I wouldn't call science its own religion, because a religion is a belief, science is full of facts. There are so many religions, that seem to have different kind of theorys, but science is as true as it gets.
The major religions should be taught, that would cover creation. Science should be taught, that would cover the big bang and all that shiz. Both should be taught as concepts and ideas, not as fact. Religion may be completely wrong but lots of people believe it and live by it. The education system has to include all points of view. Also no science isn't a religion. A religion doesn't change as new evidence arises. A religion isn't open to fresh new ideas and doesn't evolve as our ability to learn and understand does.
science is not a religion in traditional terms. However a requirement for religion is not "staying the same" as even religion changes, actually quite often. Science while more probable then religion in based of of faith in a few facts. i.e. that the universe has some uniformity taht we are observing the true universe. There is no way to prove these, and if they are wrong all science crubles. Thus science is a belief system, and more braodly a religion.
Does the universal constant (the speed of light) obtain this idea of uniformity or is it to subject to change?
idk what ur saying mallet, but science is fact, and it is proven....like science directly counters any existence of god, like evolution (proven also) (one way is by taking specimens from a specific rock...) So my answer is no of course not it shouldnt be taught in schools our government was made like that for a reason so that no religion would take part in school Most of the founding fahers were in fact religious yet they decided for an unbiased teaching in school. Daaaammmnnn....i live in miami, and this hurricane is tearing me apart!
We assume based on observation light travels a certain speed. However if light suddenly traveled slower or faster than that assumption would be proven wrong. And there is no reason to assume that light will not change speed other than that it hasn't. Which means your putting your faith into the belief that it wont. Next question?
the big bang is not science, it is a theory. Creation is not a religion, it is a theory. let all theorys be taught, so that all may choose what they want to believe
i direct all other believers that this is ok...to go to RichardDawkins.net - The Official Richard Dawkins Website that should clear everything up!
While I concede that I am believing that it won't, I do not put faith into that belief. I have what I consider facts to tell me what I am believing in.
It should, if you want to be taught with belief, and not logic. Where's the logic behind creationism?
we already had this debate you so called "facts" are based on fundimental assumptions and theus un-provabl in the literal sence
ferretness, very well put and to the point....this thread is like done!....ferret and i have proven our points, and i have directed you all to go to RichardDawkins.net - The Official Richard Dawkins Website for further proof....that dude has made like 5 movies on this stuff
Hasn't light been recorded at 36 MPH while passing through really cold sulphur? Something like that. Anyway that's pretty irrelevant.
Very much so! Assumptions based in a constantly fluxing universe. My case to make to you is (seeing as everything in the universe is an assumption): Which is better, assumed evidence, or assumed assumed evidence. The first being science and the second being religion (in a broad sense). If you recall English class we have such things known as the 'implied you.' "Go to the store." implies "You go to the store." We take it out because it makes our speech much more fluid and easily understandable. So if everything in the universe must be assumed then why bother adding assumption as a base word. Why not just say, "evidence vs. assumed evidence." Both mean the same thing (philosophically) but we cut the middle man so to speak. What we are left with is evidence. Evidence that we must assume to be true to make sense of our world. The latter is pseudoscience attempting to tell you how to run your life. Which simply must be examined and rebuked accordingly. My second point to make is: Science is assumed evidence, and religion is assumed assumed evidence (in a broad sense). How are they one in the same? ---Still setting you up.
evidence, as it is popularly conceived is useful, if not true..blahblahblah.... Both are based off assumptions, and why science is more logical, it is none the less a belief system, and believing a textbook is no more rational that believing the bible.
Which is your assumption. The sad realization is neither of us is right or wrong. As much as I would like to be right, I simply can't be. We are both assuming in an assumed universe. This whole arguement is based on the perspective of the person. It can never be resolved so long as that philosophical principle remains. --- What we can not do is drag our feet, however. There are diseases to be cured, lives to save, and lives to live. Science accomplishes this and is useful to us. Which makes it worthwhile to teach in the classroom. All of this is assumed, but I much favor that than nothing.
i never said it shouldn't be teacher, or even given more precedence than religion...I just said that its a belief system....thus as faulty as religion. Although way more useful, as you pointed out.
It should be taught in schools because it exists and is very important to many people. It is a part of our culture and society. Religion is something we should all be aware of and understand. How true or valid the theories are or what we choose to believe in is irrelevant.