Plea from a Christian: Keep My Religion out of the Science Classroom!!!!

reply to post by Kailassa


That is quite a generalization about Taoism, as there are many different forms. It is really more of a philosophy and differerent Taoists take different views.

reply to post by Astyanax

Oh, Kailassa said that it was like arguing with 'birthers.' I assumed that was a reference to right-wingers who do not like Obama. Can you correctly point out who said creationists were right-wingers with an agenda?

Debate about design is related to whether it should be taught or not. If school boards debated it, does that make it a conspiracy? School boards debate many topics that are not "conspiracies," like sodas with school lunch. There could be a soda conspiracy thread.

You teach humility, then? Thank you for the welcome to ATS.

reply to post by imnotbncre8ive


Only fundamentalist christians believe in the Bible word for word, and that includes most theologians of the Church('s) themselves. Pretty much all a metaphor. Being Christian, is following the example set by Yeshua of unconditional Love, whether or not he is a metaphor or not, and yeah that is a hard thing to express freely in a Church.

Originally posted by Raiment

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Raiment
Has macroevolution ceased, except for rare experiments?

Why would it have? We see change all about us.

Do you need to personally see an elephant grow wings to understand that creatures are always evolving?

Evolution by Religious Selection: Mexican Cavefish Develop Resistance to Toxin

Seeing change all about us is not the same as seeing evolution above the species level.

You are just proving you don't understand the mechanisms of evolution.
Inheritable genetic change which changes subsequent generations is evolution.
Creatures don't evolve into a different species in a single generation.
Sorry, but you are not going to see a new species of winged elephant.

Call it neo-Darwinism, same questions.

And you can call a CPU a Container of Poopy Underwear. It's not particularly helpful, but no-one's stopping you.
Same questions, yes.
Asked over and over by people who claim to not be creationists, but who are all alike in that they never seem to understand the answers.

Your link is interesting but does not demonstrate a current transitional entity or change above the species or order level that we can observe.

You want to see species or order change within your lifetime?
You'd better be prepared for a long, long time.

If two people fall into a pool, and the person who could not swim managed to have children before drowning, he will be the one to pass on his genes even if they were faulty ones. Interesting.

Congratulations. You've arrived at a correct conclusion.

Evolution does not mean selection of the best individuals. Evolution is the process by which those who succeed in passing on their genes affect the future of their species. This process tends to favour those better fitted to surviving in the local environment, but this is by no means guaranteed in individual cases.

Originally posted by Raiment

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by Raiment
I am a Taoist.

That's nice. We can add the Taoist creation myth to the mix if we start teaching creationism.

The Taoist Story of Creation

That is quite a generalization about Taoism, as there are many different forms. It is really more of a philosophy and differerent Taoists take different views.

Really, it's a generalization about Taoism to quote a Tao myth?

Yes, it's a philosophy, congrats on suddenly learning that, and different Taoists will hold different views, (although most will be familliar with the I Ching . . .
As I never discussed the Way of the Tao, how could I be generalising about Taoist interpretation of it?



I notice you didn't answer any of my questions, and have still not apologised for your previous incorrect statement regarding what I had posted. You owe me an apology.

reply to post by Kailassa


How about not referring to birthers? That would be a start, as labeling someone politically who has a few posts out is not good netiquette. When I entered I had the impression it was a debate, and then I realized anyone questioning macroevolution was part of a dreaded conspiracy. In reality, people who talk about creation get kicked around. They are underdogs everywhere I've seen. My definition of conspiracy is a group with a huge amount of power preventing others from speaking out.

reply to post by Kailassa

To take a Tao myth and place it out of context, yes. It would be like posting one of Darwin's many discarded theories as representative of his major work. Some Taoists accept evolution. Some don't. Many are of different religions and Taoist. The I Ching is a Chinese work, translated by Taoists, though. Such a short time on the thread and so many generalizations encountered ! I now see how one becomes a conspiracy theorist.

Originally posted by Raiment
reply to post by Kailassa

 

How about not referring to birthers? That would be a start, as labeling someone politically who has a few posts out is not good netiquette. When I entered I had the impression it was a debate, and then I realized anyone questioning macroevolution was part of a dreaded conspiracy. In reality, people who talk about creation get kicked around. They are underdogs everywhere I've seen. My definition of conspiracy is a group with a huge amount of power preventing others from speaking out.

This has no relevance to the post you are replying to.
Drawing a parallel is not labelling someone.

You have still not apologised for lying in your claims about what I said.

I'm glad to hear this li'l old grandma has a huge amount of power.
I didn't know people who are prepared to learn, instead of clinging to a security-blanket with their eyes shut, were so powerful.
You know, you're welcome to open your eyes and sign up, any time you like.
Or you can ignore the facts and keep claiming victim status, just as a group I won't name (because you say they are politically motivated) do.


I'm wondering - how come, if scientists are so powerful, they are so notoriously low paid?

Originally posted by Raiment

Originally posted by Kailassa
Really, it's a generalization about Taoism to quote a Tao myth?

To take a Tao myth and place it out of context, yes. It would be like posting one of Darwin's many discarded theories as representative of his major work. Some Taoists accept evolution. Some don't. Many are of different religions and Taoist. The I Ching is a Chinese work, translated by Taoists, though. Such a short time on the thread and so many generalizations encountered ! I now see how one becomes a conspiracy theorist.

You know not all Christians believe in the Biblical account of creation, right?
Yet some Christians want this account taught in Biology class.

I'm just suggesting Taoism deserves equal repect, and if we are to teach creationism, we should include the account that is part of the Taoist tradition.

And you find this offensive somehow? I hope your descendants, if ever you have any, evolve thicker skin.

Just a PSA:
Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

Please edit the quoted portion to the salient material needed to make your point! There is no need to repeat entire posts within the body of your response*

... or make use of the handy Reply To: feature, located next to the quote button.

TIA

Originally posted by snusfanatic
I believe that the attempt to teach the theology of creationism as science is nothing less then a conspiracy.

Wouldn't want some bright kid to discover anything new, or to see what has been overlooked, would we? Oh, the horror of the intellect of the free thinker! The greatest scientific and philosophical minds probably haven't even graduated elementary school yet. God forbid one of them uses religion or spiritual inspiration to discover something that can actually assist humanity, rather than tear it apart.

One day science and spirituality will become one. It is inevitable.

I wonder: what would be better for religion?
A) For science to prove the existence of a God.
B) For God to remain a myth.

I think (B) would be better for the individual religions, but (A) would be better for humanity as a whole; although (A) is a guaranteed powder-keg, obviously. Can't have a "legitimate spiritual science" nullifying all the other religions (and much of the other sciences), can we?

Science is undoubtedly the work of the Devil, after all. (sarcasm)

"The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existing." (Albert Einstein)

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." (Albert Einstein)

Originally posted by xiphias

Originally posted by snusfanatic
I believe that the attempt to teach the theology of creationism as science is nothing less then a conspiracy.

Wouldn't want some bright kid to discover anything new, or to see what has been overlooked, would we?

No, we just don't want non-science taught in a science class. I'd just as much oppose a study of Chaucer in the middle of a physics lecture.

Oh, the horror of the intellect of the free thinker!

Oh, the melodrama of the internet.

The greatest scientific and philosophical minds probably haven't even graduated elementary school yet. God forbid one of them uses religion or spiritual inspiration to discover something that can actually assist humanity, rather than tear it apart.

...ah, this one again.

Want them to be religious or spiritual? Teach it to them outside of a biology classroom. A biology class teaches you about science. A religious institution teaches about religion.

I am not religious. I do not want religion taught in a school my child attends.

One day science and spirituality will become one. It is inevitable.

No, it's very...evitable...
Science has nothing to do with spirituality. Unless you consider the way Carl Sagan did science as 'spiritual'. The wonder is in the garden, not in needing the faeries at the bottom.

I wonder: what would be better for religion?
A) For science to prove the existence of a God.
B) For God to remain a myth.

I think (B) would be better for the individual religions, but (A) would be better for humanity as a whole; although (A) is a guaranteed powder-keg, obviously. Can't have a "legitimate spiritual science" nullifying all the other religions (and much of the other sciences), can we?

Well, (A) is impossible as the concept of a deity is non-falsifiable. There's no scientific test that can be made to prove such an existence.

It's just like the invisible, floating, incorporeal dragon who breathes heatless fire living in garage. You can't disprove that I have such a being living in my garage, but I can't prove it either. But being sufficiently ridiculous doesn't give weight to a claim

"The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Curiosity has its own reason for existing." (Albert Einstein)

Hey, you quoted an atheist who saw all wonder and glory as belonging to the natural world!

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." (Albert Einstein)

He means wonder at the mystery and then try to explain it. It'll be a bad day for science if we ever really answer all the questions. There won't be much more wonder in the universe. Thankfully such considerations probably won't be made by our generation or the ones before those.

I'm always rapt in awe whenever I playback a recording I have of Carl Sagan's famous "Pale Blue Dot".

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
No, we just don't want non-science taught in a science class. I'd just as much oppose a study of Chaucer in the middle of a physics lecture.

Science is a standard, as is religion. Likewise, the two are opposite ends of the same spectrum. At this point in time, both are reaching their maximum potential, if they haven't already. I'm convinced there's only so far you can go in either direction before you turn back and ask the other side for assistance.

Personally, I think philosophy and meditation (both spiritual-based sciences) should be mandatory in all schools, but that's just me.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Well, (A) is impossible as the concept of a deity is non-falsifiable. There's no scientific test that can be made to prove such an existence.

No scientific test as of yet. This is the problem with science; we let the standards define the limits, instead of trying to achieve the impossible.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Hey, you quoted an atheist who saw all wonder and glory as belonging to the natural world!

Non-secular doesn't imply atheist. I'm almost convinced Einstein was both a schizophrenic and an avid believer in a higher power. If anything, Einstein was omni-religious.

Nothing will ever change unless we let the youth pick apart the wisdom which is forced on them. The youth knows what's best for their future; the elders only know what was best for their past.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." (Albert Einstein)
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." (Albert Einstein)

If anything is missing from our schools, it's imagination.

P.S.
Religion belongs in the computer classroom.
It is a programming language, after all.

Originally posted by xiphias
Science is a standard, as is religion.

A standard what? Or a standard of what?

Likewise, the two are opposite ends of the same spectrum.

What is this spectrum called?

At this point in time, both are reaching their maximum potential, if they haven't already.

Why do you say this? Where is the evidence?

I'm convinced there's only so far you can go in either direction before you turn back and ask the other side for assistance.

Why? What assistance can religion offer science? How is that even possible?

And what can science do for religion, except destroy it?

Personally, I think philosophy and meditation (both spiritual-based sciences) should be mandatory in all schools, but that's just me.

Yes, and thank goodness it's just you.

This is the problem with science; we let the standards define the limits, instead of trying to achieve the impossible.

What idiot tries to achieve the impossible?

I'm almost convinced Einstein was both a schizophrenic and an avid believer in a higher power. If anything, Einstein was omni-religious.

Read his actual writings and see his words in context. Einstein was never schizophrenic (what an insult!) and his views on religion were both consistent and clearly expressed.

Nothing will ever change unless we let the youth pick apart the wisdom which is forced on them.

This happens in every generation. No need to force it.

Back on topic: should religion--not 'meditation and philosophy' --be taught in science class? Have you an opinion on the subject or are you just here to blow off holistic hot air?