Indiana Senate passes bill putting religion in science class

[zsdersw]

And what is to say it didn't? He was an ordained Friar living in a monastery and encouraged in his studies by fellow Friars.

The question is: did his religion have an influence on his discovery. We cannot assume it did, as religion doesn't talk about genetics.

 

[woolfe9999]

And what is to say it didn't? He was an ordained Friar living in a monastery and encouraged in his studies by fellow Friars.

The original statement you were attempting to refute with the Mendel example was as follows:

Religion has never been responsible for the discovery of anything moving human advancement forward.

That statement is accurate unless or until there is positive proof that such a thing has occurred. An example of someone who was religious and made a scientific discovery doesn't qualify unless there is further proof of a link. That there might have been a link doesn't cut it.

I'm not saying that the original remark was accurate BTW. Just that you haven't (yet) refuted it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Religion should be taught in a religion or sociology class, science class should be reserved for... gosh... maybe ... science? Origin "stories" and other such crap has no business in a science class. What next, should we teach greek mythology in science class as well? Idiocy.

 

[heymrdj]

Religion should be taught in a religion or sociology class, science class should be reserved for... gosh... maybe ... science? Origin "stories" and other such crap has no business in a science class. What next, should we teach greek mythology in science class as well? Idiocy.

So there shouldn't be any talk of big band or anything of that matter either right? In fact ther should be no talk whatsoever of origins, because it's all works of fiction concocted by scientists to attempt to lay beginnings, and none of those theorys have worked thus far.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

So there shouldn't be any talk of big band or anything of that matter either right? In fact ther should be no talk whatsoever of origins, because it's all works of fiction concocted by scientists to attempt to lay beginnings, and none of those theorys have worked thus far.

Big Bang Theory has evidence behind it.

 

[Paul98]

So there shouldn't be any talk of big band or anything of that matter either right? In fact ther should be no talk whatsoever of origins, because it's all works of fiction concocted by scientists to attempt to lay beginnings, and none of those theorys have worked thus far.

I'm sorry but the big bang is scientific, just because you haven't studied it or understood it doesn't make it unscientific.

 

[heymrdj]

Big Bang Theory has evidence behind it.

So does at one time the Red Sea being parted. What's your point? There's not nearly enough "evidence", meaning cold hard facts that point explicitly to the creation of and then implodign of that matter, not just things that could have happened near by a big bang, to take it out of the story bin. It's just a coy set of hypothesis and theorys to make scientists feel more at ease about what they're discovering.

Scientists/science does lots of amazing things everyday. Discoverin our origins, so far, hasn't been one of them.

 

[heymrdj]

I'm sorry but the big bang is scientific, just because you haven't studied it or understood it doesn't make it unscientific.

Where'd the matter come from? You need that piece to complete the story.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I present to you , one of the biggest pieces of hard evidnce supporting the big band theory. A near almost perfect graph matching the black body radiation of the universe compared to what the big bang theory predicts the black body radiation of the universe would look like if contemporary theories were true.

 

[heymrdj]

I present to you , one of the biggest pieces of hard evidnce supporting the big band theory. A near almost perfect graph matching the black body radiation of the universe compared to what the big bang theory predicts the black body radiation of the universe would look like if contemporary theories were true.

I never said a big bang can't be true, it can by all means have happened. But where's the ORIGIN. That's what this class is about, discussing theoretical origins. Unless of course they want to change the title to reflect discussing only matter as we know it, since we don't know any origins before the bang. But then you would still need to allow a class that would discuss the non-scientific options of origin since science apparently hasn't been able to figure that one out.

 

[senseamp]

May as well put a sign on their state that says "We are a bunch of stupid rednecks, don't waste your R&D money here, and don't bother admitting our kids to your colleges."

 

[soundforbjt]

Won't Gov. Daniels have to sign this? If he does it could have bad results should he run for pres in 2016.

 

[PokerGuy]

So there shouldn't be any talk of big band or anything of that matter either right? In fact ther should be no talk whatsoever of origins, because it's all works of fiction concocted by scientists to attempt to lay beginnings, and none of those theorys have worked thus far.

Big bang is a theory of the origin of the universe, underpinned by science and observation. There are experiments that can be done to prove or disprove aspects of it. It can be studied and analyzed. In other words, it's science, even if we later determine that the theory is incorrect.

Religion origin "stories" are not science in any form, they are beliefs held by groups of people. There is no scientific evidence to support them -- that's why it's called "belief".

Science should be taught in science classes. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I never said a big bang can't be true, it can by all means have happened. But where's the ORIGIN. That's what this class is about, discussing theoretical origins. Unless of course they want to change the title to reflect discussing only matter as we know it, since we don't know any origins before the bang. But then you would still need to allow a class that would discuss the non-scientific options of origin since science apparently hasn't been able to figure that one out.

It's funny because you think that science classes talk a lot about Origins.

This is basically what happens in a science class.

"The universe started around 14 billion years ago, the big bang theory explains how the universe expanded from a small point into the current universe"

"But what about before the big bang"

"we don't know and it would be meaningless to talk about it from our viewpoint"

You see what happens there? There is no talk about "origins" because its absolutely meaningless to talk about it. Saying that "God did it" is among the most anti-scientific ways of going about this, as it asserts that we KNOW that god did it. There is no reason for this kind of law to exist. Origin stories are never discussed because every smart parson acknowledges that it's meaning to talk about before the big bang.

This bill only highlights exactly how stupid people are and what they view as science.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Big bang is a theory of the origin of the universe, underpinned by science and observation. There are experiments that can be done to prove or disprove aspects of it. It can be studied and analyzed. In other words, it's science, even if we later determine that the theory is incorrect.

Religion origin "stories" are not science in any form, they are beliefs held by groups of people. There is no scientific evidence to support them -- that's why it's called "belief".

Science should be taught in science classes. Nothing more, nothing less.

Indeed. Science is a means by which the physical world can be examined. It is not obliged to engage in religious discourse.

 

[PokerGuy]

But then you would still need to allow a class that would discuss the non-scientific options of origin since science apparently hasn't been able to figure that one out.

Sure, religious beliefs should be discussed in religion or sociology classes. Only science should be taught in science classes. If there's a phenomenon for which there is no scientific explanation, then you simply teach the kids that there's no scientific explanation yet, you don't go teaching pseudo-science or religious beliefs in place of science just because you don't have a good scientific answer.

As an example, lets say we didn't know what causes thunder and lightning. In a science class, you would say "there is no scientific explanation for thunder and lighting at this point". You wouldn't say "angels are bowling" in a science class.

 

[Atreus21]

Religion has never been responsible for the discovery of anything moving human advancement forward.

Except perhaps the entire claim to the preciousness of a single human being, and the entire aspiration to equality under the law, and thus the underpinnings of western civilization, religion and faith have contributed little to advancing humanity.

 

[airdata]

 

[Pens1566]

Except perhaps the entire claim to the preciousness of a single human being, and the entire aspiration to equality under the law, and thus the underpinnings of western civilization, religion and faith have contributed little to advancing humanity.

For real? Seriously?

 

[shira]

Except perhaps the entire claim to the preciousness of a single human being, and the entire aspiration to equality under the law, and thus the underpinnings of western civilization, religion and faith have contributed little to advancing humanity.

Proof of this claim? Or at least links to peer-reviewed history research that presents strong evidence to support this claim?

I don't believe for an instant that religion has been responsible for these things.

 

[shira]

Nothing prevents schools in the state of Indiana from having classes in "Religion and Origin Beliefs," where the beliefs of various religions regarding the origins of the universe, the Earth, plants and animals, and Mankind are examined.

Somehow, though, I don't think the authors of the bill are interested in curriculum that allows students to study religion. They're interested in promulgating Christian beliefs in the guise of science.

 

[PokerGuy]

Somehow, though, I don't think the authors of the bill are interested in curriculum that allows students to study religion. They're interested in promulgating Christian beliefs in the guise of science.

For once, I'm in complete agreement with shira. It would be very simple (and completely permissible legally) to have classes to discuss belief systems... but these clowns don't want that. They want their beliefs to be presented as valid science instead of a belief system.

 

[soulcougher73]

They have these classes called Philosophy of Religion. Lets keep that shit there and NOT in science classes.

 

[Atreus21]

For real? Seriously?

Yes, for real. Seriously.

From what origin does any concept come that humans are equal? Certainly not nature, and certainly not science. We see abundant evidence that we are unequal if left with only nature to guide us.

It comes from the dogmatic claim that we are created equal.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Proof of this claim? Or at least links to peer-reviewed history research that presents strong evidence to support this claim?

I don't believe for an instant that religion has been responsible for these things.

He's probably referring to Deuteronomy 16:18-20:

Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, tribe by tribe; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons; neither shalt thou take a gift; for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous. Justice, justice shalt thou follow, that thou mayest live, and inherit the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

He is, of course, presuming that these principles would exist only in the shadow of religion. That's hardly the case. Wikipedia quotes Pericles:

If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way

Unless you want to make an argument that Greek Mythology makes a case for equal protection...