You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access
to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to start new topics, reply to conversations, privately message other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join RX8Club.com today!
Theories are ways of explaining things that you cannot physically see, but you know exist.
Electricity is a theory that we all rely upon. The atomic theory is the splitting of atoms. We know that is exists because we have nuclear weapons, but it is still a theory. The earth rotating around the sun is a scientific theory that we all accept as fact. Evolution is a theory and Darwin got it right. There is way too much evidence in the world outside our front doors to think otherwise.
Darwin got it right and it should be taught in schools.
i'm a christian myself and i find nothing wrong with teaching evolution. do i believe it all? no but i find it interesting to learn though. i had to learn it last semester here at Clemson and the only complaint that i had was that the test was too hard If someone wants to teach evolution, let them, they are not forcing people to believe in it. some people are just WAY too closed-minded.
Theories are ways of explaining things that you cannot physically see, but you know exist.
Electricity is a theory that we all rely upon. The atomic theory is the splitting of atoms. We know that is exists because we have nuclear weapons, but it is still a theory. The earth rotating around the sun is a scientific theory that we all accept as fact. Evolution is a theory and Darwin got it right. There is way too much evidence in the world outside our front doors to think otherwise.
Darwin got it right and it should be taught in schools.
right on. evolution is real and god let evolution happen. There are a lot of theories that could not possibly have been explained at biblical times that have explanations now, discounting truth is irrational.
Any school teaching the origin of our planet must teach Intelligent Design as well as Evolution - Both have at least 'some' hard evidence. Micro evolution happens all the time; that's consistant with, rather, not in violation of scripture. Macro evolution, on the other hand, has little supporting evidence. The theory of Macroevolution has many holes; and in my opinion is not intellectually satisfying as a method of how we all came to be.
This site seems biased a bit towards ID, however has some good information for those with an open mind
Any school teaching the origin of our planet must teach Intelligent Design as well as Evolution - Both have at least 'some' hard evidence. Micro evolution happens all the time; that's consistant with, rather, not in violation of scripture. Macro evolution, on the other hand, has little supporting evidence. The theory of Macroevolution has many holes; and in my opinion is not intellectually satisfying as a method of how we all came to be.
This site seems biased a bit towards ID, however has some good information for those with an open mind
but if you teach intelligent design you have to teach all religion's versions of it. (plus some of the eastern creation myths are pretty sweet, it would suck to miss out on them)
THEORY
the·o·ry Audio pronunciation of "theory" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
but if you teach intelligent design you have to teach all religion's versions of it. (plus some of the eastern creation myths are pretty sweet, it would suck to miss out on them)
Fine. Creationism simply makes more sense anyway...
[edit] On second thought..no, you don't. Teach Creation by Designer...then teach about the guesses of darwin.
Just two are fine. Anything beyond that can be handed down by parents.
Actually, as long as it isn't taken too far, teaching creationism in school might be a good thing. They should teach it in conjunction with evolution. That way, you can start kids off questioning generally accepted ideas, providing more chance for thought rather than rote memorization of what is considered "right." Plain out eliminating teaching evolution theory in schools, however, is wrong, I feel. The process of science is trying to disprove theories. You can't prove anything with scientific method, you can only test situations to try to make the theory fail. The only problem I can really come up with is the mixture of religion with schools. Everyone gets so uppity about that. But, I think if you can teach creationism with an even mind and treat it as a theory like evolution, it could be a very good thing.
A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.
An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
Actually, as long as it isn't taken too far, teaching creationism in school might be a good thing. They should teach it in conjunction with evolution. That way, you can start kids off questioning generally accepted ideas, providing more chance for thought rather than rote memorization of what is considered "right." Plain out eliminating teaching evolution theory in schools, however, is wrong, I feel. The process of science is trying to disprove theories. You can't prove anything with scientific method, you can only test situations to try to make the theory fail. The only problem I can really come up with is the mixture of religion with schools. Everyone gets so uppity about that. But, I think if you can teach creationism with an even mind and treat it as a theory like evolution, it could be a very good thing.
If they had tried to teach me creationsim in school, anywhere from grade 8 on, I would have laughed the teacher out of the room.
Any school teaching the origin of our planet must teach Intelligent Design as well as Evolution - Both have at least 'some' hard evidence. Micro evolution happens all the time; that's consistant with, rather, not in violation of scripture. Macro evolution, on the other hand, has little supporting evidence. The theory of Macroevolution has many holes; and in my opinion is not intellectually satisfying as a method of how we all came to be.
This site seems biased a bit towards ID, however has some good information for those with an open mind
Uh, I guess it depends on what you call "hard evidance"...While I certainly think that god had something to do with the big bang..("let there be light"), that is a question of FAITH, not FACT. And that is the problem with ID.....who's version will we teach, keeping in mind of them are based on FACT. Remember, there is a fine line between science and psudo science.
Again, I would like to keep this thread civil...I would like this to be an adult exchange of ideas...God knows that is hard for me, but if I can do it...we all can!
If they had tried to teach me creationsim in school, anywhere from grade 8 on, I would have laughed the teacher out of the room.
That's the problem though. Centuries ago, everyone thought the world was flat. Now, everyone thinks evolution is the main thing driving us. I mean, I buy into the evolution theory much more than creationism. But, introducing other possibilities keeps us questioning and searching for a better theory.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. I was taught about creationism when I was a child at church. By grade 8 I had decided I don't believe it and done enough research to refute many of the arguements against evolution. I got kicked out of my sunday little group with the other kids for talking about evolution and argueing with the nunny who had no answers for my questions. I wonder who is closed minded in that case.
That's the problem though. Centuries ago, everyone thought the world was flat. Now, everyone thinks evolution is the main thing driving us. I mean, I buy into the evolution theory much more than creationism. But, introducing other possibilities keeps us questioning and searching for a better theory.
Oh for sure. I do not think that evolution is the be all and end all of theories. I am open to new theories and ideas. However, it seems clear to ME that it has far less holes as a theory than creationism.
Any school teaching the origin of our planet must teach Intelligent Design as well as Evolution - Both have at least 'some' hard evidence. Micro evolution happens all the time; that's consistant with, rather, not in violation of scripture. Macro evolution, on the other hand, has little supporting evidence. The theory of Macroevolution has many holes; and in my opinion is not intellectually satisfying as a method of how we all came to be.
This site seems biased a bit towards ID, however has some good information for those with an open mind
I believe that the schools are there to teach the scientific view of things and religion is there to teach the religious view of things.
Personally, I believe that the book of Genesis describes the big bang and Creation. The Torah and the Rabinnical writings teach that God is beyond the scope of human comprehension. We are incapable of imagining what/how/who God really is, and what God is truly capable of. The second commandment, dealing with Idolatry is about far more than the Golden Calf story when Moses when to Mount Sinai. It is also a reminder to us that God is so inconceivable to humans that to attempt to make any image or symbol of God to worship (this doesn't count reminders of God ...), and to worship any God but God is forbidden.
Taking this to creationism and reconciliing it against science, how can any human conceive of how God did this? Is God's time scale the time scale of man? I'd bet not. "In the beginning there was light" ... well, that pretty much describes the big bang, right? And if you follow the order of creation, it pretty well follows evolution.
What put spurs under the saddles of the creationists is Darwin's theory that men evolved from animals, specifically primates. Because Genesis describes Man being created directly by God, they feel that to say that Man evolved is blasphemy. I say no. Again, it doesn't say HOW God created man. It just says that God did create man. Who's to say that God didn't use Primates as the template? Just because it's not documented, doesn't mean it's so.
Let us not always forget. The Bible is an oral history book. Yes, we as humans want to believe it's the direct word of God. Maybe so. But at some point, the story was told to humans, and we all know how well us humans like to embellish a good story.
Creationism belongs in houses of worship. It's the poetic, faithful tale that explains how we got here and how God had a hand it in all. Darwinism and evolution belongs in schools. It's the scientific reading of data interpreted into theories.
There's room for both and both have their place.
I would be horrified if a Christian-leaning teacher had to teach my Jewish children about creationism. And you Christians would as likely be horrified to have a Jewish or Muslim teach teach your kids about it as well. And where do you stop? If you teach creationism,. what about Asian kids who are being brought up as Buhddist or Shinto? What about Islamic teachings of creationism. The Koran's story is similar to the Bible/Torah (the Torah is the first books of the bible), but it's not the same.
Adding religious teachings to our schools is a slippery slope. This country was founded on Freedom of religion. It's why the Pilgrims and other first settlers left Europe. As much as the right-leaning folks of the current conservative movement want to make it so, it is not exclusively a CHRISTIAN nation. If you add creationism to schools, you are inexorably choosing a religious tradition as the basis of our teaching. That's why it doesn't belong in our schools.
I don't think the Buddhists would be bothered too much. It's not a worship type religion. It's more a way of living. You can easily be Catholic and Buddhist at the same time. :D
I believe that the schools are there to teach the scientific view of things and religion is there to teach the religious view of things.
Personally, I believe that the book of Genesis describes the big bang and Creation. The Torah and the Rabinnical writings teach that God is beyond the scope of human comprehension. We are incapable of imagining what/how/who God really is, and what God is truly capable of. The second commandment, dealing with Idolatry is about far more than the Golden Calf story when Moses when to Mount Sinai. It is also a reminder to us that God is so inconceivable to humans that to attempt to make any image or symbol of God to worship (this doesn't count reminders of God ...), and to worship any God but God is forbidden.
Taking this to creationism and reconciliing it against science, how can any human conceive of how God did this? Is God's time scale the time scale of man? I'd bet not. "In the beginning there was light" ... well, that pretty much describes the big bang, right? And if you follow the order of creation, it pretty well follows evolution.
What put spurs under the saddles of the creationists is Darwin's theory that men evolved from animals, specifically primates. Because Genesis describes Man being created directly by God, they feel that to say that Man evolved is blasphemy. I say no. Again, it doesn't say HOW God created man. It just says that God did create man. Who's to say that God didn't use Primates as the template? Just because it's not documented, doesn't mean it's so.
Let us not always forget. The Bible is an oral history book. Yes, we as humans want to believe it's the direct word of God. Maybe so. But at some point, the story was told to humans, and we all know how well us humans like to embellish a good story.
Creationism belongs in houses of worship. It's the poetic, faithful tale that explains how we got here and how God had a hand it in all. Darwinism and evolution belongs in schools. It's the scientific reading of data interpreted into theories.
There's room for both and both have their place.
I would be horrified if a Christian-leaning teacher had to teach my Jewish children about creationism. And you Christians would as likely be horrified to have a Jewish or Muslim teach teach your kids about it as well. And where do you stop? If you teach creationism,. what about Asian kids who are being brought up as Buhddist or Shinto? What about Islamic teachings of creationism. The Koran's story is similar to the Bible/Torah (the Torah is the first books of the bible), but it's not the same.
Adding religious teachings to our schools is a slippery slope. This country was founded on Freedom of religion. It's why the Pilgrims and other first settlers left Europe. As much as the right-leaning folks of the current conservative movement want to make it so, it is not exclusively a CHRISTIAN nation. If you add creationism to schools, you are inexorably choosing a religious tradition as the basis of our teaching. That's why it doesn't belong in our schools.
Stew
well said sir. i feel exactly the same. God's way is beyond our comprehension and there is no reason that science and god need to be mutually exclusive.
Uh, I guess it depends on what you call "hard evidance"...While I certainly think that god had something to do with the big bang..("let there be light"), that is a question of FAITH, not FACT. And that is the problem with ID.....who's version will we teach, keeping in mind of them are based on FACT. Remember, there is a fine line between science and psudo science.
And you don't think following Evolution requires FAITH? wow.
I'm surprised at how little some of you know about the theory...
I believe that the schools are there to teach the scientific view of things and religion is there to teach the religious view of things.
Personally, I believe that the book of Genesis describes the big bang and Creation. The Torah and the Rabinnical writings teach that God is beyond the scope of human comprehension. We are incapable of imagining what/how/who God really is, and what God is truly capable of. The second commandment, dealing with Idolatry is about far more than the Golden Calf story when Moses when to Mount Sinai. It is also a reminder to us that God is so inconceivable to humans that to attempt to make any image or symbol of God to worship (this doesn't count reminders of God ...), and to worship any God but God is forbidden.
Taking this to creationism and reconciliing it against science, how can any human conceive of how God did this? Is God's time scale the time scale of man? I'd bet not. "In the beginning there was light" ... well, that pretty much describes the big bang, right? And if you follow the order of creation, it pretty well follows evolution.
What put spurs under the saddles of the creationists is Darwin's theory that men evolved from animals, specifically primates. Because Genesis describes Man being created directly by God, they feel that to say that Man evolved is blasphemy. I say no. Again, it doesn't say HOW God created man. It just says that God did create man. Who's to say that God didn't use Primates as the template? Just because it's not documented, doesn't mean it's so.
Let us not always forget. The Bible is an oral history book. Yes, we as humans want to believe it's the direct word of God. Maybe so. But at some point, the story was told to humans, and we all know how well us humans like to embellish a good story.
Creationism belongs in houses of worship. It's the poetic, faithful tale that explains how we got here and how God had a hand it in all. Darwinism and evolution belongs in schools. It's the scientific reading of data interpreted into theories.
There's room for both and both have their place.
I would be horrified if a Christian-leaning teacher had to teach my Jewish children about creationism. And you Christians would as likely be horrified to have a Jewish or Muslim teach teach your kids about it as well. And where do you stop? If you teach creationism,. what about Asian kids who are being brought up as Buhddist or Shinto? What about Islamic teachings of creationism. The Koran's story is similar to the Bible/Torah (the Torah is the first books of the bible), but it's not the same.
Adding religious teachings to our schools is a slippery slope. This country was founded on Freedom of religion. It's why the Pilgrims and other first settlers left Europe. As much as the right-leaning folks of the current conservative movement want to make it so, it is not exclusively a CHRISTIAN nation. If you add creationism to schools, you are inexorably choosing a religious tradition as the basis of our teaching. That's why it doesn't belong in our schools.
Stew
You know stew, I like you..a logical, well thought argument, from the jewish side of things, which I find refreshing. (I am half jewish, after all) Well said.
You know stew, I like you..a logical, well thought argument, from the jewish side of things, which I find refreshing. (I am half jewish, after all) Well said.
Do you know there's no such thing as being half-Jewish? If you have a Jewish parent, you are a Jew. Now, some movements (mostly Orthodox) require that parent be your mother, but in the eyes of the reformed and conservative movements, you're Jewish.
You also don't have to believe in God, practice Judaism, or anything else to be a Jew. Being a Jew is a birthright, unless you're a Jew by Choice (aka a converted Jew).
If someone wants to teach evolution, let them, they are not forcing people to believe in it. some people are just WAY too closed-minded.
Linear Mode
