Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8161 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2014 4:09 AM
44 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tangle (2 members, 42 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: NAME OF THE ROSE
Post Volume:
Total: 741,756 Year: 27,597/28,606 Month: 2,654/2,244 Week: 58/710 Day: 1/57 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science in church?
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 35 (483002)
09-19-2008 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Logic
09-17-2008 8:03 PM


Hi, Logic.

I think you've got an interesting idea going here. If creationists use the "balance" argument to get creationism into schools, their unwillingness to teach science (not to mention other religious and philosophical ideas) in church kind of constitutes a double standard.

Problems come in when you consider that the ID movement is working hard to make people believe that they are a legitimate science that is not strictly tied to Christian theology.

Also, like Moose said earlier, you have to consider that schools are public institutions, whereas churches are in the private sector. Each system has its way of allowing the individual members to decide what goes on. If you want something different taught in schools, you have to petition and/or vote accordingly, etc. Religion has a way of letting you choose what you are taught, too: you go to a different church somewhere.

Religion has always enjoyed all sorts of immunities, at least in the USA. They are in the unique position of being shielded from attacks from anywhere while also being allowed to meddle in anybody else's affairs by simply claiming that it's part of their belief system. They are permitted, by law, to attack science, but science is not given entirely the same privilege to fight back, except in blogs and seminars. For instance, if a scientist wished to protest the activity of a certain religion in his hometown, he would not even be allowed a hearing in the local court. But, religion protesting the presence of science in its hometown can make it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

It's unfair. But, really, if you think about it, that's the way science is: the scientific method allows anybody to challenge anything at anytime, and that's why science is so strong. Ironically, the protection that religion has gotten under the US Constitution is the reason why it will never have the strength of science, because it will never have to overcome the challenges to its central axioms that science experiences every year.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Logic, posted 09-17-2008 8:03 PM Logic has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Logic, posted 09-21-2008 8:52 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 32 of 35 (483395)
09-21-2008 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Logic
09-21-2008 8:52 PM


Hi, Logic.

My apologies: I was under the impression that you wanted explanations for the current situation.

Logic writes:

So I'm guess you would like to see the two ID / creationism and science left separate?

Yes.

I am for science (and only science) to be taught in science classes. And I am also for the freedom of religion, which requires that no particular religious idea be supported in public institutions.

Here's my particular view on this. I am a Mormon, and many of my fundamental beliefs about the nature of God and the history of creation, etc., are vastly different from what other Christians believe. If they were to teach creationism in school, Protestant and Catholic parents would be happy, but my religious beliefs would be discriminated against, and Mormons don't have the numbers to get a popular vote passed.

And, in addition, there's just no scientific evidence for creationism, so it shouldn't be taught in science class.

But, if I were in authority to choose, I would want to teach at least basic science concepts in church. I think it is inexcusable to allow the ranting about science that I hear in church, but to not allow anybody who feels differently to challenge the views that are put forth. I have tried to rebut an argument in church, and I can testify that it's not good for your health or for your continued fellowship in the congregation to do so. "Church is not a forum for debate," they like to say, which is unfortunate, because there is no way provided for people to discern which parts of what is said are true and which parts are not.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Logic, posted 09-21-2008 8:52 PM Logic has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2008 10:31 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 2615
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 34 of 35 (483401)
09-21-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Coyote
09-21-2008 10:31 PM


Re: Which parts are true and which parts are not?
Hi, Coyote.

Coyote writes:

You are supposed to believe what they tell you, and to take their word for it. That is the basis for organized religions.

This is also their complaint against science: "They won't let me teach my idea!"

When you put it like that, it is a bit hypocritical: they shouldn't claim the privilege to do to other groups what they wouldn't let those other groups do to them.


-Bluejay

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2008 10:31 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Coyote, posted 09-21-2008 11:40 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014