B
Benedictus
Guest
All science boils down to “just” theories. Most of those theories, like evolution and gravity, are backed up by so much evidence that for practical purposes, we can call them fact.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
chotock
Guest
Yes there is a lot of proof pointing to evolution being a proven fact, but not eh whole theory. geesh make a simple comment on how a teacher tried to respect everyone’s belief and you get an exam. remind not to say anything in here againAll science boils down to “just” theories. Most of those theories, like evolution and gravity, are backed up by so much evidence that for practical purposes, we can call them fact.
O
Orogeny
Guest
The point we are making is why did he say that about evolution and not other scientific theories? Or did he single out other theories and say the same thing?Yes there is a lot of proof pointing to evolution being a proven fact, but not eh whole theory. geesh make a simple comment on how a teacher tried to respect everyone’s belief and you get an exam. remind not to say anything in here again
I personally don’t think it is wonderful that religious belief is a consideration when discussing science.
Peace
Tim
J
jman507
Guest
Would it not also be true of every other theory that was the product of the scientific method?The point we are making is why did he say that about evolution and not other scientific theories? Or did he single out other theories and say the same thing?
I personally don’t think it is wonderful that religious belief is a consideration when discussing science.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Yes and that is my point. As a general statement, it is correct to say that no scientific theory has been proven and that each theory will be evaluated based on any new data that is uncovered in the future. Since evolutionary theory seems to have been singled out, my question is why? Why would a science teacher choose one of many theories to make a statement such as the one chotock has attributed to his “strongly athiest” biology teacher? What does the teacher’s religious beliefs have to do with the veracity of the comment?Would it not also be true of every other theory that was the product of the scientific method?
Peace
Tim
J
jman507
Guest
Let me make this arguement. He’s also not in English class, so I don’t see in no way the teacher should use English in his class, he should be solely focusing on science, because it’s science class.Yes and that is my point. As a general statement, it is correct to say that no scientific theory has been proven and that each theory will be evaluated based on any new data that is uncovered in the future. Since evolutionary theory seems to have been singled out, my question is why? Why would a science teacher choose one of many theories to make a statement such as the one chotock has attributed to his “strongly athiest” biology teacher? What does the teacher’s religious beliefs have to do with the veracity of the comment?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
Using your example, no one could verbally communicate in any class except language classes or perhaps singing classes. That is a silly argument.Let me make this arguement. He’s also not in English class, so I don’t see in no way the teacher should use English in his class, he should be solely focusing on science, because it’s science class.
I would agree that the teacher should not be teaching english in his science class, nor should the english teacher be teaching evolution in english class.
Why shouldn’t the teacher have said the same thing about germ theory and every other scientific theory? Why just evolution?
Peace
Tim
J
jman507
Guest
To say that man came to be because of evolution I don’t think is exactly science. Let’s give that the theory of evolution is true, does that have to mean that humans came to because of that, no. I guess it could be yes, by what you mean as a theory. When I say no, I mean it as a theory such as gravity, not as a theory as a retracing of steps. If you say it explains how man came to be, it’s more like a court case, the circumstance evidence from science indicates that is the explanation. There could be a supernatural phenomenon, or some other natural phenomenon that we don’t know yet. If you say that it is true, you need to understand everything, along with the metaphysical make up of the world.
You say an science teacher can use English to illustrate science but shouldn’t teach it. I don’t know if his teacher taught atheism, if he did, I too would object. If there is a God or Atheism is true really doesn’t make much difference in science. It uses a method to figure stuff out. I think that is an important point to understanding science. Atheism and Christianity has something to say for metaphysics, and metaphysics has a certain relationship to science.
Every scholastic discipline has some sort of a relationship to another, they shouldn’t be brushed aside, but explained how they actually fit together. Evolution is certainly a controversial topic, the crisis in the controversy can be an important tool to showing students how that relationship works.
If you have a problem with the controversy about this issue in KS, wouldn’t you rather people coming out of school, understanding the actual issues at hand. Well I don’t know maybe I’m assuming somethings, but maybe you can explain what exactly the actual frame of issues that are misunderstood regarding evolution vs. intelligent design?
You say an science teacher can use English to illustrate science but shouldn’t teach it. I don’t know if his teacher taught atheism, if he did, I too would object. If there is a God or Atheism is true really doesn’t make much difference in science. It uses a method to figure stuff out. I think that is an important point to understanding science. Atheism and Christianity has something to say for metaphysics, and metaphysics has a certain relationship to science.
Every scholastic discipline has some sort of a relationship to another, they shouldn’t be brushed aside, but explained how they actually fit together. Evolution is certainly a controversial topic, the crisis in the controversy can be an important tool to showing students how that relationship works.
If you have a problem with the controversy about this issue in KS, wouldn’t you rather people coming out of school, understanding the actual issues at hand. Well I don’t know maybe I’m assuming somethings, but maybe you can explain what exactly the actual frame of issues that are misunderstood regarding evolution vs. intelligent design?
O
Orogeny
Guest
I’m confused about what you are trying to say here. Why don’t you think it is science and what do you mean by theory?To say that man came to be because of evolution I don’t think is exactly science. Let’s give that the theory of evolution is true, does that have to mean that humans came to because of that, no. I guess it could be yes, by what you mean as a theory.
???When I say no, I mean it as a theory such as gravity, not as a theory as a retracing of steps.
There was a supernatural phenomenon involved, but that is the theology side of things, not the science side of things. If, in the future, new discoveries uncover facts that don’t fit the theory, the theory will have to be modified to explain the new data as well as all the current data. That isn’t a problem as far as science is concerned.If you say it explains how man came to be, it’s more like a court case, the circumstance evidence from science indicates that is the explanation. There could be a supernatural phenomenon, or some other natural phenomenon that we don’t know yet.
No, I don’t. I only need an explanation of the data (facts). That is what a scientific theory is. If we find data that does not fit into our theory, the theory must be changed. So far, the theory of evolution explains the data (facts) extremely well. It doesn’t say a word about the metaphysics, though, because that is outside the realm of science. In fact, if the theory in any way relied on metaphysics, it would not be a valid scientific theory.If you say that it is true, you need to understand everything, along with the metaphysical make up of the world.
So, should sentence structure be explained in math class? Each discipline needs time to be taught. If you are spending your time teaching english in math class, when are you going to learn math? English class?Every scholastic discipline has some sort of a relationship to another, they shouldn’t be brushed aside, but explained how they actually fit together.
I hate to tell you this, but evolution is not a controversial subject in science, only for those who don’t understand science. I’m telling you in all sincerity, there are those who find the ideas that the earth is not the center of the universe or that germs cause disease to be VERY controversial. Do we need to teach those controversies in science classes?Evolution is certainly a controversial topic, the crisis in the controversy can be an important tool to showing students how that relationship works.
The issues at hand in science class is science. If we single out perhaps the best supported theory in biology as questionable, we aren’t teaching science.If you have a problem with the controversy about this issue in KS, wouldn’t you rather people coming out of school, understanding the actual issues at hand.
Intelligent design (ID) is not science. It should not be taught in science classes. ID is an invention of creationists to get God injected into the science classroom. That, in a nutshell, is what the issue is between the two.Well I don’t know maybe I’m assuming somethings, but maybe you can explain what exactly the actual frame of issues that are misunderstood regarding evolution vs. intelligent design?
Peace
Tim
M
Mac6yver
Guest
I am scoring this a win for sanity!Sweet. I’m scoring this as a win for Catholicism.
T
Thekla
Guest
:thumbsup:On this issue, they are one in the same.I am scoring this a win for sanity!
J
jman507
Guest
Ahh, fantastic! More or less, that’s what I want taught in science class, other than the lines about where you say that should not be taught in science class. Why?I’m confused about what you are trying to say here. Why don’t you think it is science and what do you mean by theory???There was a supernatural phenomenon involved, but that is the theology side of things, not the science side of things. If, in the future, new discoveries uncover facts that don’t fit the theory, the theory will have to be modified to explain the new data as well as all the current data. That isn’t a problem as far as science is concerned.No, I don’t. I only need an explanation of the data (facts). That is what a scientific theory is. If we find data that does not fit into our theory, the theory must be changed. So far, the theory of evolution explains the data (facts) extremely well. It doesn’t say a word about the metaphysics, though, because that is outside the realm of science. In fact, if the theory in any way relied on metaphysics, it would not be a valid scientific theory.So, should sentence structure be explained in math class? Each discipline needs time to be taught. If you are spending your time teaching english in math class, when are you going to learn math? English class?I hate to tell you this, but evolution is not a controversial subject in science, only for those who don’t understand science. I’m telling you in all sincerity, there are those who find the ideas that the earth is not the center of the universe or that germs cause disease to be VERY controversial. Do we need to teach those controversies in science classes?The issues at hand in science class is science. If we single out perhaps the best supported theory in biology as questionable, we aren’t teaching science.Intelligent design (ID) is not science. It should not be taught in science classes. ID is an invention of creationists to get God injected into the science classroom. That, in a nutshell, is what the issue is between the two.
Peace
Tim
“I hate to tell you this, but evolution is not a controversial subject in science, only for those who don’t understand science.”
I don’t see what good you are doing making science a requirement in high school, if a person make those distinctions later on. We complain a lot about the poor way Catholicism has been taught in past years, guess what if people are getting confused, what good is science if a person has a sloppy understanding about what is science?
Evolution is the point where the problems are, you don’t have to really teach the controversy, you have to go back and teach the fundamentals.
B
Brad
Guest
In other words:Kans. ed board OKs evolution-centered science
TOPEKA, Kan. - The Kansas state Board of Education on Tuesday repealed science guidelines questioning evolution that had made the state an object of ridicule.
The new guidelines reflect mainstream scientific views of evolution and represent a political defeat for advocates of “intelligent design,” who had helped write the standards that are being jettisoned.
The intelligent design concept holds that life is so complex that it must have been created by a higher authority.
more
Those that ridiculed the state disagree that
“life is so complex that it must have been created by a higher authority”
They think that life is not created by an intelligent designer - they think the notion that we were created intelligently is ridiculous.
If their claim is true, it logically follows that their opinion cannot be intelligent.
T
Thekla
Guest
No, they just disagree that that should be part of the state’s science curriculum. On the basis that it is not science. Science takes theories and challenges them with proof; attempting to either prove them or disprove them. Science can’t be done on an “intelligent designer” because there is no proof either way.In other words:
Those that ridiculed the state disagree that
“life is so complex that it must have been created by a higher authority”
They think that life is not created by an intelligent designer - they think the notion that we were created intelligently is ridiculous.
If their claim is true, it logically follows that their opinion cannot be intelligent.
There are many good scientists out there who believe in God the Creator. The Catholic Church has maintained the view that Evolutionary Theory and God’s hand in creation are not incompatible. It’s just that God’s hand isn’t science, it’s faith.
B
Brad
Guest
I’ve been down the “scientific theory argument” road before. And I agree in regards to intelligent design to some extent. However, the argument against science is just as strong with evolutionary theory. It makes no provable claims in regards to the conclusions that are taught in the typical public school. That is the problem.No, they just disagree that that should be part of the state’s science curriculum. On the basis that it is not science. Science takes theories and challenges them with proof; attempting to either prove them or disprove them. Science can’t be done on an “intelligent designer” because there is no proof either way.
Teach both in metaphysics class or teach neither.
There are may good scientists out there who don’t believe in many of the claims of evolutionary theory.There are many good scientists out there who believe in God the Creator. The Catholic Church has maintained the view that Evolutionary Theory and God’s hand in creation are not incompatible. It’s just that God’s hand isn’t science, it’s faith.
Part of evolutionary theory are not incompabible but many of the claims are.
The problem is the most aggressive proponents of evolutionary theory are opposed to a God that is the sole creator of the universe - in the process weakening their claims as some of there motivation lies bare. Dawkins comes to mind.
J
jman507
Guest
If there are good theories out there that can explain a phenomenon, let them take the time to make them make their defense that would put them on equal footing with evolution. Everything in any science text is a work in progress. I’m sure there was a fair share that might have been wrong, they were replaced by ideas that proved to seem more right. We have no ability as of now to see how off they might be from Truth, but we have no ability to know the Truth.
Ahh I have to get going.
Ahh I have to get going.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Because it is not science.Ahh, fantastic! More or less, that’s what I want taught in science class, other than the lines about where you say that should not be taught in science class. Why?
I certainly would agree that the concept of what science is is not well taught in high school. If we did a better job of teaching that one point, this ruling would never have come about because there would never have been a “teach the controversy” approach to begin with.We complain a lot about the poor way Catholicism has been taught in past years, guess what if people are getting confused, what good is science if a person has a sloppy understanding about what is science?
Agreed.Evolution is the point where the problems are, you don’t have to really teach the controversy, you have to go back and teach the fundamentals.
Peace
Tim
S
Scottgun
Guest
Intelligent Design was created to solve a problem that Catholics don’t have. Namely, a millstone of incoherent *Sola Scriptura *hermeneutic.
Scott
Scott
T
Thekla
Guest
I absolutely love this answer. It’s perfect.Intelligent Design was created to solve a problem that Catholics don’t have.
Scott
O
Orogeny
Guest
Well said!Intelligent Design was created to solve a problem that Catholics don’t have. Namely, a millstone of incoherent *Sola Scriptura *hermeneutic.
Scott
Peace
Tim
- Status
- Not open for further replies.