# Creationism in science class



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

What would you like to see included in public school science books (understanding that science books don't ever discuss WHY the universe is just how they think it came to be)?

Would "Some people think that an all powerful being caused it" be enough?

Would you want mention of the Bible and Adam and Eve?

Would you want to include other creation stories?


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> What would you like to see included in public school science books (understanding that science books don't ever discuss WHY the universe is just how they think it came to be)?
> 
> Would "Some people think that an all powerful being caused it" be enough?
> 
> ...



How about science books that teach facts, explains what a theory is, and isn't biased toward creationism or against?

That's all I would ask.


----------



## ryanh487 (Dec 15, 2014)

Grade School/High School science classes should not address the origins of life at all.  It takes faith for either perspective.  Have an elective class on it where they can discuss the origins in their appropriate religious context, and from varying perspectives.  Simply teach the support for each instead of trying to convince kids of one or the other and let them decide.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Dec 15, 2014)

That would be a great subject for a debate team (if they still have those in HS).


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 15, 2014)

ryanh487 said:


> Grade School/High School science classes should not address the origins of life at all.  It takes faith for either perspective.  Have an elective class on it where they can discuss the origins in their appropriate religious context, and from varying perspectives.  Simply teach the support for each instead of trying to convince kids of one or the other and let them decide.



Agreed.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> How about science books that teach facts, explains what a theory is, and isn't biased toward creationism or against?
> 
> That's all I would ask.




I think science class taught what a "theory" is in scientific terms adequately and dispassionately.  I think sometimes people forgot what theory means as a scientific word.

Would the mention of a "creator" be biased?  Would leaving it out be biased?  Is the idea of a creator in the realm of science study?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 15, 2014)

ryanh487 said:


> Grade School/High School science classes should not address the origins of life at all.  It takes faith for either perspective.  Have an elective class on it where they can discuss the origins in their appropriate religious context, and from varying perspectives.  Simply teach the support for each instead of trying to convince kids of one or the other and let them decide.



As far as I understand, "Origins" isn't discussed in science class.  They still start with the Big Bang but don't try to give a reason for it.

What do creationists want to put in science books?


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> I think science class taught what a "theory" is in scientific terms adequately and dispassionately.  I think sometimes people forgot what theory means as a scientific word.
> 
> Would the mention of a "creator" be biased?  Would leaving it out be biased?  Is the idea of a creator in the realm of science study?




As an employee of one of the biggest public school systems in the state and a Christian, I personally do not think it's a good idea for teachers to be teaching anything about religions. Our society is too diverse and it is impossible for someone to not inject some of their own opinions into a study of a Creator.

 So my answer is yes, the mention of a Creator would be biased. And no, leaving out a Creator is not biased, unless the teacher insinuates there is no creator.

And no, I don't think the idea of the Creator, the Almighty God should be studied in science classes....
 There's a theory to how all this started, therefore science has no conclusive answer.


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 15, 2014)

Unfortunately, the belief of the teacher tends to creep into how a subject is taught.  In math and English, it is a bit more difficult for the belief's of the teacher to affect the outcome of the lesson, but with science, government, history etc etc....the bias of the professor will go far in how the lesson is scripted and presented to the class.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 15, 2014)

I went to elementary school in what was called a “Consolidated School District”, a new deal back then.  Several of the one-room schools were brought together under one political hat to establish the tax base necessary to support a new building, buses (two used half-ton chevy panel trucks with 2x8’s mounted along the sides for seats), etc. The school opened one year before I entered the 1st grade.  They had kindergarten in the big towns, 1500 to 2500 population, in the area, but no way could that be afforded.  Three of the four teachers (two grades each) taught under what was called a Teaching Certificate, which only required 60 hrs. of “higher” education, and two of the four taught Sunday School at the church where my family attended.

I don’t know why, but I vividly recall being taught in the science book (seventh grade I think) that man had learned to use fire 10,000 years ago, as shown by evidence of a campfire and cooking found in an inhabited cave in China.  Now fast forwarding to about 15 years ago: I read a news article announcing that new evidence had been found placing man’s use of fire at 13,000 years ago.  Most interesting was the statement that the previous date had been 10,000 years, which was based on a burned bone found on a ledge in a rift in China, which could have been burned by a wild fire and dropped over the edge of the rift by an animal.

Just one more, because I can’t help myself.  A few years ago I read an article about new evidence that our biological ancestors were tree dwellers, as evidenced by a toe bone and a heel bone that had been found.  In the last paragraph, where all good information is found, if there is any, it was noted that the two bones in question had been found miles apart.

There are more examples, like E=mc2 is an approximation, but that is enough for me to draw the conclusion that the scientific community is no different than any other.  They do what they do to promote themselves, and their facts are no better than anyone else’s.  Please note that I did not say that they are worse, just the same.

So what should be taught?  I don’t know, but skepticism without cynicism would be good, if anyone knows how to teach that.

***************
Wow!  I need to keep up.  I just looked, we are now up to using fire 1,000,000 years ago, and going back fast (Wikipedia).
and we need a smart phone to tell us when to pee (runpee.com)


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> What would you like to see included in public school science books (understanding that science books don't ever discuss WHY the universe is just how they think it came to be)?



A VERY strong dose of "Science is not nearly as sure about things as scientists would want you to think."



ambush80 said:


> Would "Some people think that an all powerful being caused it" be enough?



For some, no. Either way, they'll, eventually, come to the same conclusion.




ambush80 said:


> Would you want mention of the Bible and Adam and Eve?



Whether you like it or not, the Bible is the single most expansive work of literature ever produced by man's hands. It would be foolish not to mention it in every subject, science included.



ambush80 said:


> Would you want to include other creation stories?



Should be left to the district. Me personally? Nah.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 15, 2014)

Why stop at creation? Isn't science just something man invented to try to explain God's creation and how his creation operates on a daily basis?
God is the Great Creator and everything happens by his hand. Even our very own existence/birth is from God's doing. Science uses "chance." Science is a roll of the dice. God doesn't use chance. God doesn't use DNA, God uses dust.
So, can we even use science to explain the rainbow if we can't use science to explain our origin or our ending?
Where or when,in our existence, can we insert science and at what point before our death do we remove it?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 15, 2014)

God said we feel with our heart, man says we use our brain.

My point is, why even teach science at all? Remember the trial of Galileo? Galileo supported Copernicus' view that the Earth orbited the sun, a "heliocentric" theory which the church declared contrary to Scripture.
Why has the Church buckled to science?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> As an employee of one of the biggest public school systems in the state and a Christian, I personally do not think it's a good idea for teachers to be teaching anything about religions. Our society is too diverse and it is impossible for someone to not inject some of their own opinions into a study of a Creator.
> 
> So my answer is yes, the mention of a Creator would be biased. And no, leaving out a Creator is not biased, unless the teacher insinuates there is no creator.
> 
> ...


This^
Science should be taught in Science class. Hopefully it is also taught that Science is based on the available scientific information we have TODAY and that science updates/corrects itself as new scientific information becomes available. That way kids understand exactly what science is and is not and why details such as "how many years ago" can change/be updated.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 15, 2014)

If we as Christians can't use science to explain creation, can we use science to explain things differently than as once perceived? 
Using Walt's example of science updating/correcting our perception of God's creation?
In this way science can now be used to explain the rainbow, Ark of the Covenant, manna, the flat Earth, the Earth revolving around the sun, the human mechanical systems, using our brain vs our heart, and  genetics & birth, etc.

We can now use science to prolong our life on this earth, or can we? Can we now use science to wipe ourselves from the face of the Earth?

Again, why do we pick and choose what science can explain?
Is science a figment or our hearts?


----------



## swampstalker24 (Dec 15, 2014)

There is nothing scientific about creationism, so it should not be taught in science class.  On the other hand, IMO it is perfectly acceptable for creationism to be taught in an elective religion class.  After all, every culture that has ever lived on this earth has a creation story in one form or another, so to totally leave that out of the curriculum would not be fair.  Just don't teach it in science class....


----------



## swampstalker24 (Dec 15, 2014)

ryanh487 said:


> Grade School/High School science classes should not address the origins of life at all.  It takes faith for either perspective.  Have an elective class on it where they can discuss the origins in their appropriate religious context, and from varying perspectives.  Simply teach the support for each instead of trying to convince kids of one or the other and let them decide.



Origins of life or origins of the universe?  I think if one or the other or neither for that matter weren't taught in school then we would be even further behind the rest of the civilized  world at producing engineers, doctors, biologist ect....


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 15, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> God said we feel with our heart, man says we use our brain.
> 
> My point is, why even teach science at all? Remember the trial of Galileo? Galileo supported Copernicus' view that the Earth orbited the sun, a "heliocentric" theory which the church declared contrary to Scripture.
> Why has the Church buckled to science?



The Bible, like any other text, can be misinterpreted. This was a position adopted by the Catholic Church around the time the Ptolemaic theory was still considered the truth. The position was, "Yes, if the evidence is so compelling, it may be that in the fullness of time we will have to revise our interpretation of the scripture; but that time is not now." After all, at the time, there were questions that the heliocentric theory couldn't explain; the greatest of these was why, if the earth is spinning, do we not fly off into space? Galileo had no answer, nor did Copernicus, nor did Kepler.

It was also thought, until about 1920 (I think), that the universe was a static entity; but we now know, as scripture suggests, that it is expanding. 

Science is a good thing to study, I just don't think it should make up anything like a majority of educational effort. Great knowledge of science combined with no spiritual life leads to someone who has been educated beyond their intelligence.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

Should also add that if the science points to a Creator (a god) then that becomes part of our scientific information and then should be included in science class.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 15, 2014)

EverGreen1231 said:


> The Bible, like any other text, can be misinterpreted. This was a position adopted by the Catholic Church around the time the Ptolemaic theory was still considered the truth. The position was, "Yes, if the evidence is so compelling, it may be that in the fullness of time we will have to revise our interpretation of the scripture; but that time is not now." After all, at the time, there were questions that the heliocentric theory couldn't explain; the greatest of these was why, if the earth is spinning, do we not fly off into space? Galileo had no answer, nor did Copernicus, nor did Kepler.
> 
> It was also thought, until about 1920 (I think), that the universe was a static entity; but we now know, as scripture suggests, that it is expanding.
> 
> Science is a good thing to study, I just don't think it should make up anything like a majority of educational effort. Great knowledge of science combined with no spiritual life leads to someone who has been educated beyond their intelligence.





> but we now know, as scripture suggests, that it is expanding.


http://creation.com
Biblical texts which have been used by some creationists to argue that Scripture supports expansion of the universe were reviewed. To suggest that these texts describe cosmological expansion of space, with galaxies being spread out like the often quoted rubber sheet analogy, is not justifiable and is pure eisegesis. The straightforward meaning is God constructing the heavens above and the earth below as a description of His preparation of a habitat for man. Once the stars were placed in the heavens they were to remain as a constant for all time.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

ryanh487 said:


> Grade School/High School science classes should not address the origins of life at all.



This ^^^^

My kids are in a private setting where they get a heavy dose of religious education, but they are also taught science.  Before we enrolled them, I verified that the science texts included evolution, big bang, and various other scientific theories they will encounter through life.  In short, I made sure they weren't in a bubble before I put them there.

But, public education involves a wide range of beliefs, and is funded by the entire community it serves.  It would not be right to bias the education to one set of beliefs over another.  A good example I consider is the Michigan districts which are heavily islamic.  Would we want our kids taught with an islamic bias if we found ourselves living in such a community?  I doubt it.

It seems the only appropriate way to go is to remove any religious slant from the public setting.  If you want such an education, the opportunity is available through home school and private institutions.

In a public setting, it seems any discussion of origins should be reserved for college and self-study.  A child who ends their educational pursuit at 12th grade is not going to be hindered by this anyway.  There is no value added by inserting it into the curriculum.


----------



## formula1 (Dec 16, 2014)

*Re:*

I have no problem with creationism being taught alongside of other points of view of our origins in school,  In fact, recently in my sons private Christian school, they had a debate where the kids were to argue several sides of the debate.  It is healthy to learn and be better informed in my view.

Having said that, a child will learn more about God and our Savior Christ, as well as what you really believe about everything by watching parents live it out everyday. School will never substitute for a true example. Ever!!!

Proverbs 22:6 
Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. 

Joshua 24:15 (part)
"But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 16, 2014)

I'm curious...
For those folks who have kids in Christians schools, considering all the different viewpoints as to what Scripture says etc and the multitude of "brands" of Christianity, are their any concerns that your specific interpretations or "brand" is or is not being addressed in that school?
Or as long is the big picture (God did it) is taught that's good enough?
What if a Catholic school was your only choice other than public school? Would home schooling then become your top choice or what choice would you make? And I know the bulk of you are Baptist, I know what the Catholics would answer.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm curious...
> For those folks who have kids in Christians schools, considering all the different viewpoints as to what Scripture says etc and the multitude of "brands" of Christianity, are their any concerns that your specific interpretations or "brand" is or is not being addressed in that school?
> Or as long is the big picture (God did it) is taught that's good enough?
> What if a Catholic school was your only choice other than public school? Would home schooling then become your top choice or what choice would you make? And I know the bulk of you are Baptist, I know what the Catholics would answer.



The school my kids go to is a different "brand" of Christianity than my own.  The "God did it" is not why they go there.  The education is just superior than the public system we live in.  Plus, I have a lot more influence and control when I am a customer.....a public school doesn't really care.  Additionally, a private education views the child as an individual more than a # in a group.

That being the case, if my objectives were being met, I would have not problem sending my kid to a Catholic school, or even a non-religious private institution.  The education is the goal to help them have a head start when they go to college, not indoctrination.


----------



## bigbuckhunter1 (Dec 16, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm curious...
> For those folks who have kids in Christians schools, considering all the different viewpoints as to what Scripture says etc and the multitude of "brands" of Christianity, are their any concerns that your specific interpretations or "brand" is or is not being addressed in that school?
> Or as long is the big picture (God did it) is taught that's good enough?
> What if a Catholic school was your only choice other than public school? Would home schooling then become your top choice or what choice would you make? And I know the bulk of you are Baptist, I know what the Catholics would answer.



I don't really believe in the "brands" of Christianity.  There is one and only one way to become a Christian, believe that God sent His Son into the world. That's how Christianity should be taught, it's a simple concept.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 16, 2014)

HEy BBH!  Glad you jumped in up here


----------



## formula1 (Dec 16, 2014)

*Re:*



WaltL1 said:


> I'm curious...
> For those folks who have kids in Christians schools, considering all the different viewpoints as to what Scripture says etc and the multitude of "brands" of Christianity, are their any concerns that your specific interpretations or "brand" is or is not being addressed in that school?
> Or as long is the big picture (God did it) is taught that's good enough?
> What if a Catholic school was your only choice other than public school? Would home schooling then become your top choice or what choice would you make? And I know the bulk of you are Baptist, I know what the Catholics would answer.



No. As long as the basic tenant of faith in Christ is a part of it I have no other concern. My primary focus is education as public schools in my area are poor.

I would consider a Catholic school if I didn't have other choices of private schools dependent upon the quality of the education. I would only choose homeschooling if there were no other viable options.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 16, 2014)

How do Christians feel about science being taught "after creation?" When is it OK to insert science into God's plan?
Can we use science to explain the universe after God created it?
Can we use science to explain how unhealthy living could kill someone sooner than God's plan?


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 17, 2014)

Thanks to Formula, JB & BBH for the response to my question.


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 18, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> I'm curious...
> For those folks who have kids in Christians schools, considering all the different viewpoints as to what Scripture says etc and the multitude of "brands" of Christianity, are their any concerns that your specific interpretations or "brand" is or is not being addressed in that school?
> Or as long is the big picture (God did it) is taught that's good enough?
> What if a Catholic school was your only choice other than public school? Would home schooling then become your top choice or what choice would you make? And I know the bulk of you are Baptist, I know what the Catholics would answer.



No...not concerned as we (my wife and I) vetted the school to make sure that the school had a similar Biblical World view as we do.  Are there issues we run into? Yes...but they have more to do with small issues (like uniform changes, fundraising drives etc etc) than the overall curriculum/teaching methods.

As far as a Catholic School...don't really see that as an option.  Why? Their Biblical World view is different than ours and while education is a key to why our kids are at the school they're at, the environment is key as well.

And yes, homeschool would be the most logical choice.  We've honestly thought hard about homeschool in the current situation we're in.  Also, thought about moving to a school district that had better public schools.  But at this age (7 & 9), I think having the Biblical influence on their subjects and leaving the worldly influence that comes with public schools out is best for them.

When they become more grounded and have the ability to process more thinking on their own, then I might be more willing to entertain the thought of public school.



bigbuckhunter1 said:


> I don't really believe in the "brands" of Christianity.  There is one and only one way to become a Christian, believe that God sent His Son into the world. That's how Christianity should be taught, it's a simple concept.



While there is only one true way, many have decided to twist what is true and create many false ways.  Sects, denominations, religions...call them what you want, but I think the term brand is pretty accurate.



Artfuldodger said:


> How do Christians feel about science being taught "after creation?" When is it OK to insert science into God's plan?
> Can we use science to explain the universe after God created it?
> Can we use science to explain how unhealthy living could kill someone sooner than God's plan?



I don't think any subject should be "inserted into God's plan."  I think you teach the Bible and the Bible is inserted into each subject.


----------



## JB0704 (Dec 18, 2014)

rjcruiser said:


> When they become more grounded and have the ability to process more thinking on their own, then I might be more willing to entertain the thought of public school.



The problem in my area is schools get worse as they get older.  WE got some solid public elementary schools, but the middle and high school public education is awful.


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 18, 2014)

JB0704 said:


> The problem in my area is schools get worse as they get older.  WE got some solid public elementary schools, but the middle and high school public education is awful.



Yeah...that is a little bit of my dilemma as well.  While AP classes and honors classes can help a ton, I'm probably more concerned with the social decay that exposes itself the further you go in school.  I know we always say...back when I was in school it wasn't as bad.

I was discussing with my wife the other day....seems like the drug thing is about the same....the premarital relations are probably similar too.  I'd say the biggest change is the acceptance/promotion of homosexuality.  To me, that is one of the major issues I have with the public HS scene today.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 18, 2014)

rjcruiser said:


> I don't think any subject should be "inserted into God's plan."  I think you teach the Bible and the Bible is inserted into each subject.



Now back to the OP, is it Ok to teach science after the creation? The Bible doesn't discuss much about science.
How does a school insert the Bible when explaining reproduction chances? How does a school insert the Bible when explaining eating and living healthy to prolong life?


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 18, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Now back to the OP, is it Ok to teach science after the creation? The Bible doesn't discuss much about science.
> How does a school insert the Bible when explaining reproduction chances? How does a school insert the Bible when explaining eating and living healthy to prolong life?



And I guess I'd disagree.

I see the Lord miraculously creating us to be a certain way....to thrive in our environment when taken care of.  He has placed us over the animals....we toil for food because of the fall.  Our bodies are a temple for the Lord and we should be mindful of how we treat it.

If you have the right Biblical world view, everything you teach can have Christ in it....and His influence can be seen in all.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 18, 2014)

rjcruiser said:


> And I guess I'd disagree.
> 
> I see the Lord miraculously creating us to be a certain way....to thrive in our environment when taken care of.  He has placed us over the animals....we toil for food because of the fall.  Our bodies are a temple for the Lord and we should be mindful of how we treat it.
> 
> If you have the right Biblical world view, everything you teach can have Christ in it....and His influence can be seen in all.



I hold heartily agree. I never got the privilege to go to a private school and I commend the parents who sacrifice and do without in other ways to send their kids to private school.
Does the curriculum at your kids high school  continue to insert God in their daily science classes?
How do they balance science with God?
Do they teach that God uses science in maintaining his creation or do they not teach science  at all? Do they teach that science is man's way of explaining God's works?
Can science and God co-exist?
If it can then when can science be inserted into God's plan by God himself? When does God quit creating and start using science?
Would your kids school teach that God uses reproduction to produce offspring even if he chooses every egg and the sperm that fertilizes those eggs? 
My science class taught that it was hard for that one sperm to make it to the egg and that is why God made millions of sperm. They made it seem like it was more random.
I'm just wondering how a private Christian school teaches these things.
Now what I'd really like to know from you or anyone is;
why is science OK after creation but not OK for ending my life?
In other words if my creation was of God and my death will be of God, why is science used to explain things happening in between? If it is God using science the why can't God use science in my creation and death?
If God DID use science in MY creation, why didn't he use it in Adam's creation? Why did Adam have human scientific systems to operate? Wasn't he made a human? Didn't God use science in his creation? 
Do the planets and stars created by God  contain elements and gases? If so then didn't God use science in his creation?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 18, 2014)

My biology teacher used dice and rock, paper, scissors, to teach probabilities in genetics. Geneticists use the principles of chance and probability to express the results of genetic experiments.
I can't see a private Christian school teaching this way. 

I personally don't have a problem with God using science as I believe he does. Most Christians don't have a problem with schools teaching all kinds of scientific concepts to include chance and probability. Some even think they can make themselves live longer by eating right and getting medical checkups.
But just mention God using evolution as a means of creation and they go totally  ballistic. They say because it's not in the Bible.  Well neither is any of the other science stuff God has revealed to us in his time in the Bible. I say this from the bottom of my heart. I mean brain.
God has revealed to me it's my brain, not from the heart as revealed in the Bible.
Most Christians believe in evolution after creation. Again science being OK after creation.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> What would you like to see included in public school science books



Just the truth.

Here are the choices. 
Here is the strong points and weak points of each.

UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ALL REQUIRE THE ACCEPTANCE OF PRESUPPOSITIONS TAKEN ON SOME DEGREE OF FAITH


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 18, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> As an employee of one of the biggest public school systems in the state and a Christian, I personally do not think it's a good idea for teachers to be teaching anything about religions. Our society is too diverse and it is impossible for someone to not inject some of their own opinions into a study of a Creator.
> 
> So my answer is yes, the mention of a Creator would be biased. And no, leaving out a Creator is not biased, unless the teacher insinuates there is no creator.
> 
> ...



Public School Employee?  Well that explains why you have so much free time to post. (JK)

Personally I disagree.  If you are going to call it science then by definition you must be honest and inform them of each possibility along with the strong/weak points of each theory.

To NOT include the concept of intelligent design 
1) Is intellectually dishonest and consequently the   antithesis of the very foundation of science.  Intelligent design is a valid theory.  It has it's strengths and weaknesses just as any other theory.
2) Reinforces the already standing notion that science and theism are incompatible and antagonistic.  Again false.
3) Is a fait accompli.  NOT teaching it,  in essence, IS teaching that atheistic based theories are the sole theories which again is false.


----------



## TurDuckBuck89 (Dec 18, 2014)

*my 2 cents*

 i believe that we shouldnt have a teaching/ lesson about "where life come from" in science... not one person in this world knows how life was formed, nor do they know how the earth, sun, and universe was formed. If anything, this should be acknowledged in history class and taught, once again, that noone really knows how anything was formed  but that there are many beliefs, opinions, and theories on what created/ formed the universe and life itself. just my 2 cents... oh yea, and to add, the pledge of allegiance and moment of silence should stay in all schools in america.
the end


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 19, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Public School Employee?  Well that explains why you have so much free time to post. (JK)
> 
> Personally I disagree.  If you are going to call it science then by definition you must be honest and inform them of each possibility along with the strong/weak points of each theory.
> 
> ...


Ive been thinking about this -


> To NOT include the concept of intelligent design
> 1) Is intellectually dishonest and consequently the   antithesis of the very foundation of science.  Intelligent design is a valid theory.  It has it's strengths and weaknesses just as any other theory.


We know there are a number of religions/beliefs both past and present that lay claim to "creation".
This is going to be a tough one but if you were to remove all those religions/beliefs from your mind what exactly would you have for scientific evidence , remember we are discussing science, that would lead you to intelligent design?
So the "its all so perfect it had to be God" argument and all those like it now no longer exist because we have removed religion from the equation.
Strictly based off science what would the argument be?


> 2) Reinforces the already standing notion that science and theism are incompatible and antagonistic.  Again false.


We just removed theism so now all you have left is science. So now, what scientific evidence is there that would make us say "we have exhausted all other possibilities and there is no evidence for anything else so now we have to "invent" intelligent design to explain it".


> 3) Is a fait accompli.  NOT teaching it,  in essence, IS teaching that atheistic based theories are the sole theories which again is false.


Again since we removed religion there is no "atheist" anything. All there is the science. So your objection just went away.
Please be aware Im not arguing whether there is a god (any of them) or not.
Science goes where the science takes it. And that's what gets taught in Science class.


> Intelligent design is a valid theory.


What makes it valid?
Science?
Or your beliefs?
Keep in mind that Theories have scientific evidence behind them so if you are going to say "well science cant prove anything yet" doesn't make any and all theories valid. 
Science is taught in Science class. So far Intelligent Design does not fit under Science.
Does it?


----------



## Day trip (Dec 19, 2014)

Teaching science should be teaching science.  Teaching Religeon should be teaching Religeon.  Philosophy is the where the two meet.  It cannot be absolute as science is, nor can it be based on historical documents, teachings and letters but a meshing of the two along with personal observation and experiences.  
This is why a philosophy may be "correct" even though it is described differently by two individuals.  No two people have the exact same experiences and no two people interprete there experiences the same.  We take philosophy as fuel for our thoughts in order to connect truth with speculation to inspire.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 19, 2014)

If we leave out the possibility that God used science in his creation, how can we insert it later into the curriculum? Meaning where do we draw the line? As an example my sister believes Satan invented Ebola.
Some Christians believe the world is flat. Some believe the earth is surrounded by a water vapor in the form of a firmament.
Even if we don't get that deep, I'm sure there is a lot of scientific concepts that many Christians don't agree with. Many don't believe we can change the day we  will die. Many don't believe in the chances and probabilities that exist in science.
If we were going to teach all of the possible religious aspect of science, the teacher would have to state before class that it's possible that today's lesson plan  has to include God. 
There would be no possible way to not mention God every day. The teacher would have to say he feels this is possible. 
Christians can't even agree on how God uses science. If we then add all of the other God's ways of using science then we probably would have a very short science class.
I do believe it could be feasible for the teacher to mention intelligent design but only if he continued to mention this designer maintaining his creation daily with science. Don't just mention intelligent design without mentioning intelligent maintenance.


----------



## GunnSmokeer (Dec 19, 2014)

SemperFiDawg said:


> ...
> 
> To NOT include the concept of intelligent design
> 1) Is intellectually dishonest and consequently the   antithesis of the very foundation of science.  Intelligent design is a valid theory.  It has it's strengths and weaknesses just as any other theory.
> ...




I agree 100%   
The intelligent design theory should be discussed, and materials used. Books, booklets, videos, slideshows, etc. It deserves more than a few spoken sentences thrown in among the hours of study and discussion of evolution from nutrient rich primordial pond scum.

NOTICE, HOWEVER, that "intelligent design" can be (and I think should be) limited to just offering an explanation of how there is life on earth and why certain life forms look the way they do and function the way they do.

I would not attempt to extrapolate that creation theory into a broader theory about a living God who loves us and expects us to love Him back, and watches over us and wants us to live according to a certain moral code...


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 19, 2014)

It should be noted that the OP specified "creationism" and we (myself included) have morphed the conversation to "intelligent design".
They are NOT the same thing.


> Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
> No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.


SFD I need to retract my statements/questions. Intelligent Design, not creationism, is what you specified and is actually a scientific theory.
However, Intelligent Design as a theory DOES NOT contain religion, any gods, the Bible etc as part of it. So really neither your comments or my questions actually apply to Intelligent design but they would apply to creationism.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 19, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Ive been thinking about this -
> 
> We know there are a number of religions/beliefs both past and present that lay claim to "creation".
> This is going to be a tough one but if you were to remove all those religions/beliefs from your mind what exactly would you have for scientific evidence , remember we are discussing science, that would lead you to intelligent design?



I would say this:

Here is the scientific evidence we have.

Here are the theories that have been proposed:

A) string theory
B) multiverse theory
C) intelligent design
D) etc.

Here are the strength and weaknesses of each theory.

That's it.  

I agree with GunnSmokeer.  There is no need to extrapolate any further.  To do so wades into religion.



WaltL1 said:


> So the "its all so perfect it had to be God" argument and all those like it now no longer exist because we have removed religion from the equation.



Whoa Walt.  We never introduce "religion".  It seems you are lumping the concepts of deism(which is the very most that intelligent design suggests and the term that I would suggest as most accurate in this context), religion, and theism( as below)  together.




WaltL1 said:


> Strictly based off science what would the argument be?



Simplistically stated: That the universe appears to be very fine tuned for life as evidenced by x,y,z.    One answer that could account for this appearance is an intelligent designer.  I think that is all that would need to be said.



WaltL1 said:


> We just removed theism so now all you have left is science. So now, what scientific evidence is there that would make us say "we have exhausted all other possibilities and there is no evidence for anything else so now we have to "invent" intelligent design to explain it".



See above.



WaltL1 said:


> Again since we removed religion there is no "atheist" anything. All there is the science. So your objection just went away.
> Please be aware Im not arguing whether there is a god (any of them) or not.
> Science goes where the science takes it. And that's what gets taught in Science class.



That's funny.  I made the exact same statement "Science goes where the science takes it." in my last post, but redacted it prior to posting.  I didn't want to get into a debate over how the evidence is interpreted.  Suffice it to say that the evidence is what it is.  It can be interpreted differently depending on the interpreters presuppositions.  

Example:  you may look at the fine tuning and say well a multiverse theory best explains it.  I would look at it and say an intelligent designer is the best explanation.   The evidence is the exact same for both explanations,  it's the presuppositions on which the explanations are based which vary.  That's why I say if you are only teaching theories based on atheistic presuppositions, you have in effect performed a fait accompli.




WaltL1 said:


> What makes it valid?
> Science?
> Or your beliefs?



I would say the very same thing that makes any other theory valid: It offers a plausible, reasonable, coherent and comprehensive explanation for the available evidence.




WaltL1 said:


> Keep in mind that Theories have scientific evidence behind them so if you are going to say "well science cant prove anything yet" doesn't make any and all theories valid.
> Science is taught in Science class. So far Intelligent Design does not fit under Science.
> Does it?



I think this is what most people don't "get".  The theory of intelligent design is an interpretation of *the exact same evidence *, that every other theory utilizes, so to deny there is any evidence for it is to deny there is any evidence for ANY theory.  So if you take the stance that intelligent design doesn't fit under science you are only left with two other options that I can think of:

1) It could be said that it doesn't offer a rational, reasonable, coherent and comprehensive explanation for the data.  (Easily refutable) 

Or 

2) It could be said that it doesn't fit based on the presuppositions of it's subscribers.  The implications and perils of making this argument should be instantly and painfully obvious.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Dec 19, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> It should be noted that the OP specified "creationism" and we (myself included) have morphed the conversation to "intelligent design".
> They are NOT the same thing.
> 
> SFD I need to retract my statements/questions. Intelligent Design, not creationism, is what you specified and is actually a scientific theory.
> However, Intelligent Design as a theory DOES NOT contain religion, any gods, the Bible etc as part of it. So really neither your comments or my questions actually apply to Intelligent design but they would apply to creationism.



You are correct.  We both kinda got off the beaten path.  Wish you had of posted that a bit earlier.  Would have save me a ton of pecking on that last post.
Thanks  Walt.


----------



## Israel (Dec 20, 2014)

Intelligent design remains redundant. 




And loving to speak, we give ourselves away.
In design and by it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Dec 20, 2014)

Our local public high school has a "Bible Literacy" elective course.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 22, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Our local public high school has a "Bible Literacy" elective course.



I think it's cool that they offer this in a public school. Like the teacher says, the Bible is so related to our culture, laws, etc. that is is important to see where it's all coming from. True we do have other religions, but ours is mostly from Christianity.


----------



## Harbuck (Dec 28, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> How about science books that teach facts, explains what a theory is, and isn't biased toward creationism or against?
> 
> That's all I would ask.



I agree with Hobbs on this.^^^^^


----------



## Harbuck (Dec 28, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Our local public high school has a "Bible Literacy" elective course.



That's awesome! wish all schools had it. It seems schools are more interested in making sure the kids know the history of Islam and the theory of evolution than learning the fundamental truths and principles that our nation was built upon.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 28, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> How about science books that teach facts, explains what a theory is, and isn't biased toward creationism or against?
> 
> That's all I would ask.



Do you mean the scientific use of the word "theory" as in the Theory of gravity or the Theory of Relativity?

All they talk about in science class is that as far back as we can observe, the universe started with "The Big Bang".  They don't talk about why it happened.  As soon as they did, even if they said "some people believe that ......started the universe"  then they would lean toward creationism.  Then to be consistent, they'd have to talk about ALL of them.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 28, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Do you mean the scientific use of the word "theory" as in the Theory of gravity or the Theory of Relativity?
> 
> All they talk about in science class is that as far back as we can observe, the universe started with "The Big Bang".  They don't talk about why it happened.  As soon as they did, even if they said "some people believe that ......started the universe"  then they would lean toward creationism.  Then to be consistent, they'd have to talk about ALL of them.



The big bang is also a theory. It cant be proven. I don't mind the teaching of it as what scientist think happened or why they think it as long as it is not taught as a fact but a theory. This doesnt show bias to or from creationism to me..as far as Im concerned God spoke it and BANG!  it happened.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 28, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> The big bang is also a theory. It cant be proven. I don't mind the teaching of it as what scientist think happened or why they think it as long as it is not taught as a fact but a theory. This doesnt show bias to or from creationism to me..as far as Im concerned God spoke it and BANG!  it happened.




But you understand how science uses the word theory, right?  It's a little different than the pedestrian use of the word.  I agree use of the word doesn't show bias.  

I had a conversation with my wife about the Big Bang theory as we watched the new Cosmos and she asked "How do they know?"  So we got on the internet and tried to find out.  There's alot of measuring, observation, computation, experimentation, data gathering and prediction (either being proven false or true) that go into that particular theory.  What is clear is that the research is exhaustive and has been widely accepted as true; like gravity.


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 28, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> But you understand how science uses the word theory, right?  It's a little different than the pedestrian use of the word.  I agree use of the word doesn't show bias.
> 
> I had a conversation with my wife about the Big Bang theory as we watched the new Cosmos and she asked "How do they know?"  So we got on the internet and tried to find out.  There's alot of measuring, observation, computation, experimentation, data gathering and prediction (either being proven false or true) that go into that particular theory.  What is clear is that the research is exhaustive and has been widely accepted as true; like gravity.



Yes I understand....When I was in school I was taught a theory of how dinasuars went extinct. It was accepted as truth back then but now is laughed at and a couple more theories have come around since. All with exhaustive work .... all they have is a theory, just like man made global warming....and cfc's destroying the ozone.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 28, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes I understand....When I was in school I was taught a theory of how dinasuars went extinct. It was accepted as truth back then but now is laughed at and a couple more theories have come around since. All with exhaustive work .... all they have is a theory, just like man made global warming....and cfc's destroying the ozone.




Relativity is getting an overhaul.  

Isn't science cool how it keeps correcting itself and admitting when it's wrong or doesn't know?


----------



## hobbs27 (Dec 28, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Relativity is getting an overhaul.
> 
> Isn't science cool how it keeps correcting itself and admitting when it's wrong or doesn't know?



Yes! So is Christianity. I'm in awe at how the kingdom of God is gaining in knowledge!


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 29, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Relativity is getting an overhaul.
> 
> Isn't science cool how it keeps correcting itself and admitting when it's wrong or doesn't know?





hobbs27 said:


> Yes! So is Christianity. I'm in awe at how the kingdom of God is gaining in knowledge!



It is clear that either your sources and mine are different, or you hear those sources differently than I do.

In science most, not all, comments present the latest theory as being correct.  (I believe that it was the 2012 hurricane season that was predicted to be really, really bad, do to global warming.  When it turned out to be very mild, it was attributed to dust in the atmosphere coming  from Africa, brought about by global warming.)

In theology most emerging ideas are rejected ideas repackaged.  (Pelagius was misunderstood, he never taught that man was self empowered, thus he is a hero of individual freedom.)


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 29, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> It is clear that either your sources and mine are different, or you hear those sources differently than I do.
> 
> In science most, not all, comments present the latest theory as being correct.  (I believe that it was the 2012 hurricane season that was predicted to be really, really bad, do to global warming.  When it turned out to be very mild, it was attributed to dust in the atmosphere coming  from Africa, brought about by global warming.)
> 
> In theology most emerging ideas are rejected ideas repackaged.  (Pelagius was misunderstood, he never taught that man was self empowered, thus he is a hero of individual freedom.)




There seems to be alot of flip flopping in science.  Often a paper that someone _just wrote_, as in _hot off the presses _goes straight into a scientific journal for all to see because it's controversial or groundbreaking. IMMIDIATELY there are people who re-run the experiments and come up with contradicting results.  

Someone might find a tooth and _theorize_ (as in "might be, could be") that it's from an older homonid than has ever discovered.  A journal, maybe even Time magazine runs a cover story titled "Oldest Living Homonid Found!!!!" and somewhere in the middle of the article they say "Unconfirmed".  Then new evidence comes in proving the findings in error.  Now, people who don't completely understand how scientific research works say "Those silly scientists!  They keep making stuff up!"  

It's a problem that science understands and is attempting to self correct.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 29, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> There seems to be alot of flip flopping in science.  Often a paper that someone _just wrote_, as in _hot off the presses _goes straight into a scientific journal for all to see because it's controversial or groundbreaking. IMMIDIATELY there are people who re-run the experiments and come up with contradicting results.
> 
> Someone might find a tooth and _theorize_ (as in "might be, could be") that it's from an older homonid than has ever discovered.  A journal, maybe even Time magazine runs a cover story titled "Oldest Living Homonid Found!!!!" and somewhere in the middle of the article they say "Unconfirmed".  Then new evidence comes in proving the findings in error.  Now, people who don't completely understand how scientific research works say "Those silly scientists!  They keep making stuff up!"
> 
> It's a problem that science understands and is attempting to self correct.



In the highlighted I believe you are speaking of a very, very small minority within the community.  That minority would be those who are promoting knowledge, not science, or self.  Thus promoting the source of ultimate Truth.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 29, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes! So is Christianity. I'm in awe at how the kingdom of God is gaining in knowledge!



Both science and Christianity gain knowledge as time passes. We will gain more and more and at a faster rate as time continues. I too am in awe, amen for "Light!"

Example from History:

In the Catholic world prior to Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth,[53] despite the use of Copernican theories to reform the calendar in 1582.[54] Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place."[55]

Galileo defended heliocentrism, and in his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina argued that it was not contrary to biblical texts. He took the Augustinian position that poetry, songs, instructions or historical statements in biblical texts need not always be interpreted literally. Galileo argued that the authors wrote from the perspective of the terrestrial world in which the sun does rise and set, and discussed a different kind of "movement" of the earth, not rotations.[56][citation needed]

By 1615 Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition, and his efforts to interpret the Bible were seen as a violation of the Council of Trent.[57] Attacks on the ideas of Copernicus had reached a head, and Galileo went to Rome to defend himself and Copernican ideas. In 1616, an Inquisitorial commission unanimously declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."[58] (The original document from the Inquisitorial commission was made widely available in 2014.[59])

Pope Paul V instructed Cardinal Bellarmine to deliver this finding to Galileo, and to order him to abandon the Copernican opinions. On 26 February, Galileo was called to Bellarmine's residence and ordered

... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei


----------



## EverGreen1231 (Dec 29, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> Both science and Christianity gain knowledge as time passes. We will gain more and more and at a faster rate as time continues. I too am in awe, amen for "Light!"
> 
> Example from History:
> 
> ...




These arguments are lost on some. If I say, "home is where the heart is," I'm not prepared to make a purely geographical argument defending that statement; and if I say the Earth is the center of the Universe, I mean something very different from the geometric center. If I claim to show someone what they could have should they make certain choices, I don't mean that I'm 'literally' showing them everything they could have.

Scripture, like any other text, can be misinterpreted and/or misunderstood. I don't see why folks, on either side of the fence, seem to have trouble with this.

"It's either all literal or all figurative, it can't be both." ....really?


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 29, 2014)

If man’s ability to assist God in anything is ever shown, surely it will be exemplified by man’s bull headed determination to show his own stupidity (hubris).


----------



## Israel (Dec 30, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> If man’s ability to assist God in anything is ever shown, surely it will be exemplified by man’s bull headed determination to show his own stupidity (hubris).



"put me in coach...lemme show my stuff"

OK...but we'll have the stretcher ready.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 30, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> If man’s ability to assist God in anything is ever shown, surely it will be exemplified by man’s bull headed determination to show his own stupidity (hubris).



If man’s ability to assist God in anything is ever shown, surely it will be exemplified by man’s bull headed determination to show his own stupidity (freewill).


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 30, 2014)

Maybe when good things happen around us it is from God but when bad things happen it is from Satan (science)


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 30, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> If man’s ability to assist God in anything is ever shown, surely it will be exemplified by man’s bull headed determination to show his own stupidity (hubris).



When Jesus was suffering on the cross he commissioned John to be His mother’s care-taker.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 30, 2014)

Israel said:


> "put me in coach...lemme show my stuff"
> 
> OK...but we'll have the stretcher ready.



Be careful ... You might trip over my prostrate body on your way to the action.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 30, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> If man’s ability to assist God in anything is ever shown, surely it will be exemplified by man’s bull headed determination to show his own stupidity (freewill).



So we choose to show our incompetence in spiritual matters?



Artfuldodger said:


> Maybe when good things happen around us it is from God but when bad things happen it is from Satan (science)



So Satan’s free agency can be shown by experimentation and observation?



Artfuldodger said:


> When Jesus was suffering on the cross he commissioned John to be His mother’s care-taker.



Isn’t that interesting?  There is not enough there to be certain, but it seems that, in choosing John, Christ gave Mary’s spiritual welfare and spiritual relationships precedence over her physical welfare or her blood relationships.  With leave to make that assumption, our tendency to give priority to family relationship and physical care, over spiritual considerations, is the sort of “stupidity” I had in mind.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Dec 30, 2014)

hummerpoo said:


> Isn’t that interesting?  There is not enough there to be certain, but it seems that, in choosing John, Christ gave Mary’s spiritual welfare and spiritual relationships precedence over her physical welfare or her blood relationships.  With leave to make that assumption, our tendency to give priority to family relationship and physical care, over spiritual considerations, is the sort of “stupidity” I had in mind.



I don't believe Jesus was too worried about his mother's spiritual welfare in choosing John to take care of her. It says a lot about Jesus' human side as well as his spiritual/God side. Here he is dying and he is still worried about his mother. His human side is dying, not his deity. I mean here is a man who is God incarnate tasking/asking a human to take care of his mother while she is in a physical body dwelling on the earth. Her spirit is in God/Jesus' hand. 
I think this says a lot for free will and man being able to help other men. One way to help our other men is to use science to discover better ways to help people. This does nothing to take away from God nor is it prideful to do so. We are just discovering or bringing God's science to fruition. We aren't creating it, just discovering it. It's actually a part of our commission. 
God doesn't actually need us to bring him souls for salvation but yet he has tasked us to do so. Maybe it's just to satisfy our hubris.


----------



## hummerpoo (Dec 30, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> God doesn't actually need us to bring him souls for salvation but yet he has tasked us to do so.



Some see men bringing souls to God for salvation.
Others see God bringing men to souls He saved.
I guess it depends on how we see the order of things.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 31, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes! So is Christianity. I'm in awe at how the kingdom of God is gaining in knowledge!


----------



## hummerpoo (Jan 1, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What would you like to see included in public school science books (understanding that science books don't ever discuss WHY the universe is just how they think it came to be)?
> 
> Would "Some people think that an all powerful being caused it" be enough?
> 
> ...



Considering what I understand to be the current philosophy of education, and considering the nature of kids age 6 to 16, how about starting each section of science class with this:

http://


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 7, 2015)

Science makes mistake sometimes, ie all the drugs that have been recalled or discontinued.

God doesn't make mistakes. 

Scientific medical opinions make mistakes when it comes to children with defects. Couldn't they have prevented the woman to give a potentially 'defective' child with more/better scientific info on the risks of the woman to have a child? Could God have prevented this from happening? yes if not for our freewill in motion.  

I do agree with science on a lot of things, but God created science.

I don't think religion should be taught in school, I don't want someone expressing their 'theories' to our children.


----------

