believed that the moon was once cheese it could be called a religious view because it is based on faith not science.

It is important to understand the difference between faith and science. Science must be able to be proven through experimentation (falsifiable) and faith has no such requirement. In other words, science requires proof and faith does not. Faith is the basis for religion. This is not saying that views requiring faith are untrue it is just simply stating that ideas that require faith are not science.

Look at some of the religious views taught in government schools masquerading as \"science\". All these are part of the “evolution religion package” that atheists fight ferociously to keep in their churches known as government schools:

The big bang. This is where nothing explodes and here we are. It is loony to think this is science but it is being taught as such. Just try to do an experiment to prove that one!

Star evolution. Somehow when nothing exploded it started clumping then lit itself and created a star. How nice. People have observed many star deaths but no star births. Once again no proof.

Life from death. Somehow, a long time ago, some of Earth's rocky surface cooled and turned into life. It reads like a fairy tail because it is. Life is so complex no one has ever created life out of non living things much less having life create itself.

Animal evolution. An amoeba, no wait, a bacteria, whatever, it doesn't really matter, got feisty and had kids that were something else and so on and so on until man. This one is easier to mislead people into believing since offspring don't look exactly like their parents and small changes within a kind have occurred. However no one has ever witnessed a change from one kind to another. For example a dog changing into a giraffe or pine tree. It is important to realize that dogs and farm animals have been selectively bred for centuries and they are still dogs, cows, pigs, etc. Animal evolution takes faith to believe but some people refuse to acknowledge it. As the Bible says “No one is more blind than those that refuse to see.” Science: small changes within a kind have been observed. Faith: They can change to another kind. This is known as a “leap of faith” Remember that science does not require faith.

As you can see atheism is taught religiously in government schools and there is an army of lawyers ready to fight to keep their religion in your face using your tax dollars.

Look at this from another angle. What is taught in government's high schools that contradicts atheism? Nothing. That should tell it all right there.

The only solution to this mess is to abolish government schools and all government involvement in education entirely. Anytime government is involved the children will be caught in a war between government and parents. That is not how education is supposed to be. Parents have a right to educate their children any way they like without being attacked by government or having their property taken away from them to pay for a school they don't want to use.

Don't be fooled by the “help the poor” nonsense that is used to promote government schools. That could easily be handled through home schooling, scholarships and charity. Also the “right to an education” nonsense is foolish too since there are plenty of people that don't get an eduction in government schools either despite them attending it.

Remember the only thing mandatory about government schools is that you must pay for them, learning is beside the point. Government schools should be ended at once so learning can begin again in the United States without government coercion.

Actually “Science” is “The Study of”…so there goes that theory.

And, if it’s easier to believe that life was started by magic…knock yourself out.

Spidey wrote:Actually “Science” is “The Study of”…so there goes that theory.

If that was the case then the "Study of God" would be permitted in government schools.

Atheists want everyone to believe that anything that does not involve God is science so their religion looks like science.

thwart wrote:

Spidey wrote:Actually “Science” is “The Study of”…so there goes that theory.

If that was the case then the "Study of God" would be permitted in government schools.

Atheists want everyone to believe that anything that does not involve God is science so their religion looks like science.

That is the definition of "theology".

Duper wrote:

thwart wrote:
If that was the case then the "Study of God" would be permitted in government schools.

That is the definition of "theology".

I wonder what the "Study of Atheism" is called? Oh yeah, evolution

Science is the study of theory, some of it proven some of it not but all of it belongs to everyone and no one is excluded from it regardless of their belief or skepticism and it is practiced by most cultures and countries so it is secular and nondiscriminatory as well as being a quest for raw knowledge of our environment instead of a quest for understanding of a divine being.

Science is not like a religion it is the measurement and understanding of everything including religion.

Thwart, you're being intentionally ignorant. A simple pass through wikipedia would have set anything that you said straight. I'm going to take a quick stab at doing it myself, but I hope that someone with a much stronger background in astronomy (and much more patience) will come and do a much better job than me.

thwart wrote:Science is not a sea of daydreams. Science is an idea that is proven through experimentation to be the truth.

Science lacks a mechanism for proving anything true. This has been repeatedly discussed ad nauseam by others and myself on the DBB.

thwart wrote:The big bang. This is where nothing explodes and here we are. It is loony to think this is science but it is being taught as such. Just try to do an experiment to prove that one!

Easily. For instance, the big bang predicts that, when the universe was very young, it was really, really hot and opaque. Hot, opaque bodies emit black body radiation, radiation consistent with a black body spectrum. So, if the big bang theory is correct, we should expect to measure black body radiation in every direction that we look for it.

And, in fact, we do witness such a thing--cosmic microwave background radiation, a nearly perfect black body spectrum, something we see in every direction that we look for it. This suggests that the entire universe was, a long time ago, really, really hot and opaque, consistent with the big bang theory.

I mean, how would *you* explain cosmological background radiation?

thwart wrote:Star evolution. Somehow when nothing exploded it started clumping then lit itself and created a star. How nice. People have observed many star deaths but no star births. Once again no proof.

All star birth is is when gravity collects a large enough of a mass to undergo nuclear fusion in its core from the heat created from the compression of the gas. I mean, if you accept the science that tells us how living stars work and how stars die, then you have to accept the science that tells us how stars are born. It's the exact same science.

If you don't think that that is how stars were formed, then why do we find young stars in dense, molecular clouds (a.k.a. stellar nurseries)? I mean, how would *you* explain that?

-----

Thwart, for more information on these topics, look up "Big Bang," "Stellar Evolution," and "Cosmic Background Radiation" on Wikipedia (or your preferred resource). They provide more than ample information, much more than I could hope to write about in a DBB post. Dare to learn!

Will Robinson wrote:Science is the study of theory, some of it proven some of it not but all of it belongs to everyone and no one is excluded from it regardless of their belief or skepticism and it is practiced by most cultures and countries so it is secular and nondiscriminatory as well as being a quest for raw knowledge of our environment instead of a quest for understanding of a divine being.

Science is not like a religion it is the measurement and understanding of everything including religion.

In government schools only one religion is allowed to be discussed and that is atheism. Government school "science" teaches it and nothing else. That is the topic of this thread and the point I am trying to make.

Having evolution in government schools is nothing but recruitment for the atheism religion. Intelligent design is not even allowed and that doesn't even have to include God. As you can see not all scientific theories are allowed in government schools. However ones that support atheistic beliefs MUST be taught or out come the lawyers.

Say for example one person was teaching atheism to another. Would evolution come up? You know it and can bet there would be a long discussion about it. I don't know how much clearer it can be. Nothing taught in government high schools contradicts atheistic beliefs because that is the modern day government religion. There is nothing "secular" about evolution because it teaches a religion called atheism (or humanism).

Having a theory that can never be proven is not science. That is like saying experimentation is not needed in science anymore because someone has a daydream and we all must learn about it. I don't see why it is so difficult to some to accept that.

Jeff250 wrote:Thwart, you're being intentionally ignorant. A simple pass through wikipedia would have set anything that you said straight.

It's funny how you mentioned wikipedia since their board is composed of evolutionists and they get hostile when anyone brings up creation. Just look up creation there and you will see what I mean.

Jeff250 wrote:Science lacks a mechanism for proving anything true. This has been repeatedly discussed ad nauseam by others and myself on the DBB.

We will have to agree to disagree. See my discussion on gravity. Gravity is science, evolution daydreams are not.

Jeff250 wrote:For instance, the big bang predicts that, when the universe was very young, it was really, really hot and opaque.

What was very hot. Nothing? Remember there was nothing in the beginning and now there was something. If there was something in the beginning what created it? How did it get hot? Magic?

Jeff250 wrote:All star birth is is when gravity collects a large enough of a mass to undergo nuclear fusion in its core from the heat created from the compression of the gas. I mean, if you accept the science that tells us how living stars work and how stars die, then you have to accept the science that tells us how stars are born. It's the exact same science.

I accept very little on what comes from "scientists" today because most of them are on the government dole and are in lock step with the government's religion. As for stars forming being the same thing as exploding that really doesn't make sense. A human creates a light bulb and it burns out. Not the same thing.

Jeff250 wrote:If you don't think that that is how stars were formed, then why do we find young stars in dense, molecular clouds (a.k.a. stellar nurseries)? I mean, how would *you* explain that?

Do you realize you are ASSUMING they are young stars? I repeat myself "No one has seen a star form" however several star deaths have been observed.

I really didn't intend this thread to be a lesson in why evolution is false just a discussion to see that it is a religious belief (aka requires faith) and is the only faith allowed in government schools.

I will use my gravity example again and maybe it will sink in this time. Someone can prove gravity is real. Evolution cannot be proven. *Please* try to see the difference.

so why use evolution to bash all of science?

“I mean, how would *you* explain cosmological background radiation?”

There is enough “stuff” (cosmological activity) going on in all directions, to explain the radiation coming in from all directions.

Sorry, I just never bought the big bang explaination as the only one for that.


So thwart, how do you explain me?

I’m not an atheist, but I do lean towards evolution.

.

I'll probably regret this...


Evolution is not the \"religion\" of atheism. Atheism is simply lacking belief in a deity. Do you believe in Zeus, Odin, Thor, Vishnu, Allah, Apollo, Rah? No? Then you are an atheist towards those dieties. I just take it one step further and don't believe in Jehovah either. My de-conversion from Christianity to atheism had nothing whatsover to do with the scientific theory of evolution, in fact, attending private Christian schools through 8th grade resulted in my scientific education being woefully lacking.

thwart wrote:We will have to agree to disagree.

Nope. All the scientific method does is show a contradiction or fail to show a contradiction. There is no way to prove something is true using the scientific method. To take your Newton/gravity example further, we later discovered that Netwon's law of gravitation is not correct, as Einstein showed us later that it is only a close approximation for the situations that we typically deal with on earth. Anything is up for reconsideration in science, which can't be the case if you've proven something is true.

thwart wrote:What was very hot. Nothing? Remember there was nothing in the beginning and now there was something. If there was something in the beginning what created it? How did it get hot? Magic?

What was very hot: the universe. I don't know where the big bang / the universe came from, but that isn't a question of science, since we don't believe that the physical laws existed until after the big bang, and science doesn't say anything about it. That is a metaphysical/religious/magic question. What we can do is use science to study the conditions after the big bang once the physical laws went into effect. And things like cosmic background radiation point to a hot, opaque early universe.

Simple science:
The big bang theory predicts cosmic background radiation.
Creationism does not predict cosmic background radiation.

thwart wrote:Do you realize you are ASSUMING they are young stars? I repeat myself "No one has seen a star form" however several star deaths have been observed.

One way to determine the age of a star cluster is to see how many short-lived stars that there are in it. Brighter, more massive stars burn out much more quickly, so, if we see them, then we know that there must have been recent star formation (recent on the order of millions of years).

Seriously, look into this stuff. It is so cool and interesting. I personally wish that I had more time to study it.

Spidey wrote:“I mean, how would *you* explain cosmological background radiation?”

There is enough “stuff” (cosmological activity) going on in all directions, to explain the radiation coming in from all directions.

Sorry, I just never bought the big bang explaination as the only one for that.

If there is enough of such stuff, then where and what is it?

There are (at least) two things unique about the cosmic background radiation: it is uniform and forms a near perfect black body spectrum.

For instance, when we look at the visible spectrum (i.e. look at the night sky), we don't see uniform radiation. There are a lot of places, namely in between stars, where we don't see anything. There are no doubt stars there if we were able to look back far enough, but radiation dissipates proportional to distance squared, which is why the night sky isn't just a uniform light source.

But unlike stars in the sky, we see cosmic background radiation uniformly *everywhere*.

I also don't think that a bunch of stuff contributing to radiation would form a near perfect black body spectrum, but I'm not sophisticated enough to make that argument. A near perfect black body spectrum more likely suggests that there was just one thing really hot acting as a black body radiator.

The evidence suggests that the radiation is from everywhere but from one thing. The early, hot universe seems like a good candidate to me.

thwart wrote:In government schools only one religion is allowed to be discussed and that is atheism. Government school "science" teaches it and nothing else. That is the topic of this thread and the point I am trying to make.

Well if that is your point then you are simply wrong because I learned about many religions in government schools and atheism received no more coverage than any of them...less actually because atheists had little impact on history so they didn't come up often.
I didn't receive any instruction on how to belong to any religion but the lack of that instruction doesn't translate into instruction on how to be an atheist any more than a lack of instruction in German language translated into the school trying to teach me to reject multilingualism.

“Sorry, I just never bought the big bang explanation as the “only” one for that.”

I will admit that it is the best one so far, and was predicted.

I’m sorry, but my skeptical side comes out every now and then…especially when talking about things like the beginning of the universe.

Flatlander wrote:I'll probably regret this...


Evolution is not the "religion" of atheism. Atheism is simply lacking belief in a deity. Do you believe in Zeus, Odin, Thor, Vishnu, Allah, Apollo, Rah? No? Then you are an atheist towards those dieties. I just take it one step further and don't believe in Jehovah either. My de-conversion from Christianity to atheism had nothing whatsover to do with the scientific theory of evolution, in fact, attending private Christian schools through 8th grade resulted in my scientific education being woefully lacking.

no Flat. You would be pagan, not atheist. Atheism believes in no god at all.

Well, be careful. Don't confuse atheism with simple lack of religion. Atheism is not the simple absence of belief in God -- that would be mere agnosticism -- but the positive theological statement that God does not exist. Government schools do not teach this, nor will they ever. If they did, do you think you wouldn't hear about it? That the same Christian culture that can raise all hue and cry about Harry Potter and Dungeons & Dragons and Gay Marriage wouldn't be screaming about it?

Relax. Schools are as theologically neutral as they can be. The only time I've ever heard a teacher come close to claiming God didn't exist was during a Philosophy 101 class (where classical arguments for and against the existence of God are part of the course).

And the relationship between evolution and atheism is complex. On the one hand, atheism definitely embraces evolution; I'd go so far as to say it's their creation myth (and by myth, I don't mean \"lie\", I mean \"history you cast yourself in\"). But that implication doesn't run the other way. There are plenty of folks who embrace evolution to one degree or another who aren't atheists. That's especially true if you include stuff like the big bang* and stellar evolution. That catches all the old earth creationists at least, which -- going off the cuff, I don't have numbers -- is something like half of Christians in the US.

What makes it ticklish is that an event can be part of religious mythology and also verifiable history. Take, for example, the rebirth of Israel in 1948. There are a lot of Christians who think that event fulfills old testament prophecy and has apocalyptic implications. But for other folks, it's just a simple, verifiable historical event. That makes it completely appropriate to talk about in a history class.

That's kind of where evolution is. The fact that it's a sacred story for some, and that it directly contradicts a sacred story for others, doesn't mean it's not also \"just history\".

Sure, there's popular controversy about whether evolution is true. Depending on your perspective, you might say there's academic controversy, too. But academically, it really is the reigning theory at the moment. You can blame academics for being wrong, but you can't really blame schools for teaching what the scientists claim. It's not a stealth atheism thing or a political thing; it really is a case of trying to give students a scientific education.

There's a larger, more disturbing question lurking under the debate, though. Whether you think evolution is true or false, you can't deny that for a sizeable chunk of the population, we're in a situation where the government is teaching kids that their parents' religion is false. That's a pretty big affront to religious liberty, isn't it? Effectively saying that, unless you're rich, you can't educate your kids according to your ideological beliefs and traditions?

I'm not saying evolution shouldn't be taught in schools, just that it's a little alarming that government has more say in it than parents do. That's why intelligent design is such a political football, isn't it? Some folks are afraid of schools teaching something they find ideologically offensive, while others think they're suffering under schools that already do that, and just want their own worldview to get a little air time.

If you ask me, it's none of the government's business how kids are educated. Catholics should be raised as Catholics, Muslims as Muslims, Liberals as Liberals, Atheists as Atheists, and so on. If a parent wants an ideologically neutral education or a mainstream scientific education, they should be able to shop for one. Asking politicians to provide one for everyone isn't working so far, though -- it's just offending and annoying everyone.


-----------------------

*Tangential, historical note: I think it's pretty funny that some Christians object to the big bang. First of all, ridicule aside, the science really is pretty good. But second of all, it's funny given the history of the theory. A hundred years ago, the reigning cosmological model was the steady state model: the universe was static, eternal, self-existent, and needed no explanation. As the science began to mount that it had a definite beginning, one of the main objections to the big bang was that the theory would be a big win for creationists. I mean, they were expecting a moment of creation and then the scientists went and found one.

That doesn't mean atheists don't have explanations. They do. But on the whole, they're a lot more awkward than the very straightforward one Christians can give. This is one place where the science is good, and it's very friendly to Christians, so I always think it's funny how loud some of them protest.

HAHAHAHAHA @ birth of stars, in original post.
I stopped reading there. I want my time back!!!

Drak sorry. should have been more specific. You are (of course) correct. I used lower case "g" so as to refer to "God" exclusively. but any theos in general.

The only time I've ever heard a teacher come close to claiming God didn't exist was during a Philosophy 101 class (where classical arguments for and against the existence of God are part of the course).

Also true. My argument (and I know you weren't singling me out) was:

Duper wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:...

thwart wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:However, I want .. no creationism in schools.

What you are really saying is that you want your religion in government schools but no one else's. This is why government schools must be abolished. Not only do they not educate but every topic turns into a political debate with the children as pawns.

I don't want any form of religious discussion taught in schools no matter who's they are.

Bee

THAT would also include evolution. Trust me. it's its own religion. And it's rammed down every childs' throat.

From the "Obama’s Well Organized Community Is Falling Apart" thread.

Duper wrote:no Flat. You would be pagan, not atheist. Atheism believes in no god at all.

I don't see where I said I believed in a god. Atheism is lack of belief in god.

Drakona wrote:

-----------------------

*Tangential, historical note: I think it's pretty funny that some Christians object to the big bang. First of all, ridicule aside, the science really is pretty good. But second of all, it's funny given the history of the theory. A hundred years ago, the reigning cosmological model was the steady state model: the universe was static, eternal, self-existent, and needed no explanation. As the science began to mount that it had a definite beginning, one of the main objections to the big bang was that the theory would be a big win for creationists. I mean, they were expecting a moment of creation and then the scientists went and found one.

But is the science good? Didn't the original big bang theory predict through the law of entropy that all ejecta would one day come to a stop, reverse direction and via gravitational forces fall back to a new central point where-upon a new big bang would generate? Contrary to this we now see the ejecta in fact speeding up and not slowing down. The question is....what is causing the increase in speed?

They need to teach Scientology in schools!

Get audited!

Flatlander wrote:

Duper wrote:no Flat. You would be pagan, not atheist. Atheism believes in no god at all.

I don't see where I said I believed in a god. Atheism is lack of belief in god.

Doh! You're totally right Flat. i apologize. I didn't read your post well enough. ...

Duper wrote:Doh! You're totally right Flat. i apologize. I didn't read your post well enough. ...

No problem

Spidey wrote:“Sorry, I just never bought the big bang explanation as the “only” one for that.”

I will admit that it is the best one so far, and was predicted.

I’m sorry, but my skeptical side comes out every now and then…especially when talking about things like the beginning of the universe.

There is talk amongst learned people now that proposes that when one dimension brushes against another, a big bang occurs. I have long thought that the Universe is big enough for "countless" big bangs, and therefore universes to exist within it. Now this "theory" is seeing more light, so to speak, amongst astrophysicists.

Sorry too many episodes of "The Universe" on discovery I have watched.

Let me cover some things brought up so far.

Atheism is not a religion: Well that is splitting hairs in my opinion. It takes faith to believe that everything created itself. If it makes more sense to you just use Humanism for every time I said atheism. To me they are the same. If someone wants to discuss this further please start another thread.

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.

Let me try to divide the arguments against my original point into 2 groups. Please try to respond only to these so we can keep the discussion focused to the topic \"Teaching atheism in government schools\". Otherwise people will be going out on tangents and no progress will be made.

1) Evolution is true therefore it must be taught.

In order for something to be true it must be proven true through experimentation. 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)

I'll save some time if someone decides to go with the \"it was already here\" nonsense. I about fell on the floor when someone used that argument before. That is a religious belief since it requires a complete disregard for time. Everything must have a beginning and end in the physical word. To compare the two:

-In the beginning there was God
-In the beginning there was dirt

Both are obviously religious beliefs. If someone can't grasp that it is like insisting that a square is a circle.

2) Science is just the study of daydreams.

If that is the case then there can be no tests that a student can be graded on about a topic that cannot be proven true. Think about it for a moment. The underlying idea cannot be proven true so there is no truth to any questions that are asked about it. There must always be an answer that says \"it didn't happen\" or \"none of the above\" that must always be correct also.

If you only give a correct answer to a student if they answer what the daydream says than you are implying that the daydream is correct. That is called indoctrination. The only way for a student to correctly answer a question is to acknowledge the daydream to be correct. If the daydream can be construed as a religious belief they are teaching religion. If the daydream contradicts the students religious belief and substitutes another then they are trying to change that student's religious belief. Just look at the fireworks if they try to teach about the global flood.

We already have reading comprehension that can be used for questions about fiction. There is no reason to use evolution as the topic and that belongs in English class anyway.

Also look who's beliefs are taught in schools. Only ones that coincides with atheism. Other religious beliefs are not permitted. Even Intelligent Design is forbidden because it could be construed to contradict atheistic beliefs. Can you see what is happening here? I don't know how much more obvious it can be. They might as well put a sign out front that says \"Government High, School of Atheism\".
---

If we can conclude these two points with intelligent discussion we will discuss others if needed to prove/disprove the original point. I believe any other view points that may be brought up will be resolved by a conclusion on the above points.

Atheism is only a religon if it's taken as fact and not a theory. They're teaching religon if that's \"how it is\" as opposed to constantly reminding students \"this is how it could've happened\". Because evolution is so widely accepted and is the basis for many scientific fields, it SHOULD be taught in schools, but in the \"this is how it could've happened\" category.

Religon, should be taken care of by the parents. We have weekends that are great for this. Growing up with a minister father was one of the best things that ever happened to me because it gave me a great knowledge of the Bible which's come in handy. The same should be considered with evolution.

What's important is the distinction between science and dogma.

Here is a nice simple chart showing the scientific method.

Please show me the experiment done that ended in true that supports the big bang hypothesis that matter came from nothing.

SilverFJ wrote:Atheism is only a religon if it's taken as fact and not a theory. They're teaching religon if that's "how it is" as opposed to constantly reminding students "this is how it could've happened". Because evolution is so widely accepted and is the basis for many scientific fields, it SHOULD be taught in schools, but in the "this is how it could've happened" category.

Religon, should be taken care of by the parents. We have weekends that are great for this. Growing up with a minister father was one of the best things that ever happened to me because it gave me a great knowledge of the Bible which's come in handy. The same should be considered with evolution.

What's important is the distinction between science and dogma.

I'm not sure where this fits between the 2 points I am trying to limit discussion to. It is 1)"Evolution is true therefore it must be taught" or 2)"Science is just the study of daydreams"?

Please try to understand if everyone goes on different tangents no progress will be made. We can get to other points later. Right now I want to limit it to 1 and 2.

Yes, my lord.

1) Evolution, whether true or not, should be taught.

2) Science is the study of reality, which might be a daydream. That's gunna split your thread into metaphysics

SilverFJ wrote: 1) Evolution, whether true or not, should be taught.

You didn't answer "Evolution is true therefore it must be taught" If you think the big bang is true you need to answer...

thwart wrote:Please show me the experiment done that ended in true that supports the big bang hypothesis that matter came from nothing.

SilverFJ wrote:2) Science is the study of reality, which might be a daydream.

If that is the case then Creation must be taught also. Only teaching the atheist's point of view is promoting their religion only.

speaking of theories.. anyone try and discount the theory of relativity or quantum entanglement with something from the bible?

Ok, lemme say, I'm a Christian.
And you have to step around the subject a little bit to answer it, with an open mind. I don't believe evolution is true, but I think they should teach the \"theory of evolution\". If they stress it's a theory, that's okay. But if you want Christ in schools, you'd have to teach it as the theory of Christianity, and I'd rather have real belief taught outside of the schools.

Then you'd have to learn about Hindus, and Muslims, and Lord Xanu from Scientolgia, and Mumbo-jumbo from the Congo, and imagine how you'd freak out it your kid got taught voodoo in class.

SilverFJ wrote:Ok, lemme say, I'm a Christian.
And you have to step around the subject a little bit to answer it, with an open mind. I don't believe evolution is true, but I think they should teach the "theory of evolution". If they stress it's a theory, that's okay. But if you want Christ in schools, you'd have to teach it as the theory of Christianity, and I'd rather have real belief taught outside of the schools.

Then you'd have to learn about Hindus, and Muslims, and Lord Xanu from Scientolgia, and Mumbo-jumbo from the Congo, and imagine how you'd freak out it your kid got taught voodoo in class.

I agree with what you are saying also to a point. I don't want government anywhere near Christianity. However I don't want them anywhere near Atheism or any other religion either.

The problem comes when they teach evolution in science like it is fact. They are not allowed to discuss any real criticism of it. Doing so would end up with teaching intelligent design. So the only way to avoid teaching religion is to avoid discussing evolution at all. It needs to be either both or none. I prefer none.

This is why government schools should be eliminated and private schools must be free to teach whatever religion they like.

Ferno wrote:speaking of theories.. anyone try and discount the theory of relativity or quantum entanglement with something from the bible?

Smarty pants

You assume every teacher does so as fact... At least half of my teachers presented it and referred to it as theory.

.

thwart wrote:1) Evolution is true therefore it must be taught.

In order for something to be true it must be proven true through experimentation.

You already know that the scientific method cannot prove anything true. If you've proven something true, then you can never consider that it is wrong. But there is nothing like that in science, and everything is open to consideration. If you expect proof of something for it to be science, then you are holding the bar impossibly high and are actually in contradiction of what science is. Everything in science is a theory.

After how many experiments do you know that what you are testing will always be true in all future tests in all possible environments? You can't exhaust all possible experiments. Take a look again at your original example of Netwon's law of gravitation. You said that he proved his law of gravitation, but, as it turned out, it was only an approximation of a special case of what we now currently believe is true about gravity.

thwart wrote: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)

I'll save some time if someone decides to go with the "it was already here" nonsense. I about fell on the floor when someone used that argument before. That is a religious belief since it requires a complete disregard for time.

The big bang theory doesn't say where the matter came from. And, in fact, you are correct that where the matter came from can be considered a religious belief--I said as much myself. But, again, the big bang theory, the science part, does not say anything about where the matter came from. With the big bang theory, we use scientific observation, such as cosmic background radiation, to make inferences about the earliest conditions of our universe *after* the big bang, *after* physical laws were in operation, at least as we know them.

But you seem to keep getting hung up on that, with the big bang theory, we eventually get to a point that we cannot (currently) scientifically explain... But I'm comfortable with this. Science doesn't have to explain everything. It never claimed to do that. I'm content with accepting the science that describes the early state of our universe and leaving the question of where everything *ultimately* came from to my nonscientific pondering.

edit:

Perhaps this is echoing Drakona's post, but, even if the world were created 6000 years ago ex nihilo by God, wouldn't you still expect science to be able to take us so far in understanding the history of our universe before just hitting a brick wall? I mean, if you object to the idea of science eventually hitting a brick wall, then what is your better alternative?