RE: The Contradiction: (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 10:48:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, I was actually thinking more along the lines of living organisms and not patented inventions. Is it necessary for you to look to man-made machinery for an answer to questions about life?


No, just biology, particularly when talking with those that aren't all that familiar with the subject.


By those who are not familiar with the subject, do you mean these fine Christians here, myself included ?

If this is true, how could the common person make a judgement as to what their children should be taught in science classes without you to guide them at thier inadequate level of competency to understand the subject matter? Do you know?



Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 12:26:32 PM)

quote:

By those who are not familiar with the subject, do you mean these fine Christians here, myself included ?

If this is true, how could the common person make a judgement as to what their children should be taught in science classes without you to guide them at thier inadequate level of competency to understand the subject matter? Do you know?


Well, no, I think most here are pretty knowledgable about biology, but I always try to speak to those who might not be.

And I think parents should have the final say in what their children are or aren't taught in school.



Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 12:33:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

By those who are not familiar with the subject, do you mean these fine Christians here, myself included ?

If this is true, how could the common person make a judgement as to what their children should be taught in science classes without you to guide them at thier inadequate level of competency to understand the subject matter? Do you know?


Well, no, I think most here are pretty knowledgable about biology, but I always try to speak to those who might not be.
You mean you try to persuade those who might not be well-versed in biology, to see things your way, don't you?

quote:

And I think parents should have the final say in what their children are or aren't taught in school.

This is true. That is why it is imperative that science be taught apart from theology. Then everyone has a choice.

By the way, jhud. Artifact can be spelled either way. I have always spelled it "art{i}fact. Apparently, so were most children in the U.S.



Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 4:33:13 PM)

quote:

You mean you try to persuade those who might not be well-versed in biology, to see things your way, don't you?


No, I mean to understand things as they are.

quote:

This is true. That is why it is imperative that science be taught apart from theology. Then everyone has a choice.


Well, that would be the point; whether it is imperative is up to a parent.



Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 4:45:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You mean you try to persuade those who might not be well-versed in biology, to see things your way, don't you?


No, I mean to understand things as they are.

quote:

This is true. That is why it is imperative that science be taught apart from theology. Then everyone has a choice.


Well, that would be the point; whether it is imperative is up to a parent.


Not in a science class its not up to the parent. Which is, btw, the entire debate. Some parents want to combine religion and science in public schools. Would you mind if evolution was taught alongside religion in Sunday School classes?



Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 4:54:11 PM)

quote:

Not in a science class its not up to the parent. Which is, btw, the entire debate. Some parents want to combine religion and science in public schools.


The isn't sufficient reason for a parent to relinquish their responsibility and concern for their children when they enter a state operated science class, or indeed any class - the state simply shouldn't have that sort of power - at least not my children, you can do with yours what you will, provided you aren't endangering their health.

quote:

Would you mind if evolution was taught alongside religion in Sunday School classes?


It is in some churches, and I would certainly not require that that parents not be allowed to send their children to such chiurches by government mandate.



Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 5:22:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Not in a science class its not up to the parent. Which is, btw, the entire debate. Some parents want to combine religion and science in public schools.


The isn't sufficient reason for a parent to relinquish their responsibility and concern for their children when they enter a state operated science class, or indeed any class - the state simply shouldn't have that sort of power - at least not my children, you can do with yours what you will, provided you aren't endangering their health.


Here's the problem with your way of thinking. The parents who espouse creationism can teach their children any time anywhere using the Bible for its syllabus. But, parents who want science taught in public schools cannot unteach their children once science veers off the scientific track. The child at that point has been indoctrinated with something that science does not recognize. Why not just allow the State run schools to teach science?

quote:

quote:

Would you mind if evolution was taught alongside religion in Sunday School classes?


It is in some churches,
Tell me more, I'm very interested. Do you have any links for me? Nevertheless, I asked if you minded if evolution was taught in your childs Sunday School classes>

quote:

and I would certainly not require that that parents not be allowed to send their children to such chiurches by government mandate.
How can you require something of parents that is government mandated? You lost me...yet again. [:D]



Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/5/2008 11:48:33 PM)

quote:

Here's the problem with your way of thinking. The parents who espouse creationism can teach their children any time anywhere using the Bible for its syllabus. But, parents who want science taught in public schools cannot unteach their children once science veers off the scientific track. The child at that point has been indoctrinated with something that science does not recognize. Why not just allow the State run schools to teach science?


That’s an interesting point of view.

If parents whose children were exposed to the idea that intelligence is an explanation can’t be untaught, then wouldn’t the same be true for children who are taught that intelligence is unnecessary to explain any aspect of life or human development?

quote:

Tell me more, I'm very interested. Do you have any links for me?


Evolution Weekend is coming up quick - better alert your clergy

quote:

Nevertheless, I asked if you minded if evolution was taught in your childs Sunday School classes


I have choice with regard to Sunday school classes.



Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/6/2008 10:31:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Here's the problem with your way of thinking. The parents who espouse creationism can teach their children any time anywhere using the Bible for its syllabus. But, parents who want science taught in public schools cannot unteach their children once science veers off the scientific track. The child at that point has been indoctrinated with something that science does not recognize. Why not just allow the State run schools to teach science?


That’s an interesting point of view.

If parents whose children were exposed to the idea that intelligence is an explanation can’t be untaught, then wouldn’t the same be true for children who are taught that intelligence is unnecessary to explain any aspect of life or human development?
Science does not teach the unnecessary. That would make science dogma. Science simply states what it finds to be evidentiary. That's it. It makes no presumptions and hypothesis are established through consistant, repeated observations. Religion has no hypothesis, does it?


quote:

quote:

Tell me more, I'm very interested. Do you have any links for me?


Evolution Weekend is coming up quick - better alert your clergy


This is an event. I asked if you would like evolution taught alongside religion at your child's sunday school classes.

quote:

quote:

Nevertheless, I asked if you minded if evolution was taught in your childs Sunday School classes


I have choice with regard to Sunday school classes.
But you do not wish to give that same choice to our public school system.



Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/6/2008 3:34:01 PM)

quote:

Science does not teach the unnecessary. That would make science dogma. Science simply states what it finds to be evidentiary. That's it. It makes no presumptions and hypothesis are established through consistant, repeated observations. Religion has no hypothesis, does it?


Actually, you are affirming my point; as much as science is taught in a way that says intelligence is unnecessary, it contradicts what many would have their children understand.

quote:

This is an event. I asked if you would like evolution taught alongside religion at your child's sunday school classes.


And as I said, I wouldn’t, even if it is apparent some would - and I wouldn’t deny them that.

quote:

But you do not wish to give that same choice to our public school system.


Actually, I would love to give children that choice - that would be where we differ.



cybrjewls -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/6/2008 5:06:59 PM)

Greetings Aristocrat! Thank you for noticing that some will approach science and faith as non contradictory to each other. I believe that what 'evolution' teaches is that things changed over time, which is what is written in Genesis: that the trees, then the animals, then the people were created. In the same order in which the proponents of 'evolution' purport it to be in their diagrams where suddenly there are homo sapien homonid beings. There have always been gaps in the 'theory' when; upon examination; this does not contradict the prophesy at Scripture as recorded by Moses in Genesis but rather confirms that someone interupted things to continue the creative process as evidenced by the second law of thermodynamics of physics. Wisdom is necessary and power or force is necessary to overcome this 'law' that is taught in basic science classes. Things tend to a lower order of energy or less order and more disorder in the universe without force acting on the bodies involved.

I would concur, though, that there will be many a dispute among intelligent design propenents in their various belief system oriented paradigms.

I believe that the theory of evolution becomes an opiate for some scientists to view the world through as though it was not, itself, a dogma. I would acknowledge, however, that most scientists try to find the facts and perceive the Truth evident in the existence of the natural order.

As it is written: His qualities and power were evident from what was made so that no one has an excuse in believing that God does not exist. It takes way more faith to deny what one sees with his own eyes, and way more dedication to dogmatic scientific belief than it would to acknowledge the existence of God.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aristocrat

Creationists/Intelligent Design supporters have a problem that, if they wish to become more credible in their approach to science, will have to resolve.

We hear over and over again by the C/ID group that Evolution is strictly Materialism or Naturalism. This is their primary objection to Science in general but especially Evolution.

At the same time, I.D. proponents, while scoffing at a strictly materialistic/Naturalistic approach to science, will not openly admit that their ID is not of the material/natural world, thereby supporting indirectly Naturalism and materialism.

They are caught in a catch 22. If they claim that their ID is material, they cannot object to the material/natural approach science takes. But, if they claim that their ID is supernatural they can no longer hide the foundation of thier beliefs which is otherworldly.

They will have to decide on a platform which all I.D. proponents can agree upon.



Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/6/2008 10:32:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Science does not teach the unnecessary. That would make science dogma. Science simply states what it finds to be evidentiary. That's it. It makes no presumptions and hypothesis are established through consistant, repeated observations. Religion has no hypothesis, does it?


Actually, you are affirming my point; as much as science is taught in a way that says intelligence is unnecessary, it contradicts what many would have their children understand.

quote:

This is an event. I asked if you would like evolution taught alongside religion at your child's sunday school classes.


And as I said, I wouldn’t, even if it is apparent some would - and I wouldn’t deny them that.

quote:

But you do not wish to give that same choice to our public school system.


Actually, I would love to give children that choice - that would be where we differ.
That is the point I'm trying to make. Children do have a choice. They can go to church and learn all they or their parents wish about creation. And they can go to a public school and learn about real science behind creation provided by empirical data and analyzed by our top scientists and published.

That is what we call a choice. However, to push the creationist worldview in a science class is tyranny.



Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/6/2008 10:52:27 PM)

quote:

That is the point I'm trying to make. Children do have a choice. They can go to church and learn all they or their parents wish about creation. And they can go to a public school and learn about real science behind creation provided by empirical data and analyzed by our top scientists and published.


But you just said a few posts ago that children exposed to one point of view can't be untaught and are indoctrinated. This would apply to children whose parents don't want them indoctrinated in evolution as well.



Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/7/2008 11:25:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

That is the point I'm trying to make. Children do have a choice. They can go to church and learn all they or their parents wish about creation. And they can go to a public school and learn about real science behind creation provided by empirical data and analyzed by our top scientists and published.


But you just said a few posts ago that children exposed to one point of view can't be untaught and are indoctrinated. This would apply to children whose parents don't want them indoctrinated in evolution as well.


There are Christian Schools available but where would a parent send a child who was indoctrinated with a religious slant on a secular subject?

I think that if parents do not wish their children to be taught evolution, they should take it up with the school board. In fact I think that the ACLU might even help in this case.



Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/7/2008 11:48:51 AM)

quote:

There are Christian Schools available but where would a parent send a child who was indoctrinated with a religious slant on a secular subject?

I think that if parents do not wish their children to be taught evolution, they should take it up with the school board. In fact I think that the ACLU might even help in this case.


Or we could openly discuss the issues and let the children become well rounded critical thinkers?



Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/7/2008 12:42:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

There are Christian Schools available but where would a parent send a child who was indoctrinated with a religious slant on a secular subject?

I think that if parents do not wish their children to be taught evolution, they should take it up with the school board. In fact I think that the ACLU might even help in this case.


Or we could openly discuss the issues and let the children become well rounded critical thinkers?


Open discussions are not those in which one is forced to participate. And to assert that children who don't study the hypothesis of Intelligent Design cannot learn critical thinking in a myriad of different settings is pretty arrogant.



Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/7/2008 3:38:49 PM)

quote:

Open discussions are not those in which one is forced to participate.


Then don’t require them to participate.

quote:

And to assert that children who don't study the hypothesis of Intelligent Design cannot learn critical thinking in a myriad of different settings is pretty arrogant.


Well, I didn’t assert that, but I would think that someone who thinks that discussing intelligent design in a class would somehow corrupt critical thinking skills is pretty ignorant.



Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/7/2008 4:12:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Open discussions are not those in which one is forced to participate.


Then don’t require them to participate.
Then why do it?

quote:

quote:

And to assert that children who don't study the hypothesis of Intelligent Design cannot learn critical thinking in a myriad of different settings is pretty arrogant.


Well, I didn’t assert that, but I would think that someone who thinks that discussing intelligent design in a class would somehow corrupt critical thinking skills is pretty ignorant.
No one is saying that open discussion would corrupt critical thinking skills. Where did you get that idea?



Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/7/2008 4:18:31 PM)

quote:

Then why do it?


Because for those who do participate it would be a worthwhile learning experience.

quote:

No one is saying that open discussion would corrupt critical thinking skills. Where did you get that idea?


"...parents who want science taught in public schools cannot unteach their children once science veers off the scientific track. The child at that point has been indoctrinated with something that science does not recognize."



Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/7/2008 4:22:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Then why do it?


Because for those who do participate it would be a worthwhile learning experience.
Not in a science class. There is enough to teach our children about science.

quote:

No one is saying that open discussion would corrupt critical thinking skills. Where did you get that idea?


"...parents who want science taught in public schools cannot unteach their children once science veers off the scientific track. The child at that point has been indoctrinated with something that science does not recognize."
That statement in no way says that open discussion would corrupt critical thinking skills.



Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/7/2008 4:27:16 PM)

quote:

Not in a science class. There is enough to teach our children about science.


Actually, participation is an excellent way to teach science, and get kids to think about the prinicples.

quote:

"...parents who want science taught in public schools cannot unteach their children once science veers off the scientific track. The child at that point has been indoctrinated with something that science does not recognize."

That statement in no way says that open discussion would corrupt critical thinking skills.


WSo they can think about science after such discussions?



Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/7/2008 4:48:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Not in a science class. There is enough to teach our children about science.


Actually, participation is an excellent way to teach science, and get kids to think about the prinicples.
Participation has always been effective, yes. We are drifting off the subject.

quote:

quote:

"...parents who want science taught in public schools cannot unteach their children once science veers off the scientific track. The child at that point has been indoctrinated with something that science does not recognize."

That statement in no way says that open discussion would corrupt critical thinking skills.


WSo they can think about science after such discussions?
You have lost me with that question. Say again?



Jhud -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/7/2008 5:00:26 PM)

quote:

Participation has always been effective, yes. We are drifting off the subject.


Didn't we do that after or about post 4?



cybrjewls -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/7/2008 5:13:24 PM)

Greetings Aristocrat! Please be aware, if I could throw in my two cents, that many people would be able to agree with the limits to which science sets about learning physical processes through math and theory. I agree with you, then, that the scope of science is limited in its application and does not necessarily seek to contradict that which is by faith by adhering to perceived processes and formulating educated guesses. We could use a lesson from scientific method in our Churches, at times, by putting each understanding and Doctrine to the strictest of tests by what is written as a whole to produce a fuller picture and gain greater understanding of Our Lords teachings and The Faith. That is what Paul said regarding the Bereans that they tested everything that was presented to see if it came from God by what is written.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aristocrat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Not in a science class. There is enough to teach our children about science.


Actually, participation is an excellent way to teach science, and get kids to think about the prinicples.
Participation has always been effective, yes. We are drifting off the subject.

quote:

quote:

"...parents who want science taught in public schools cannot unteach their children once science veers off the scientific track. The child at that point has been indoctrinated with something that science does not recognize."

That statement in no way says that open discussion would corrupt critical thinking skills.


WSo they can think about science after such discussions?
You have lost me with that question. Say again?



Aristocrat -> RE: The Contradiction: (1/7/2008 5:53:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Participation has always been effective, yes. We are drifting off the subject.


Didn't we do that after or about post 4?
Yes, we did however, I'm talking about the most recent subject in the last five or six posts.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI