Topic: Should The Bible Be Taught in Science Class?

[Gideon Brown]

Honestly, Creationism should not be taught in Public schools, because Chrisianity, Judaism, and Islam are not the only religions out there (Yes, Islam's God is the same God as the Christian God). If you are going to study theories of how life came to be, you must also go over theories for Buddhism, Hinduism, aboriginal religions, Sikhism, the list goes on... Whereas, in a Christian or Catholic school, I'd say Creationism should be taught, if the teacher so wishes. But I went to a Catholic school, and they taught evolution. :|
Not everyone believes the same theories. Whereas the Bible is just a book written by a man 'under the influence of God', evolution has been picked at by numerous scientists, studied, and tested. At least evolution is devoid of all religion, and so not one religion should be able to get its panties in a knot about it being taught. I don't hear Hindus complaining about it...

[carterhawk]

These are the defininitions as I was taught them of the stages of the scientific process.

Hypothesis: An idea formed from observation that hasn't been tested much yet.

Theory: An idea that has been tested but not enough data is present to make it unquestionable.

Law: An idea that has been tested for many years and has been confirmed consistently by the data.


By these definitions it can be said that both ideas are theories and theories only. Since they are contesting theories I think they should be taught in classes so that students can make a choice as to which they believe. Also teaching them together will help teach rational organized thought to the students which is something that is invaluable.

[snapback]279422[/snapback]

There are soo many theories though, String theory, Quantum Theory, General Realtivity, Gravity Theory, Evolutionary Theory, Global Warming, Music Theory.

And what makes all these different from Laws, like the Law of gravity, is that they explain the how and why, whereas a law defines the existance.

Taking the most famous case of newton, his Law of Universal Gravitation defines the existance of gravity.  Force of gravity is related to an objects mass, etc. But newton could not explain what caused it.

Einstien developed his Theory of Special Relativity, which defines the Why of gravity, That mass dents the universe and stuff falls into these dents, which explains why the force of gravity is related to an objects mass.

On that note, Intelligent Design is not a theory on the grounds that it can not be disproven. The guiding force is unkown and unknowable, like God. Because it can not be disproven, it can not be called a theory, and is thus not comparable to evolution.

[joseph]

A theory can be disproven or proved. Hence why it's still a theory not a law.

[carterhawk]

A theory can be disproven or proved. Hence why it's still a theory not a law.

[snapback]279433[/snapback]

no.....
a theory never becomes a law. a law is an observable occurance. a theory explains why that occurance occured.

This realy is an underlying problem in debating evolution vs intelligent design, is we have to standardize our definitions of what everything is.

[Daniel]

(Yes, Islam's God is the same God as the Christian God). .

[snapback]279426[/snapback]

No they are not. Thay have alot wackier beliefs than we do. Our God doesn't tell us to "kill all infedels." Our god doesn't teach that women have no rights, and that they are property.

[Lil Loco]

A theory can be disproven or proved. Hence why it's still a theory not a law.

[snapback]279433[/snapback]

no.....
a theory never becomes a law. a law is an observable occurance. a theory explains why that occurance occured.

This realy is an underlying problem in debating evolution vs intelligent design, is we have to standardize our definitions of what everything is.

[snapback]279434[/snapback]

L O L

Entire volumes have been and are being written on this particular subject, which is more in the realm of philosophy than science. A theory can be either a very limited or a very broad explanation of a particular set of facts, an explanation that describes the relationship between previously unexplained or noncohesive facts and ideas. It unifies, into a usually brief statement, how something works. It often specifies the mechanism of how some process of nature is working, although mechanism may only be a part of the overall phenomenon. If a hypothesis is a proposed explanation of how some process works, then a theory is a hypothesis for which some substantial supporting data has been obtained. However, as noted above, a theory can be very narrow (how a single type of small process works) or very broad (e.g., the theory of evolution, a very complicated process indeed).

A law is, to my mind, simply a very, very broad and very very important theory for which we have very very good data and which applies to many, many aspects of our world. Thus the Laws of Thermodynamics or in chemistry the Laws of Mass Action (notice the capital letters, which laws tend to be stated in, for emphasis), apply not only to physical chemistry and chemistry in general, but to physics, biology, perhaps even economics. We also have very good data that these laws are obeyed universally and have detailed knowledge of their mechanisms. In contrast, a theory, though widely accepted may lack some crucial details of mechanism. For example, although the evidence that evolution has and is occurring is incontrovertible, the actual mechanism by which evolution occurs is under intense debate, and indeed, evolution probably occurs via multiple interacting mechanisms.

Put succinctly, a theory is a Law that hasn't been around long enough or doesn't yet have enough data to become a Law.

theory can become law.

[Daniel]

Am I the only one that noticed the first option is pro-evolution too?

[VulturEMaN]

In my Elementary Education classes, I'm going to explain both views to the kids, and then tell them that I believe that God created evolution.

In other words, I am dead center with all beliefs and support both causes.

[carterhawk]

Loco, your quoting a Pharmacist?
Seriously, a guy who mixes drugs is going to be an expert on scientific theory.

okay then.....

[Daniel]

And I assume you are a brilliant mind on scientific theory?

[Lil Loco]

i think you're gonna find this little argument will go no where, seeing as we're obviously on different pagez as far as context of the word goes.  oh and just so you know, maguire also taught in the fieldz of biology, molecular biology, microbiology, and on and on...not that he comparez to your infinite knowledge of everything.

[IceFox]

Without going off-subject...


Intelligent Design should be taught in schools. As should Evoloution. You should be able to choose without getting biased views on the subject.


Lynne, I have been taught bits of religion in ther public school I attended, and in homeschool. I have learned about Buddhism, Hindu, and multiple others. I cann pull up my History book right now, and cite articles of text about that, if I need to.

As for gravity, gravity is a proven fact. Also, gravity has NOTHING, and I repeat NOTHING to do with the evoloution/religion. Evoloution is a theory. And should be taught as one. Intelligent Design also should be taught. In my text books I am being taught it as it were a fact, even though it is not proven (And really can't be proven). If you want to say gravity is a theory, go ahead, it has nothing to do with this debate.

[Elizabeth Rose]

Absolutely, positively, 100% yes.

[snapback]279308[/snapback]

Fixed.

[snapback]279311[/snapback]

The Bible isn't scientific.

Would you mind if I taught evolution in your church?

[snapback]279313[/snapback]

Actually, in my church they did teach evolution.  Mind you, it was why it's fnerked up idea, but it was still taught.

Honestly, Creationism should not be taught in Public schools, because Chrisianity, Judaism, and Islam are not the only religions out there (Yes, Islam's God is the same God as the Christian God). If you are going to study theories of how life came to be, you must also go over theories for Buddhism, Hinduism, aboriginal religions, Sikhism, the list goes on... Whereas, in a Christian or Catholic school, I'd say Creationism should be taught, if the teacher so wishes. But I went to a Catholic school, and they taught evolution. :|
Not everyone believes the same theories. Whereas the Bible is just a book written by a man 'under the influence of God', evolution has been picked at by numerous scientists, studied, and tested. At least evolution is devoid of all religion, and so not one religion should be able to get its panties in a knot about it being taught. I don't hear Hindus complaining about it...

[snapback]279426[/snapback]

Well, since most religions believe in a form of Creationism, I feel that it should just be said that according to many theories a higher being created the earth.  Sure, it was God, but hey, if you say that a god, somewhere somehow, created the earth, then all religions are pretty much happy.

And Allah is not God. x.x

Loco, your quoting a Pharmacist?
Seriously, a guy who mixes drugs is going to be an expert on scientific theory.

okay then.....

[snapback]279441[/snapback]

Ok, expert.   I am sure YOU know everything there is to know.

And there is no option for me in this poll, unless there is a "this thread is BS" option...

[Roger]

Am I the only one that noticed the first option is pro-evolution too?

[snapback]279438[/snapback]

And there is no option for me in this poll, unless there is a "this thread is BS" option...

[snapback]279454[/snapback]

Exact reasoning behind me not casting a vote.

[Gideon Brown]

(Yes, Islam's God is the same God as the Christian God). .

[snapback]279426[/snapback]

No they are not. Thay have alot wackier beliefs than we do. Our God doesn't tell us to "kill all infedels." Our god doesn't teach that women have no rights, and that they are property.

[snapback]279435[/snapback]

Listen, the Qur'an has nothing to do with their God being different than Christianiaty's. It's their prophets and your prophets saying different things. Mohammad, founder of Islam was a direct descendant of ABRAHAM who was the 'first' person to believe in ONE diety. It was HE who cast out his wife's slave girl, and HIS son, because his wife suddenly conceived. ABRAHAM is one of the leading PROPHETS of CHRISTIANITY. If you can not accept that another religion was born because of his cruel ways to his SLAVE, then you're worse than the nun who TAUGHT me this.