tcp_ML500 - 5/12/2005 4:04 PM
kvining - 5/12/2005 2:32 PM
I have no problem with religion being presented in a philosophy class, because there it has to stand on its own merits in comparision to other ideas - I object to something much different, the interjection of religion into hard science, with a state-coerced viewpoint that this bullshit has some sort of scientific validity. There is not one shed of proof in the natural world that God has ever or does now exist, or that any cognizant entity played any part in the origin of species. To teach otherwise is to teach children falsehoods based on the religious beliefs of a political movement that has achieved power in the state. There is a word for that.
I have no objection with your stance as it relates to not wanting to inject religion in the teaching of fundamental sciences such as Math and Physics. Biology should be devoid of such interference as well.
I misinterpreted the folliwing quote of yours
kvining - 5/12/2005 12:34 PM
Until then, children should be taught what has been discovered to be real instead of somebody's pie-in-the-sky pipe dream.
as you seeing no value in any teaching that was not grounded in tangible, palpable, irrefutable facts. I see enormous value in it.
I am intrigued by religion. I can see how it has helped, how it is still helping, how it can be manipulated and manipulating. I find that it would often be a lot easier to succomb to the temptation of believing, to have that as a "security" blanket, that it is much harder to go through life without these beliefs. I cannot, however, reconcile religion with what I understand of science. Still, I am fascinated and willing to hear, learn, debate, accept and reject religious claims.
If science can't prove the existance of God, it cannot disprove it either. The more answers science provide, the more glaring the lack of the most basic answers. While we know the state of the universe 1 nanosecond into the big bang, nothing is known of instant 0. If might be scientifically satisfying to say that the question "what was there before the big bang" is a paradox because there is no before, time started with the emergence of that singularity (if you even subscribe/accept singularities, some brilliant minds used to, proved, and later rejected them).
We are satisfied that a short list of laws of physics govern this universe, but should we ever ignore the question of how the laws came into being, wat governed their creation? Once we have the GUT, then what? Sure enough, if all forms of interactions identified in the GUT were not necessary or sufficient for the existance and perpetuation of this universe, we would not be discussing them. Are there more universes? Were there more universes? Did some fail. Why is it that ours after a period of inflationary growth stabilized into a rate of growth that ensures, barely beyond the threshold, that it does not collapse?
Science will always be limited to explaining everything, but not why the laws. All it knows it the laws and their application/applicability. It shows the universe is not eternal, that it had a beginning, but can only go so far as reaching that time horizon! As such, it is incomplete, even if it can fully explain the universe we live in.
Sorry if I forced a bit on the tequila[;)]