Prayer in schools?

[Black Dog]

Bring it on

Bring what on? You're claiming there's more scientific evidence gainst evolution than for. I call bullshit. So it's your job to step up.

Oh, and scientific theory IS hocus-pocus, until it is proven.

And evolution is proven, inasmuch as the weight of evidence for it is so immense and so thoroughly documented. In any meaningful sense, evolution is a fact.

[GostHacked]

Theory is NOT fact.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory

Evolution is a theory.

God is a theory.

Evolution is a theory with alot more evidence to back the theory up.

God is still just a theory that in no way can be scientificly tested.

Evolution took years and years. So in our short lifespan on this planet we are able to only view things that happen over our life span. Evolution takes centuries. However, with scientific methods that are in place, we are able to 'watch' the progress of evolution over a long time.

Scientific methods include, observation, making and taking measurements of any kind. The theory is adjusted after time when evidence proves or disproves it.

Religion has not changed over the past few centuries. It has remained static. This does in no way prove it is a theory or fact. There is no solid evidence of God. No proof, nothing tangeble. Well if you consider a story book that has changed over the years, the Bible might be considered a theory. But overall it is just a story, for there is no solid respected scientific evidence to back any of it up.

Evolution has grown out of theories and evidence that back up each other in a scientific matter. Theories are taught in school all the time. But those are theories that have been 'proven' to a point that it becomes 'fact'. Teaching Inteligent Design without some science behind it becomes hocus pocus. Smoke and mirrors, slight of hand.

Prayers should still kept out of the schools. Pray at home, or hell, even pray in class by yourself (no biggie to me).

[Hawk]

One interesting tidbit you should think about, Thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted from one form to another. If the physics of our universe is limited in this fashion how did our energy come into existence? Where did matter come from? How did the universe begin?

This an excellent example of the logic failures of anti-evolution creationists: there is nothing in evolution theory that precludes the idea that a divine creator - evolution theory simply describes how it is possible for new life forms to appear without the intervention of the creator. In fact, many scientists are believers in God and see science as way to better understand the universe created by God.

I find it puzzling that many Christians have such big problems with evolution but are perfectly willing to accept the science that shows Earth is a miniscule planet on the outer rim of one galaxy among billions. It seems to me that a God that really thought his/her creations on Earth were so special then he/she would have given them a more prominent position in the universe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but at the same time many evolutionists claim it proves God doesn't exist, had I known where you stand on the issue I wouldn't have brought it up.

So you are an evolutionist that allows the possibility of supernatural intervention?

Oh and as for giving us a more prominent position in the universe, I find it ironic that you can't find our little planet the most amazing place in our known universe since we have yet to find a planet that can even sustain life =) I would say this is a great place to be.

[Hawk]

Bring it on

Bring what on? You're claiming there's more scientific evidence gainst evolution than for. I call bullshit. So it's your job to step up.

Oh, and scientific theory IS hocus-pocus, until it is proven.

And evolution is proven, inasmuch as the weight of evidence for it is so immense and so thoroughly documented. In any meaningful sense, evolution is a fact.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair enough, clarify for me by pointing out the evolutionary theories you support and I will do my best to show them up.

Otherwise I might waste my time by disproving a theory you don't even support =p

[Hawk]

Theory is NOT fact.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory

Evolution is a theory.

God is a theory.

Evolution is a theory with alot more evidence to back the theory up.

God is still just a theory that in no way can be scientificly tested.

Evolution took years and years. So in our short lifespan on this planet we are able to only view things that happen over our life span. Evolution takes centuries. However, with scientific methods that are in place, we are able to 'watch' the progress of evolution over a long time.

Scientific methods include, observation, making and taking measurements of any kind. The theory is adjusted after time when evidence proves or disproves it.

Religion has not changed over the past few centuries. It has remained static. This does in no way prove it is a theory or fact. There is no solid evidence of God. No proof, nothing tangeble. Well if you consider a story book that has changed over the years, the Bible might be considered a theory. But overall it is just a story, for there is no solid respected scientific evidence to back any of it up.

Evolution has grown out of theories and evidence that back up each other in a scientific matter. Theories are taught in school all the time. But those are theories that have been 'proven' to a point that it becomes 'fact'.  Teaching Inteligent Design without some science behind it becomes hocus pocus. Smoke and mirrors, slight of hand.

Prayers should still kept out of the schools. Pray at home, or hell, even pray in class by yourself (no biggie to me).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, at least we agree that Theory isn't Fact hehe

As for Religion, true it has no proof to back it up that you would accept. Therefore I won't push that point. However, I would argue that Evolution has the same problem, for example carbon dating. This was used by evolutionists for the longest while to prove the age of our planet (and to also disprove creation) yet then we learned the half-life of carbon was insufficient to accurately depict anything near the ages they were coming up with. My point is that just because a scientist says something, doesn't make it fact. That is something I know alot of Evolutionists (that I know) have a problem with, they think that because it is said by a reknown scientist they can turn off their brain and just absorb everything as being complete truth =p

Heck, I am not even THAT accepting of religion.

Again, I believe we must either accept all theories as teachable in a classroom or ban them all. Otherwise you are discriminating.

[Riverwind]

True, but at the same time many evolutionists claim it proves God doesn't exist, had I known where you stand on the issue I wouldn't have brought it up.

Don't know where you get that idea. Most people that oppose creationism in the schools do so because they see creationism as a front for Christians who are trying to get their particular religion back into the schools. You could call then anti-Christian but that does not mean they are atheists.

So you are an evolutionist that allows the possibility of supernatural intervention?

It something that cannot be excluded based on the evidence is available. Theories that humans where created by a race of Aliens also cannot be completely excluded.

However, there is huge difference between agreeing that divine intervention in the evolutionary process is a possibility and saying that the entire concept of evolution is wrong. Science is about finding answers that make sense without assuming that God exists because it is only those answers that we humans can make use of. It may be true that humans appeared because some god/alien started fiddling with ape DNA 10 million years ago, however, that information is useless to us since we do not have the power of God. On the other hand, evolution has been a very useful theory when it comes to understanding biology and disease. Ultimately, that is why evolution belongs in school and creationism does not: evolution can lead to new scientific discoveries, creationism is just a philosophy that does not open any new opportunities for scientific discovery.

[I Miss Trudeau]

However, I would argue that Evolution has the same problem, for example carbon dating. This was used by evolutionists for the longest while to prove the age of our planet (and to also disprove creation) yet then we learned the half-life of carbon was insufficient to accurately depict anything near the ages they were coming up with.

You're either misinformed, or you're a liar. Carbon dating has never been put forward as an accurate way to measure the age of the planet by any reputable scientist. The length of time that carbon dating is accurate to is on the order of thousands of years, while the age of the planet is on the order of billions of years.

[Hawk]

However, I would argue that Evolution has the same problem, for example carbon dating. This was used by evolutionists for the longest while to prove the age of our planet (and to also disprove creation) yet then we learned the half-life of carbon was insufficient to accurately depict anything near the ages they were coming up with.

You're either misinformed, or you're a liar. Carbon dating has never been put forward as an accurate way to measure the age of the planet by any reputable scientist. The length of time that carbon dating is accurate to is on the order of thousands of years, while the age of the planet is on the order of billions of years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, IMT, you are misinformed not I. After 50,000 years Carbon dating does not work. At all.

It is even debatible as to whether Carbon dating works at all =p

However, carbon dating WAS put forward as an accurate way, in fact it was used on several occasions (and was the original isotope evolutionists used to date fossils, before they realized their was a problem at least)

Check this out: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

[Riverwind]

It is even debatible as to whether Carbon dating works at all =p

A lovely piece of misinformation. Evolutionary scientists do not dispute the fact that carbon dating is a not useful for fossils older than 50,000 years - so they use other techniques.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html

[Nemo]

deleted

[Black Dog]

GostHacked:

Theory is NOT fact.

True, but evolution is both a theory and a fact.

The fact and theory of evolution are two different things. The former describes the process which states all living things are derived from common ancestors and have developed over time to form new species. The latter speaks to the process by which this occurs. Whle there is debate over HOW evolution occurrs (be it through puncuated equilibrium or Drawinian "trial and error", or some other mechanism), there is no debate over the fact of evolution.

Fair enough, clarify for me by pointing out the evolutionary theories you support and I will do my best to show them up.

Otherwise I might waste my time by disproving a theory you don't even support =p

Uh uh: you claimed:

Oh, and please do enlighten me about the 'scientific' support for Evolution  I know of more science that disproves it than proves it.

Which is patently false in that there is no "science" that disproves evolution. The onus is on you to show otherwise.

However, I would argue that Evolution has the same problem, for example carbon dating. This was used by evolutionists for the longest while to prove the age of our planet (and to also disprove creation) yet then we learned the half-life of carbon was insufficient to accurately depict anything near the ages they were coming up with

Carbon-dating is still used to estimate the age of organisms and objects (but not the earth, as there's many different lines of evidence that can demonstrate the age of the earth as being 4.55 billion years old). Since the half life of carbon is known (5,730 years), by estimating the amount of carbon within an object or organism (the proportion of carbon-14 in any living organism being constant) and counting how many carbon-14 atoms in any object with carbon in it, we can work out how old the object is within about 50,000 years.

Again, I believe we must either accept all theories as teachable in a classroom or ban them all. Otherwise you are discriminating

Bollocks. Scientists have established the fact of evolution with thousands of lines of evidence and the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers. This idea is based on material evidence and repeated experiment, extensively documented in the scientific literature. Science classrooms are no place for religious instruction, especially given the paucity of scientific data and support for "intelligent design" or other such creationist pseudoscientific folderol.

Actually, IMT, you are misinformed not I. After 50,000 years Carbon dating does not work. At all.

Which is why carbon dating is not used for determine the age of things older than 50,000 - 60,000 years. Other methods (stratigraphy, radioisotope dating) are used to produce reliable ages.

[Nemo]

deleted

[CentralCanadian]

Hey guys, new to the forum, anyways great stuff going on here.

Beyond science, beyond theology, there is a little thing called FAITH and here in lies the problem the government and our beloved 'Constitution' fails. I will not inform you of what I believe for many purposes, only to interject another question or rather statement(s).

1 - Religion should not be associated with JUST Christianity, Islam, or any kind of Eastern Practice for the principle reason that religion weather the State likes it or not is being practice in schools and even the State is behind sposering this Religion of sorts, and I'm not taking about any religion based on the groups I've mentioned. SCIENCE and Enlightenment is the religion of choice my fellows.

2 - Travelling 360 back to the issue of FAITH here is the explination for comment 1: It takes just as much faith to believe in Evolution/Science as it does to believe in God (and I use God because, he is at the head of the world's three most populas Religions). Carbon dating, apes it all irrelivant, you can no more prove the Big Bang than you can prove most other Religious thinking, it all comes down to the fact that you must put your FAITH in what you feel is right. Agnostics,atheism, no such thing, even they believe is something, that fact that there is nothing beyond. It all comes down to faith.

See science in itself is harmless, it helps find cures, reach the stars and explore the mysteries of the universe. But like all religions science has had internal conflict, it has latched on to that thing called faith by claiming the impossible without any concrete evidence, see scientist don't like having holes, like all man they need to fill it up with something; in comes the BIG BANG. Now theories aside the issue at hand is prayer in the classroom. If we were to take that right away from anyone and say 'no', should we not say take the BIG BANG theory out as well, cause I know it goes against other peoples beliefs. We must stop trying to blame the so-called 'Right' with trying to put Christianity into schools and we must stop blameing the so-called 'Extremist Left' for trying to crush and form of religious expression (mind you the way some the NDP talk scares me a little). We must learn that there needs to be an equal playing field, as someone said before either we have a curriculum on all beliefs or nothing at all, and for you scientist that includes no theories on how the universe started. Essentially, you would be left with a class that is educated in everything that can be substantially proven (ie. Vital Systems, Cell development, Recorded History and stuff visibly seen around us!)

Thanks

[Black Dog]

1 - Religion should not be associated with JUST Christianity, Islam, or any kind of Eastern Practice for the principle reason that religion weather the State likes it or not is being practice in schools and even the State is behind sposering this Religion of sorts, and I'm not taking about any religion based on the groups I've mentioned. SCIENCE and Enlightenment is the religion of choice my fellows.

I'm pretty tired of hearing science get referred to as a religion. Unlike religions, science is flexible: its principles and theories can change as new evidence comes to light. Science starts with questions and seeks to find answers through observation, identification, description, and experimental investigation. Religion starts with the answer and works backwards from there.

2 - Travelling 360 back to the issue of FAITH here is the explination for comment 1: It takes just as much faith to believe in Evolution/Science as it does to believe in God (and I use God because, he is at the head of the world's three most populas Religions). Carbon dating, apes it all irrelivant, you can no more prove the Big Bang than you can prove most other Religious thinking, it all comes down to the fact that you must put your FAITH in what you feel is right. Agnostics,atheism, no such thing, even they believe is something, that fact that there is nothing beyond. It all comes down to faith.

The Big Bang and evolution are sperate questions. It's probably impossible to prove how the universe began (though scientific explanations can be advanced as evidence is accumulated). But it's easy to prove how life progressed from there.

We must learn that there needs to be an equal playing field, as someone said before either we have a curriculum on all beliefs or nothing at all, and for you scientist that includes no theories on how the universe started.

This illustrates another key difference between science and religion. One says "God created the Universe." The other "we theorize that the Universe began with the Big Bang." One is an absolute statement, one a theory based on available evidence and observation but by no means absolute. That's why the idea that the two should be treated equally is ridiculous.

[Mad_Michael]

It seems silly to have to say this, but evolution and big bang theory are both accepted as compatible with Christian theology by the largest Christian church in the world (RCC) under the analogy of the 'watchmaker'. This was made official back in the 1960's.

[CentralCanadian]

Very excellent point MM, which illustrates that Relgion is also saying "we theorize that this is the way it could have been". Goodness for the likes of me Ican't remember the name it starts with a B, a religion in India which accepts every faith and is as flexable as Science. Religion is flexible, just look at the all the denominations of the Christian Church, or different forms of Islam.

Science has always had issues with explaining itself, that is why it is no better to be taught (as far as teaching about the unseen) in schools as other relgions.

The issue Black Dog has made this into is one involving "God vs. Science", when really it is much deeper, complicated issue, the point is this conversation is like a pandorra's box.

[Black Dog]

excellent point MM, which illustrates that Relgion is also saying "we theorize that this is the way it could have been".

That's not a theory. Theories are based on evidence. There is no evidence of such a designer.

Science has always had issues with explaining itself, that is why it is no better to be taught (as far as teaching about the unseen) in schools as other relgions.

Frankly that's retarded. Just because science is unable to fill in every gap in human knowledge, that's no reason to discard it or put it on the same level as spiritual mumbo jumbo. Science has done more to advance civilization, knowledge and the well being of mankind than religion ever has.

It seems silly to have to say this, but evolution and big bang theory are both accepted as compatible with Christian theology by the largest Christian church in the world (RCC) under the analogy of the 'watchmaker'. This was made official back in the 1960's.

Which doesn't really solve the issue of who made the watchmaker, does it?

[CentralCanadian]

That's not a theory. Theories are based on evidence. There is no evidence of such a designer.

That is entirely weak, look at our human bodies, you want to tell me that there was no thought behind it, that some adoms clashed to make our advanced reproductive, respitory, cardiac, and nervous systems. Oh ya and the food chain it just happened on its own. There is evidence of a creator all around us.

Frankly that's retarded. Just because science is unable to fill in every gap in human knowledge, that's no reason to discard it or put it on the same level as spiritual mumbo jumbo. Science has done more to advance civilization, knowledge and the well being of mankind than religion ever has.

Excuse me for taking offense but that "mumbo jumbo" bit is actually believed by 2 billion people, as well that comment is border line discrimatory so lay off, and who do think created science, who gave that knowledge, we just you know found out on our own with no help. Besides all of this, you got so hot headed to even realize the point of this topic, just so you could reassure yourself that there is no creator, pretty lame.

[newbie]

...who do think created science, who gave that knowledge...,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aliens.

[Black Dog]

That is entirely weak, look at our human bodies, you want to tell me that there was no thought behind it, that some adoms clashed to make our advanced reproductive, respitory, cardiac, and nervous systems. Oh ya and the food chain it just happened on its own. There is evidence of a creator all around us.

Clearly there's not. Let's look at the human body, with its extraneous parts (hello? nipples on men? the appendix?) it's shoddy construction (such as a hip and spine structure that resembles those of quadrapedial primates, such as chimps, and remains unsuitable for bipedal motion). The special adaptations we have can be easily explained through evolution and natural selection. No designer necessary.

Excuse me for taking offense but that "mumbo jumbo" bit is actually believed by 2 billion people, as well that comment is border line discrimatory so lay off, and who do think created science, who gave that knowledge, we just you know found out on our own with no help.

First: saying something is valid because it is supported by a numbe rof people is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Second: my statement that religon is mumbo jumbo is my personal opinion, to which I am entitled. Finally, science is not some divine gift, but the product of thousands of years of human development. Inded, the evolution of science parrallels our own advancement as a species.

Besides all of this, you got so hot headed to even realize the point of this topic, just so you could reassure yourself that there is no creator, pretty lame.

The topic is prayer in schools, and the large rissue is the separation of church and state. I think the issue of whethe ror not there is a creator is extremely relevant if we're talking about what should be happening in classrooms.

[Melanie_]

I find it sickening that a child praying the Lord's Prayer before a test can get in trouble, that is religious persecution. He/she isn't bugging anyone, they just take a few minutes for themselves to pray to their god(s) so leave them be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm curious about this case, Hawk. Was she praying out loud, distracting other students? Was she making a big show out of it, or trying to convince other students to join her? If not, I don't understand why she would get into trouble, as no one would even know she was praying unless she herself called attention to it.

Its interesting to see how this thread has "evolved" from the original question, regarding prayer in school, to a discussion about evolution and creationism. What theories should be taught? If we are going to teach the Christian version of creation, should we also teach the Native American, the Hindi, the Greek mythology version? I can see all of those beliefs, including Christian, being taught in a social studies class, while evolution can be taught in science.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Melanie,

I find it sickening that a child would be taught that saying a prayer would possibly help them on a test, or sports field. I should think that they should be taught to respect the Lord, and not use prayer for selfish petty gain. Mind you, that's what gave rise to most religions (and TV evangelists!)

[Black Dog]

I went to a Catholic school and invoked religion all the time before a test. Though I don't know if exclaiming "Jesus Christ! Not another test!" is praying per se...

[liz_bca]

"The Big Bang and evolution are sperate questions. It's probably impossible to prove how the universe began (though scientific explanations can be advanced as evidence is accumulated). But it's easy to prove how life progressed from there."

If it's so easy to prove, then where did the first cell come from? Sure, it might be plausable that you could get other cells to develop, but where did the information for the first one come from?

In a 1861 private letter, Charles Darwin allegedly wrote to American biologist Asa Gray about his growing doubts that evolution could ever have produced anything as complex as the human eye. "The eye to this day, gives me a cold shudder" because it is an "organ of extreme perfection."

Ultimately, science should be left to the five senses. Evolution is not proven. If it were, then why don't we see evidence of it in the fossil record? Where are all those missing links and why are they so hard to find? We can't factually prove God exist, but since we also can't see evolution happening - either now or in the fossil record - neither has a place in the science classroom. Or if you're going to teach them as "theories" - not facts - then allow all theories. Or do all you evolutionist just feel threatened by the possibility of other theories that might conflict with yours. Creationists have had to put up with evolution being taught as a fact, so why can't you allow for other "possibilities" to be presented? If evolution is really so irrifutable, then it will prove itself, so you don't have to.

And by the way, if you think maybe aliens created us... who created the aliens?

[Black Dog]

In a 1861 private letter, Charles Darwin allegedly wrote to American biologist Asa Gray about his growing doubts that evolution could ever have produced anything as complex as the human eye. "The eye to this day, gives me a cold shudder" because it is an "organ of extreme perfection."

The eye is a great example of evolution in action. From simple single cell lifeforms to complex creatures like humans, you can see the various evolutionary stages from simple, light sensitive cell structures to more complex mechanisms. Even Darwin noted that.

Link

Ultimately, science should be left to the five senses. Evolution is not proven. If it were, then why don't we see evidence of it in the fossil record? Where are all those missing links and why are they so hard to find?

"The supposed lack of intermediary forms in the fossil record remains the fundamental canard of current antievolutionism. Such transitional forms are sparse, to be sure, and for two sets of good reasons — geological (the gappiness of the fossil record) and biological (the episodic nature of evolutionary change, including patterns of punctuated equilibrium, and transition within small populations of limited geographic extent). But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life’s physical genealogy. "-Stephen Jay Gould

Here's a list of transitional forms.

We can't factually prove God exist, but since we also can't see evolution happening - either now or in the fossil record - neither has a place in the science classroom.

Except that you are wrong. We see evolution in the fossil record (such as the tranistion from dinosaurs to birds) and day to day on a microevolutionary level (such as cellular mutations). Where is the evidence of God?

Or if you're going to teach them as "theories" - not facts - then allow all theories.

This has been covered in this thread already.

Or do all you evolutionist just feel threatened by the possibility of other theories that might conflict with yours.

Unlike evolution, creationist mumbo jumbo and other spiritual hokum has, even by your own admission, no evidence to support it. Therefore its patently ridiculous to elevate it to the same status in the classroom as the extensively and exhaustively documented phenomenon of evolution.

Creationists have had to put up with evolution being taught as a fact, so why can't you allow for other "possibilities" to be presented?

Should we also present flat earth theories in science classrooms? Or how about theories that dispute the heliocentric nature of the solar system? Surely if creationism and its varients deserve equal time, then these "possibilities" should as well.

If evolution is really so irrifutable, then it will prove itself, so you don't have to.

Evolution has proven itself time and time again. Only the ignorant and willful (or the willfully ignorant) dispute it.

And by the way, if you think maybe aliens created us... who created the aliens?

That's an easy one: it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster.