Should teaching science in schools be banned in favor of religion?

[phk]

Should teaching science in schools be banned in favor of religion?

[John Dibble]

No. Don't make such trollish polls.

[phk]

No. Don't make such trollish polls.

Evolution is a sin.

[John Dibble]

No. Don't make such trollish polls.

Evolution is a sin.

Don't make such trollish polls.

[phk]

It isn't trollish. Its actually happening in Kansas.

[John Dibble]

It isn't trollish. Its actually happening in Kansas.

There's more than one way to point something out. This thread is a trollish one.

[TheresNoMoney]

I voted no. Schools should continue to teach science.

[A18]

Yes, as should everything else. Not in favor of religion, though.

[MODU]

It isn't trollish. Its actually happening in Kansas.

No, actually, it's not.  Quit Trolling.

BTW - I voted no.  Science should be taught as well as religion (in it's proper context).

[Giant Saguaro]

Obviously not, and no, it's not happening in Kansas. Intelligent design is not the equivalent of "banning science" in favor evangelizing. The idea that everything was created is a serious inquiry and many scientists are engaging in the discussion and speculation. Public school education is also a secular institution, they are not interested in evangelizing.

Incidentally, I know several people who have sent their kids to private schools at the high school and college level and they taught science there like anywhere else, even evolution. The intelligent design question ads another dimension to the discussion, that is all. Sometimes I think many of you people are the ones who are very afraid to think outside the box.

[Emsworth]

Obviously not, and no, it's not happening in Kansas. Intelligent design is not the equivalent of "banning science" in favor evangelizing. The idea that everything was created is a serious inquiry and many scientists are engaging in the discussion and speculation. Public school education is also a secular institution, they are not interested in evangelizing.

Intelligent design may or may not be religious, but I would hardly call it science. It makes no testable hypotheses, and is (as far as one can tell) unverifiable.

[Giant Saguaro]

Obviously not, and no, it's not happening in Kansas. Intelligent design is not the equivalent of "banning science" in favor evangelizing. The idea that everything was created is a serious inquiry and many scientists are engaging in the discussion and speculation. Public school education is also a secular institution, they are not interested in evangelizing.

Intelligent design may or may not be religious, but I would hardly call it science. It makes no testable hypotheses, and is (as far as one can tell) unverifiable.

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

From what I can tell, Intelligent design is interested in explaining how a creator *could have* created the Earth and what we see and so forth. Sounds like a serious inquiry to me.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No. Teach science and teach about religion and religions. Teach about everything ideally. No limits.

[Emsworth]

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

On the contrary. Several predictions made by the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics have been tested. Theoretical physics actually does involve testable hypotheses.

[Giant Saguaro]

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

On the contrary. Several predictions made by the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics have been tested. Theoretical physics actually does involve testable hypotheses.

There is disagreement about what involves good testing, from what I have read, and they are very highly speculative. Theoretical physics involves to a very, very large degree finding math to explain how a conclusion could be valid.

There are a lot of books on this issue by scientists, have you looked at any of them? There is even stuff out there that argues scientifically about validating Biblical events, like the argument that human beings descended from one man and on woman.

So it all depends on what "good testing" is.

[Giant Saguaro]

No. Teach science and teach about religion and religions. Teach about everything ideally. No limits.

Ideally, yes, but I would worry about a secular institution delving too deeply into religion, and also there really are separation of church and state issues, IMO. One that I know of right now is what's to stop a Muslim from getting in and preaching the Koran. I don't think that sort of thing should be going on - talking about how a creator may have created the Earth and the universe is to me completely unobjectionable and could be easily objective, especially considering how evolution through natural selection is anything but provable. Purely theory.

[MODU]

No. Teach science and teach about religion and religions. Teach about everything ideally. No limits.

Yes.  After all, you go to school to learn.  Don't censor the material for the students.  Surprisingly enough, they do understand and comprehend more than what people give them credit for.

Ideally, yes, but I would worry about a secular institution delving too deeply into religion, and also there really are separation of church and state issues, IMO. One that I know of right now is what's to stop a Muslim from getting in and preaching the Koran. I don't think that sort of thing should be going on - talking about how a creator may have created the Earth and the universe is to me completely unobjectionable and could be easily objective, especially considering how evolution through natural selection is anything but provable. Purely theory.

This is the only problem I have with that argument.  Schools (even as far back as when I was in it) taught world religions.  No one says that the teach has to hold Sunday school lessons in class, but at least cover Christianity and Intelligent Design in the same light as the other major religions in the world.  (And teach it in History class, not science.)

[Emsworth]

There is disagreement about what involves good testing, from what I have read, and they are very highly speculative.

Several predictions of theoretical physics have indeed been verified; the same cannot be said of intelligent design. There are several examples: for example, Sir Arthur Eddington's observations of a solar eclipse helped confirm the general theory of relativity.

That point notwithstanding, the intelligent design theory is entirely untestable. It is, indeed, as scientifically viable as the theory of "intelligent falling" (the tongue-in-cheek theory that objects fall not because of gravity, but because an intelligent force pushes them down). Shall we teach intelligent falling alongside gravity as well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I have heard some rather interesing theories. For example, there is the theory that the planet Jupiter expelled a large object, which, upon coming close to the Earth, caused phenomena like the parting of the Red Sea. The object supposedly later became the planet Venus.

[Giant Saguaro]

There is disagreement about what involves good testing, from what I have read, and they are very highly speculative.

Several predictions of theoretical physics have indeed been verified; the same cannot be said of intelligent design. There are several examples: for example, Sir Arthur Eddington's observations of a solar eclipse helped confirm the general theory of relativity.

That point notwithstanding, the intelligent design theory is entirely untestable. It is, indeed, as scientifically viable as the theory of "intelligent falling" (the tongue-in-cheek theory that objects fall not because of gravity, but because an intelligent force pushes them down).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I have heard some rather interesing theories. For example, there is the theory that the planet Jupiter expelled a large object, which, upon coming close to the Earth, caused phenomena like the parting of the Red Sea. The object supposedly later became the planet Venus.

Well, science speculates as to where the moon came from. There are indeed some very conflicting ideas as to where it came from, that is science, and I'm not sure there is a way to test where the moon came from. There are just ways to explain how it got where it is. That's all Intelligent Design is. Personally, I don't see how it's this hard move totally away from science - I don't see that it's a big deal, that's all. Now delving into religion and theology is another matter completely.

Intelligent Falling - Ha, you know what I think that is? Someone subtly making the point that since we can't see gravity, we just use it to explain how something falls back to Earth. It's conjecture that fits facts - a lot of science is conjecture that just fits facts. That's what Intelligent Design is, to me.

So I guess in space, that's Intelligent Floating.

[Emsworth]

Well, science speculates as to where the moon came from. There are indeed some very conflicting ideas as to where it came from, that is science, and I'm not sure there is a way to test where the moon came from.

You make a very good point. However, I don't think that it applies in this particular case.

ID does not just attempt to explain where life comes from. It also tries to explain how life reached where it is now, i.e., how the complexities of living organisms arose. Evolution also attempts to do the same thing. Clearly, the predictions of evolution are in a sense testable (fossil evidence, etc.). The predictions of ID are not. Therefore, when attempting to explain how the complexities of life have arisen, evolution is science, but ID is not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could explain anything with a variant of intelligent design. I think that this is a very narrow and parochial approach as far as science is concerned; it is of as much use as Aristotle's view that something happens simply because it is "natural."

[Giant Saguaro]

Well, science speculates as to where the moon came from. There are indeed some very conflicting ideas as to where it came from, that is science, and I'm not sure there is a way to test where the moon came from.

You make a very good point. However, I don't think that it applies in this particular case.

ID does not just attempt to explain where life comes from. It also tries to explain how life reached where it is now, i.e., how the complexities of living organisms arose. Evolution also attempts to do the same thing. Clearly, the predictions of evolution are in a sense testable (fossil evidence, etc.). The predictions of ID are not. Therefore, when attempting to explain how the complexities of life have arisen, evolution is science, but ID is not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You could explain anything with a variant of intelligent design. I think that this is a very narrow and parochial approach as far as science is concerned; it is of as much use as Aristotle's view that something happens simply because it is "natural."

I think another problem evolutionists run into in explaining developmental evolution is where the 'missing links' are - indeed there should be quite a bit evident links to lesser life forms. There aren't, so it's just speculation that leans pretty close to philosophy too.

Variants on evolution could be used to explain anything too. In fact many people have argued, "well everything evolves as a matter of the definition of the word." ID is a tad more involved than Aristotle since we're dealing still with what we can observe scientifically with our advancements and technology, we're just speculating as to a different kind of conclusion/origin. Evolution now is a little like saying, "Well, things change." Yeah, so they do.

I think then, if science is only what's testable, what we need to do then is rid science of anything that isn't testable. Call evolution and ID and other stuff philosophy then.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

Bullsh**t, the physical laws have massive experimental evidence.

[Emsworth]

I think another problem evolutionists run into in explaining developmental evolution is where the 'missing links' are - indeed there should be quite a bit evident links to lesser life forms. There aren't, so it's just speculation that leans pretty close to philosophy too.

Science is an evolving field. Every theory will have its missing links. Classical mechanics, too, had its missing links, until they were filled in by Einstein. Does that mean that classical mechanics is unscientific?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Evolution is based on actual evidence, and is testable through genetics. One reasonable prediction of evolution would be that there is a genetic  similarity between certain lifeforms. This prediction can most certainly be tested.

There is no similar evidence to support ID. ID does not make any testable predictions.

[Giant Saguaro]

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

Bullsh**t, the physical laws have massive experimental evidence.

Overall, bullsh*t. Yes, there is evidence for GRAVITY and things like that, but scientific inquiry into the origins of the universe are all speculative. Your experimental evidence is mathematics equations that explain how things *could have* happened.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Neither is theoretical physics and areas of astronomy, to name two fields of science.

Bullsh**t, the physical laws have massive experimental evidence.

Overall, bullsh*t. Yes, there is evidence for GRAVITY and things like that, but scientific inquiry into the origins of the universe are all speculative. Your experimental evidence is mathematics equations that explain how things *could have* happened.

There are certain fundamental laws that have held up to rigorous experimental testing (the only question is what happens at very high energies like 1 nanosecond after big bang). You use the math for calculations assuming these laws. You clearly have no understanding of theoretical physics.