bluefugue

IMO, there is a kind of implicit nontheism in evolution, because the science of biology doesn't permit itself an untestable theistic explanation. The snag is, all other science classes have exactly the same implicit non-theism, because all science examines things in terms of naturalistic mechanisms. There is no reason to distinguish biology in this respect. Astronomy, cosmology, meteorology, geology, physics, etc., all seek naturalistic explanations for phenomena that were once attributed to a god or gods or comparable supernatural entities. (Volcano=Hephaestus, lightning=Zeus, angels push planets around, rainbow=bridge to Valhalla, etc.)

So I say, strike all science education from the public schools!

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

Starboy

IesusDomini, I hope you are not serious.

Starboy

GeoTheo

Well actually I have come to the conclusion that the God of the gaps does not exist. The real God is not threatened by the persuit of scientific knowledge.

Starboy

Hi GeoTheo,

I am sure you are aware that this point of view has definite ramifications on how God acts in the universe. God now becomes more like the God of the diests.

Starboy

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Tabula_rasa

Theism is about the specific belief in the existence of a deity or deities. There are many forms of religion and there are many deities to choose from. All claim to have knowledge of the truth of their particular beliefs. To my knowledge (feel free to correct me), there are no earthly tests which would prove the basis for these beliefs.

Agnosticism does not deny the possibility of a deity, but it is generally ambivalent to any particular religious affiliation, oftentimes for the reasons cited above.

Atheism denies the possibility of a deity or deities outright.

Lastly, science neither denies nor supports a deity or deities. It attempts to provide answers for phenomena which have been shown to have naturalistic causes.

To equate science with atheism is therefore an incorrect axiom.

Oh, and to answer the question, no creationism should not be taught in science classes, but it might be well placed in a comparative religious course.

Tabula_rasa

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Tabula_rasa ]</p>

Morat

You can't get around science (or anything, really) having potential or actual religious implications.

A religion could hold, for instance, that the works of Shakespeare are devil-inspired, and that only Satanists read it.

Does that mean Hamlet is a religious work, and cannot be taught in school?

To our mythical religion, teaching Hamlet (or even having the play in a classroom) would be like performing Satanic rituals.

Admittedly, this is a extreme example. But it makes the point quite clear. Origins research, or questions, aren't religious. But religions often make statements about them. If we treat anything a religion makes a definitive statement on as "religious", we'll soon run out of things to teach.

Starboy

Hi Tabula,

Please read the posts carefully. Your statements do not agree with the conclusions reached in this discussion. Also there are several interpretations of the word athiest, the one I go by is not the same as yours. Also you have not completely thought out your last statement. Rejecting supernatural explainations does have religious ramifications in those aspects that involve statements about the supernatural. This is the essence of the creation vs. evolution debate.

Starboy

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

GeoTheo

Not really. I once thought it did. It just means that I don't understand how God works and leave it up to faith. When you believe in the existence of Hell because of a supposed tape of screams from Hell in a mine, you set your self up for a fall when the tape is proven a fake. I believe in answered prayer but am unable to trace how God does it. It is a matter of Faith.
Christianity is meant to be taken on faith not sight. Making falsifiable claims for the existence of God through the fossil record does not serve Christianity. A definition of faith in the Bible is "the evidence of things not seen" Since ICR and ilk say they can present physical evidence for creation they are damaging faith.
Deism has more to do with God's relationship to mankind. God can still play an active role without acting in ways that can be studied by science. I believe God transcends the physical Universe.

Starboy

GeoTheo,

I can see it that way. However it does take the philosophical view that there are things that exist that can never be comprehended by man. Some people are fine with that limitation. I on the other hand am not comfortable with it. It may not be possible in practice but I would like to think that its possible in principle. I also agree that this crazy battle between creation vs. evolution is going to backfire on Christianity. Makes you wonder if the religious leadership in this country has a clue.

Starboy

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Tabula_rasa

Hello.

I have. Since you weren't here to watch over my shoulder as I was doing so, maybe you were ignorant of the fact?

Maybe so. Or, maybe further discussion is warranted. I obviously thought so.

<strong> Interesting.

Websters 9th Collegiate:

athe.ist \'a-the-ist\ n (1571): one who denies the existence of God

That pretty much lines up with my understanding of atheism. What is your definition?

<strong> Please, do not attempt to speak for what I have or have not thought through as you are not a mind reader.

<strong> The rejection of the supernatural as an explanation for phenomena which are explained completely with naturalistic mechanations have zero implications for religion. Science is the search for naturalistic answers. Religions need to learn to keep their noses out of science: it's bad science and it's bad religion.

Tabula_rasa