GeoTheo

From my post, I feel I have rather made it obvious that I don't support teaching biblical creationism in public school since it's assumptions about the Universe are derived from a religious text.
Also one of my other points is that If it were believed by Christians that those assumptions were obvious to everyone with or with out the text, then that would effectively eliminate the need for the text.
You should be able to arrive at the conclusion that the Earth was created in 6 days ,that man was an act of supernatural creation from soil, that Eve was a product of one of Adams ribs, that All life was at one time destroyed in a global flood and built back up from a population composed of as little as 1 male and 1 female from each species, etc.
But that is just not true.
I guess my title kind of implies otherwise.
My point is, is it equally bad to teach implicit atheism?
Do We really know that all life evolved without any devine intervention? Does this come from an assumption derived from a lack of religious belief?
If your attitude is that there is no evidence of a creator to present, how is that any different from a teacher presenting that there obviously is evidence of a creator to present?
If you believe that in fact there is no God and that life evolved on its own are you violating the seperation of Church and State as equally as you would by teaching creation?
Do people of all religious beliefs have a right to public education?
Private primary and secondary schools are not free, and private colleges and Universities are more expensive as they recief no government funding.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: GeoTheo ]</p>

scigirl

Implicit atheism. Hmm, I'll have to think about that.

Good question.

scigirl

Albion

No, we don't. And one important thing about science is that it doesn't matter. We're studying natural processes whether they exist without a creator or whether they're the way God created. The Dawkins attitude that the existence of natural processes somehow imples the lack of existence of anything supernatural is an extremist attitude.

There's no difference between presenting evolution by natural selection and germ theory of disease as explanations of natural processes. We know that infectious diseases are caused by pathogenic microbes - by presenting that in science class, are we really telling children that this implies that God has no role in the human condition?

Not if you keep that belief to yourself while teaching the science. Schoolkids need to learn what science is and what it isn't, and they need to know that the exclusion of supernatural processes from the scientific method isn't equivalent to saying that God doesn't exist, it's simply a necessary assumption so that scientists can avoid recourse to miracles to explain anything that looks a bit difficult.

Starboy

Hi GeoTheo,

If I understand you correctly you appear to be asking several different questions:

1. Does teaching science teach atheism implicitly?

2. If science is teaching atheism implicitly is that a violation of separation of church and state?

3. For Christians, how should Christian culture be passed on to the next generation?

4. For society as a whole, how should the next generation of scientists be trained? (I threw this one in because I think it is germane even though GeoTheo did not ask it.)

Answer to Q1: YES. The scientific method doesn’t allow supernatural explanations. Such explanations are simply not considered. So it is implicitly a-theistic.

Answer to Q2: NO. A-theism is not a religion. What gets the Christian panties in a bunch is that science deemphasizes religion as a way of understanding our place in the universe. IMHO this is a crisis for Christianity. It will be interesting to see how they work it out.

Answer to Q3: What makes this an interesting question is that over 80% of the population in the US is Christian. From my point of view, that of an atheist, the constitution is clear. The government is not in the business of promoting any religion even if an overwhelming percentage of the population believes in it. Living here in Tallahassee there doesn’t appear to be any lack of opportunities for Christians to pass on their culture outside of public education.

Answer to Q4: What makes this question important is that science and technology is crucial for the future success of the US. As a businessman, in a technical industry, it is imperative that our education system produce the best scientists and engineers possible. The world is becoming a very competitive place. Christianity can take care of itself without the use of public schools, but science and technology has no other place to go and the country relies on it. If we screw this up, in the future, our technical infrastructure will be run by Europeans, Asians and Indians, think about that!

Starboy

GeoTheo

Starboy:
"Science" is too broad a word.
I am growing tired of the arguement that Christians because of the constraints of their worldview must present only supernatural explanations for all natural phenomena (weather patterns, geology, physics)and only stubbornly, grudgingly, recant them when overwhelming evidence
for a naturalistic explanation is presented while clinging to the hope that all other scientific gaps contain only supernatural causes.
It just ain't so. There probably are some groups within Christianity that may hold to somthing that resembles that but I don't. So, what is your next move to say I am not a "real" Christian then?

GeoTheo

I am not asking if "SCIENCE" implicitly teaches atheism. I am only refering to questions of origins.
When presenting a totally naturalistic, materialistic explanation of origins are you not presenting atheism? that is the question.
I am not asking any of your other questions.
They cloud the issue. It is a straw man to argue that Christianity is incompatible with science because they seek supernatural explanations as the exhaustive explanations on all subjects.

Starboy

Sorry GeoTheo, I guess I didn’t understand you correctly. What particular supernatural explanations do you think should be taught in school along side of science? Are you saying that you don’t have to be a super-naturalist to be a Christian? I don’t understand what you are trying to say, please clarify.

Starboy

GeoTheo

I think we cross posted.
The main question is this:
Is it possible to present origins (wheather it is a question of cosmology, biogenesis, or human origins) without any religious implications ?
Atheism has religious implications in regards to its view of other religions, wheather it is a religion or not.

Starboy

IMHO, no. However it is not atheism that has the religious implications, it is the scientific method itself.

Starboy

GeoTheo

Well that is interesting.