Keeping God out of the Classroom - Creation Science and Constitution
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 июн 2009
- Part 6 of a 7-part series with Dr. Eugenie C. Scott: Creation Science Brings Religion to the Classroom.
Dr. Scott discusses attempts by the creationist movement to introduce religion into high school science curricula. She makes the point that because we cannot manipulate God as a variable, we cannot be dealing with science.
Recorded at the 'Biology of Genomes' meeting at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, June 1, 2009.
@OldaurGold What video did you watch, and what are you smoking?
*nods* Science has limits, and God is beyond them. Better then to ignore Him in a classroom or lab.
Yes, science is about learning the creation. However, that doesn’t mean make up silly hypotheses that dismiss God such as abiogenesis or the Big Bang. Total nonsense.
What will Creation "Science" = Intelligent Design evolve into next? Any guesses?
Maybe a "Godzilla did it" book for the kiddies?
Spontaneous generation evolved into abiogenesis. Oh, the irony in your world view.
@friedie1jeff Nope.
Good stuff though.
Keeping God out of the Classroom, please.
Yes. Let’s all pretend biomolecules bond and come alive. Let’s all ditch reality for a fairytale
Religion is the sum of those beliefs, practices and prohibitions that pertain to a person’s concept of the highest powers of the universe.
Most people in the United States have been taught that religion is the worship of a god or gods but what, exactly is the meaning of the word, “god”? It seems to me that most people in the United States would agree that a god or pantheon of gods is/are whatever or whomever is worshiped by someone or some group of people.
By the time we are eight, the average person has developed some concept of the universe. That person’s god or gods is/are whatever or whomever is considered as the highest or among the highest power(s) in the universe. No matter how embryonic a person’s concept might be, by the age of eight, some such a concept exists.
I’m a fiat creationist but I differ from the majority (or what seem to be the majority) of fiat creationists in the United States because I am foursquare against using tax money to promote my concept of who the highest powers of the universe are.
My concept of right and wrong is informed or misinformed by my concept of the highest powers of the universe and I’m foursquare against legislating morality.
What I hope people can realize (regardless of their own concepts of the universe) is that ANY concept of right and wrong - and, therefore, any concept of what other people should or shouldn’t do - should not be imposed on everybody else either by the government or by other forms of coercion. Hebrews shouldn’t require anyone - Hebrew or not - to keep kosher (even in the modern political nation of Israel) and humanists shouldn’t try to legislate their environmental agenda. Explain your reasons for your personal concepts of right and wrong to be sure but don’t use other people’s money to do it.
0:10 jeep and a school can teach that a rock can turn to a human in 4.6 billion years.
Funny, does this lady realize the reason science can test anything is the earth has intelligent design? There are constants which can be relied upon. Science testifies there is indeed a God. Like this woman, they just can't bring themselves to admit God is the creator.
So?
Let's accept your argument.
Does that mean we should have God or gods in the classroom?
Does that mean we should have God or gods in science?
Your argument doesn't go anywhere beyond a claim to there being deity
@@ozowen5961 The classroom should acknowledge the facts of the universe point to an intelligent creator who is beyond time, space and matter. Science now points to that. They taught the ridiculous theory of evolution, why not teach what actually does hold true?
@@Mike-sd9we
"The classroom should acknowledge the facts of the universe point to an intelligent creator who is beyond time, space and matter."
Why? The task of science is to address, by protocol, only the material, the observable and the measurable. That is the limit of science. If you insist in that claim, then you are left with choices- none of which are measurable. Is that "intelligent designer" Brahma? Ahura Mazda? Yahaweh? Allah? or some other?
"Science now points to that."
No it does not. That is an inference without any substantial evidence beyond "it's complicated, therefore deity"
"They taught the ridiculous theory of evolution, why not teach what actually does hold true?"
It's funny how creationists make this claim over and again, and have yet to construct a single argument that isn't full of holes. Let me be clear; the Theory of evolution explains how the fact of evolution occurs. It is not a theory of whether or not evolution happens, it is a Theory (a comprehensive explanation of the evidence) that explains the fact, the observable, testable, measurable fact of evolution
@@ozowen5961 Completely untrue. Science has come to the conclusion time had to have an absolute beginning. The same can be said for space and matter. Something - or someone - has to be beyond it and have created it for it to exist. I'm not saying kids need to be taught the God of the bible was the reason/creator, that is up to them and their parents to decide. But to not acknowledge it is failing to provide the information.
I think it takes a lot more faith (or something) to believe the universe just happened. That the many and very particular aspects all came together on this planet to support life. That the amazing creation known as humans just happened to evolve that way.
There is no proof of evolution and it's honestly too ridiculous to consider. If you are right, I've wasted my time and energy. If I'm right, you will spend eternity in hell. Who is risking more?
Jesus came to earth and died for you in order to provide a path to salvation. You can choose to accept it or reject it.
Take care and God Bless.
@@Mike-sd9we
Confusing faith with evolution is irrational.
It's an American thing. Dunno why.