Zad wrote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
And I think it's necessary that kids learn it so that they're aware of both scientific and biblical accounts on creation, and then they can come to their own conclusions and theories about the world. Creationism is also something I think everybody should learn at one point in life.
I agree with you this far. If both are taught without bias by intelligent people capable of answering the inevitable questions (and that's a hurdle too far, probably...) and the children make the decision what to believe rather than their parents... progress.
I myself actually remember learning about evolution in grade school, and immediately noticing how it somewhat contradicts at least the Biblical interpretation of Creationism that I learned when reading the Book Of Genesis as a kid. Since the Scriptual interpretation of Creationism (note: there are many interpretations of it) assumes we were all fully developed thinking men at birth, while Evolution of course doesn't.
Quote:
Seinfeld26 wrote:
Basically, I think evolution should be left to science classes, anthropological studies, etc. while creationism should be left to religion classes, churches, etc. Because creationism is a faith, and evolution is a scientific theory (and, contrary to what some may say, I believe God and Science can and do coexist). Seperate issues/topics that should be left to seperate learning environments
I tend to agree with Dawkins about religion and science actually co-existing - if you truly believe in an immortal paradise that can be attained by following a certain lifestyle, then you'll never have a truly scientific way of mind, there'll always be that vital little part of your mind closed off...
To an extent, this is true. As I said previously, the Bible is a faith and at least partial historical account. It's not a Science. And, of course, religious Scientists will be at least partially skewed by their own biases. But it goes both ways. Much like how religious scientists are at least partially biased toward their own beliefs, so are atheistic scientists. And who knows? It's possible (not inevitable, but possible) that discovering the split between the Earth and God/Heaven will somehow become its own branch of Science in the distant future. It's basically impossible to be a scientist and not have some kind of personal bias skew your observations/findings. And I don't mean just with religion, but also with things like social expectations (trivia: LDL cholesterol actually has health BENEFITS, but a lot of nutritional scientists won't tell you this).
Unfortunately, right now there's no real physical way of proving/disproving God's existence. So whether or not you believe He exists is purely left to faith, personal logic, and a person's natural ways of thinking. And this, of course, is why debates over whether or not He exists are often so heated and have been for hundreds of years.
.
