07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76You answer "its not scientifically proven".
Okay.
You're a science teacher. You're explaining the Big Bang.
14 year old Tommy raises his hand and asks, "But didn't God create the Universe?"
What do you answer?
You can't include supernatural/religious explanations in science lessons.
What would you do if a hindu asked the same question but refferring to some hindu deity?
Its the same thing.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Could be. Who knows? Perhaps god was the moving hand behind the Big Bang, but that's beyond the scope of this class.
Okay.
You're a science teacher. You're explaining the Big Bang.
14 year old Tommy raises his hand and asks, "But didn't God create the Universe?"
What do you answer?
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by rwingettI'd have to research this a bit more thoroughly, but I think you might have just violated the law by teaching creationism in some jurisdictions.
Could be. Who knows? Perhaps god was the moving hand behind the Big Bang, but that's beyond the scope of this class.
Personally, I think your answer is good. If teachers would say something to that effect, I'd have no problem with it.
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76If the teachers are asked, they should give a neutral answer. One that neither promotes nor discourages religious belief. But they should not make any mention of god on their own initiative.
I'd have to research this a bit more thoroughly, but I think you might have just violated the law by teaching creationism in some jurisdictions.
Personally, I think your answer is good. If teachers would say something to that effect, I'd have no problem with it.
07 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimoTommy hits you with a spitball when you turn around to write on the board. Now what do you do?
you answer "no, its means its not scientifically proven. and its not relevant in science lessons, now shut up tommy".
Just don't say "For God's sake, stop that!"
🙂
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Hypotheses are only half of science. Science forms hypotheses, but then tests them against the observed or experimental evidence. This refining of hypotheses is how scientific knowledge progresses.
Okay. We're getting closer to agreement.
Let's see if we can crystalize this.
1) Is the origin of the Universe a scientific issue?
2) Is there a completely reliable scientific explanation for the origin of the Universe?
3) Is action by some sort of God one hypothesis?
4) Can some sort God be consistent with the Big Bang theory?
5) Is there any ...[text shortened]... resenting this as one alternative hypothesis?
My answers:
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
The God hypothesis is by definition untestable and unobservable. It may or may not be true -- but science has absolutely nothing to say about it.
Teaching about God in science class fundamentally confuses and contradicts the principles that science rests on. It is unjustifiable and wrong.
07 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Teaching the Big Bang theory without mentioning the possibility of God is akin to teaching atheism (not that there's anything inherently wrong with that). You're saying that the World came into existence through natural processes and are not mentioning the possibility of a deity.
Okay; we're close to an agreement, though not quite there. Seems like the only difference between us is the exact phraseology that the teacher should use to present essentially the same idea.
Let's go back to the original reason this was brought up.
All I originally said that lead to this whole brouhaha was that there's no need for atheists to complain ab g Spaghetti Monster. This truly is one of the more mature groups of posters on the net.
I disagree. I agree with rwingett that secular isn't atheist. I think part of science class should be teaching what science is and that science investigates naturalistic explanations. If you teach that "god is another explanation" then which god? The christian one? Why not the flying spaghetti monster? Remember, establishing one religion is a nasty habit 😉
Everything everyone has said against that has been along the lines of "Well, atheism is the only doctrine that is scientifically provable."
Ummm.. no. The absence of a god is also not scientifically provable either. Science doesn't prove or disprove god's existence.
As it clearly is taught in public schools throughout the USA, I find atheists' claims of discrimination by the government against them to ring a bit hollow.
It isn't clearly taught in public schools. There are violations of the separation of church and state regularly ("national prayer day", "in god we trust" being on our money, plus I'm sure there are others) and some affect people more or less, but to say that having a national prayer day somehow doesn't show a preference for religion by the nation is a bit hollow for sure.
It's also very hollow to suggest that the government not sanctioning a christian religious event amounts to being somehow "anti-christian".
If it were a muslim salute to the prayers should the government go ahead? A hindu salute? Would refusing either of those be anti-muslim or anti-hindu respectively?
How about a scientology salute to the troops by having a fly-by of the pentagon supported by the government?
There are definitely areas where atheists are discriminated against that may not be established in law, but are there in our society. Do you think any political candidate in most of the country could get close to being elected without finishing his speeches with "God bless America"?
Could a political candidate get away with saying that they openly don't believe in god in most of this country?
I believe we do have one openly atheist congressman or senator and things are getting better since those who don't associate with any religion is a growing minority in the country, but there still is this myth that's largely believed that atheists have no morals or are evil and I see that as no different than thinking that jews have no morals or are evil or that christians or muslims are evil or have no morals.
07 Jul 09
One more thing -- what "most people believe" is irrelevant to science. Even if ALL the people on the Earth unanimously believe something that has no scientific relevance whatsoever. (They could all be wrong, obviously.)
"...the body of scientists is trained to avoid and organized to resist every form of persuasion but the fact."
Jacob Bronowski
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonThen why is the first word, even before the country that the armed forces fight in the name of - God?
"God and Country Rally" has focused on honoring and paying tribute to those veterans who have served our nation in the past and those who are currently on active duty.
thats what this rally is about.it does not exclude non-christian servicemen.
If there was a atheist rally for the past half a century where they had fly overs and Obama stopped it i would have a issue w/that as well.But,thats not the case and i doubt it would ever be.
07 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by utherpendragonOur Declaration (not Constitution assuming rwingett is right) refers to a deist God, not a fundamentalist Protestant Christian God.
i disagree. our constitution speaks of God and that does not exclude atheist. Our money says "in God we trust" that does not exclude atheist from using it. i may be wrong,but it sounds to me like you are saying you want no mention of God in government or anything to do w/tax payer dollars.Am I correct?
Our money (and Pledge of Allegience) was changed to add those words during a period when the political Christians had a lot of influence. This was not something the Founders wanted!
07 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76Public schools are not required to teach atheism!
He was responding to rwingett, who called him a "complete idiot" which is name calling, by anyone's definition.
As for "In God we trust," get rid of it; I couldn't care less. It's meaningless symbolism. But I do think it's a little ridiculous that atheists complain about a little meaningless symbolism when public schools are practically required by law to teach atheism to children- which is anything but meaningless symbolism.
We're required to teach science and not to teach religion. It's not the same thing. You might as well accuse schools of teaching Christian fascism because of the Pledge of Allegience.