www.ditl.org

Science is what we Know and or close to finding out. Intelligent design is a crutch.
No doubt there is something bigger than us, I just don't think it's what Man has written.



You know this just proves the point that the parents who have any sense at all, must get their children interested in real knowledge. Not what ever some asshole deems fit. Hell, watch Nova, that show is cool enough to get any kid curios about finding the truth.

That's a sticky wicket. When I teach my daughter about G-d, it's certainly truth. You might not consider it so, though.

That's not what i meant Mikey, I teach my children about god's love and so forth as well, it's great for a basic moral standard, and it's what I know. Yet at the same time we are still talking about science. These are two totally different things, yet they are searching for all the same answers. I feel it's super important to give our children all of the knowledge we have and the know how to obtain more so they can come to their own understanding when ready.

Many scientist believe in god, I do. I just don't trust Man.

Mikey wrote:That's a sticky wicket. When I teach my daughter about G-d, it's certainly truth. You might not consider it so, though.

No, it's propaganda, you have no idea what's true, nobody does. You simply have faith that it's true. Unless you are talking about personal truth, in which case your statement has no meaning outside of your own head.

IanKennedy wrote: You simply have faith that it's true.

I didn't want to get into a Crowley-ish argument about the magic inherent in definition, but in the final analysis this is really the determinant. Fermi invented the idea of neutrinos becuase he needed an explanation for his prediction. It wasn't until much later that the existence of neutrinos was proven. In fact, most of modern quantum mechanics is based upon things which people have just made up in order to explain a prediction.

Now, don't get me wrong (because I know the temptation do so is there.) I'm not talking about teaching theology in public school alongside actual science. I'm as against that as any of our resident atheists. I was merely responding to Uzume's comment that

Uzume wrote:You know this just proves the point that the parents who have any sense at all, must get their children interested in real knowledge. Not what ever some asshole deems fit.

This certainly seems to indicate that I'd be the asshole in question if "what I deem fit" as knowledge doesn't match some other person's arbitrary decision of what is fit to teach. Or, according to the above quote, that I'd be a parent without "any sense at all" since I teach my little girl about my wife's and my religious backgrounds along with kindergarten-level math, science, and language skills.

Did you read my reply Mikey?


You wouldn't/couldn't be the asshole implied, if you feel that religion and science shouldn't be taught in the same class room. That's the job of the parents and or church/temple of your choice period. Not a state funded public school. At least not until higher learning becomes free for the masses, if ever.

Uzume wrote:Did you read my reply Mikey?

Yes. I was merely continuing to iterate the dangers inherent when one person or group decides what is "truth" for another person or group. That's why I gave the completely secular example of much of modern physics, some of which is taken as an infallible credo by many people, being the same type of supposition or hypothesis.

Mikey wrote:

IanKennedy wrote: You simply have faith that it's true.

I didn't want to get into a Crowley-ish argument about the magic inherent in definition, but in the final analysis this is really the determinant. Fermi invented the idea of neutrinos becuase he needed an explanation for his prediction. It wasn't until much later that the existence of neutrinos was proven. In fact, most of modern quantum mechanics is based upon things which people have just made up in order to explain a prediction.

Now, don't get me wrong (because I know the temptation do so is there.) I'm not talking about teaching theology in public school alongside actual science. I'm as against that as any of our resident atheists. I was merely responding to Uzume's comment that

Uzume wrote:You know this just proves the point that the parents who have any sense at all, must get their children interested in real knowledge. Not what ever some asshole deems fit.

This certainly seems to indicate that I'd be the asshole in question if "what I deem fit" as knowledge doesn't match some other person's arbitrary decision of what is fit to teach. Or, according to the above quote, that I'd be a parent without "any sense at all" since I teach my little girl about my wife's and my religious backgrounds along with kindergarten-level math, science, and language skills.

I was more concerned with your saying that you teaching god was true when such a thing can never be proven one way or another. As for things in quantum mechanics there's a lot of it that's still conjecture. I treat it with the merit it deserves until there's some experimental evidence to back it up. A lot of bleeding edge ideas in science also fall into this category, such as GUTs theories and the multiple dimensions they require to make them work. Again until there's more firm evedence for them I see them as interesting but certainly not 'real'.

Well, then, good on you, and you're a fair bit more fair-minded than many atehists who preach the simple difference between religion and science. There are quite a few who consider anything scientific as "fact" even if it is absurdly unsupported - like the existence of negative matter, or of tachyons - merely to further deprecate the ideas of religion.

However, the difference between teaching both religion and hypothesized science as either "truth" or as supposition is academic, as long as one is fair enough to treat them both the same way.

Mikey wrote:Well, then, good on you, and you're a fair bit more fair-minded than many atehists who preach the simple difference between religion and science. There are quite a few who consider anything scientific as "fact" even if it is absurdly unsupported - like the existence of negative matter, or of tachyons - merely to further deprecate the ideas of religion.

However, the difference between teaching both religion and hypothesized science as either "truth" or as supposition is academic, as long as one is fair enough to treat them both the same way.

Actually there's very little chance of such stuff being taught in schools (the science that is) as it's far too complicated. As for religion being taught in schools in the US I believe it's illegal and that's enough to keep it out. In the UK it's required and I've no problem with that so long as it's taught as a whole. As in lots of people believe this and lots believe that etc. and so long as it's not taught as a science and the nature of belief is also taught (ie it has nothing to do with evidence it is simply dependent upon faith).

ps There is a difference between science and religion. Science has evidence to back it up and experiments to show it works, religion has none of that.

IanKennedy wrote:As in lots of people believe this and lots believe that etc. and so long as it's not taught as a science and the nature of belief is also taught (ie it has nothing to do with evidence it is simply dependent upon faith).

On this point, then, you and I are in complete agreement. Even as a believer, I have zero problem with religion being explained for exactly what it is.

IanKennedy wrote:ps There is a difference between science and religion. Science has evidence to back it up and experiments to show it works, religion has none of that.

Yes, I know the difference between the concepts of science and religion. My references were more specifically to the acceptance of ideas with no evidential basis if they were "scientific" in nature - e.g., negative matter, et. al. - by the very same people who decry religion for being similarly unfounded.