How can we teach both evolution and religion in school when they seemingly conflict so much with one another?
Yup. I was taught evolution and religion. I would have preferred better teaching of both, but it wasn't the end of the world.
Of course, we shouldn't teach evolution and pick an arbitrary unsupported set of religious creation stories and present them uncritically as if they had the same level of support as evolution...as in the video you showed.
The best way to teach religion is to simply teach people what different groups say they believe and what they do to express their beliefs. Instead of "God created the world in 6 days" you could start with "The Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christrianity and Islam believe that God created the world. Their creation story takes place over the course of 6 days although not all followers accept that this is a literal truth...tomorrow we will talk about the Sikhs beliefs about..."
I have no objection to that. Indeed: I insist it be a mandatory part of any reasonable education.
There should not be any proselytizing: just statements of observable facts and possible discussion of how those statements might relate to the student's own views. The ultimate goal of UK religious education is to get pupils to the standard that they can
quote:use a complex religious, moral and philosophical vocabulary to provide a consistent and detailed analysis of religions and beliefs. They evaluate in depth the importance of religious diversity in a pluralistic society. They clearly recognise the extent to which the impact of religion and beliefs on different communities and societies has changed over time. They provide a detailed analysis of how religious, spiritual and moral sources are interpreted in different ways, evaluating the principal methods by which religion and spirituality are studied. They synthesise effectively their accounts of the varied forms of religious, spiritual and moral expression...
Pupils analyse in depth a wide range of perspectives on questions of identity and belonging, meaning, purpose and truth, and values and commitments. They give independent, well-informed and highly reasoned insights into their own and others' perspectives on religious and spiritual issues, providing well-substantiated and balanced conclusions.
I think the Landover Baptists are not Poes, When I lived in Missouri I went to a landover baptist church for a couple months, and they are serious about that weird stuff.
Sure you aren't confusing it with Westboro Baptist Church? Landover is meant to be based out of the fictional town of Freehold, Iowa.
Only if that distant universe or past also was IN the natural world. You need to do more than assume it was.
Well of course. You assume that it is, and then calculate the consequences of that assumption and compare it to what we observe. As it turns out, assuming that it is leads to an explanatory framework that predicts how satellites behave, how Mercury behaves, how light behaves, how particles interact in the LHC etc etc. It seems that if that assumption is true, we can predict the future. If that assumption is false, then we've been getting outrageously and improbably lucky.
Feel free to explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, the time dilation effects on satellites, the behaviours we see in particle accelerators and so on where the assumption is false.
The scientific method can and does cover the distant past. There is no reason it cannot. Assumptions are a key part of the scientific method, regardless of the subject so that assumptions get made is not a reason to not teach one particular area.
Yup. And assuming the distant space and distant time are also in this nature results in a consistent and coherent picture of nature as a whole. From particles to galaxies.
Irrelevant
Actually it is relevant. You aren't one for advancing an argument are you? Just stating your opinion and hoping that'll suffice. Good luck with that approach.
What is in the fishbowl of earth and the solar system area is not relevant to what time is like is deep space.
But if what explains what is happening in deep space also, without modification, explains what is going on in the 'fishbowl' - that constitutes a very strong reason to suppose the fishbowl and deep space are part of the same nature. Without any reason at all to suppose otherwise - that's the scientific conclusion and that's why it should be taught where appropriate - your made-up rules and baseless repeated opining notwithstanding.
Explain how relativity of the fishbowl handles telling us the precise nature of time and space far far away?
They are part of the same spacetime continuum. At some points in this continuum, far away was here - but being a continuum the nature of time and space far far away is the same as the nature of time and space here - as they are subsets of precisely the same entity.
We know you believe that. However you need to do more than state it is so. You have provided no reason to support your belief here.
100 years of experimental verification seems sufficient to me. I already mentioned some of them, you must have forgotten. Precession of the perihelion of Mercury, particle accelerators, gravitational lensing etc etc etc.
Unless time existed the same at all points what you say is absurd.
In the same way that length exists the same at all points, time does too. Their measurement varies according the frame of reference of the measurer.
So..how do you think you know time is the same and exists at all points?
As I said - working from this assumption makes predictions which match observations. AKA science.
You are doing an excellent case at inadvertently advertising the need for teaching this and a poor job of justifying not teaching it. I'm not here to teach you relativity, but if you have a specific objection maybe we can find a thread to discuss that in.
It is evidence for the validity of Relativity. Which you asked for. So that makes it relevant. Relativity extends our knowledge to the transfishbowl regions as evidenced by its validity predicting what we'd see out there and given it uses the same rules to predict what we'd see cisfishbowl - it suggests that cisfishbowl and transfishbowl are actually all just one fishbowl following the same rules.
It is pure madness for you to ask for evidence that things are the same over here as they are over there and then to dismiss that evidence on the grounds that it includes discussion about what happens here.
You cannot take a triangle, and use the small end to represent time in the fishbowl, and then extend the longer parts to stars as if that also represented space and time there.
OK, I won't. I haven't been doing that, would you like to pay attention before replying next time? It'd be appreciated.
Relativity says its the same entity. So, yes actually - for the far universe.
Example of something predicted in deep space? Gravitational lensing won't do. You see that effect out there is not known in detail, since we have so many unknowns. Distances to the stars and how big whatever is seeming to bend the light...for example.
Those aren't unknowns.
So, what else you got?
Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, Black Holes, Redshift, the behaviour of binary pulsars, gravitational waves.
Relativity says its the same entity. So, yes actually - for the far universe.
In your dreams. Prove it.
I don't need to - Einstein, Poincare, Minkowski et al took care of the mathematical proof and a century of scientists since have empirically confirmed it.
Known by religious belief doesn't count even if you claim it is science falsely.
Exactly right. Fortunately what I say is correctly termed science.
None of those things matter or mean what you think unless time exists out in far space as it does here. Gong!
Maybe, but then you'd need to explain why all the results of these independent lines of enquiry all point to the same conclusion. Otherwise you aren't engaging in science, just radical and selective scepticism - which can easily be shown to be absurdity.
™ Version 4.1
