Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

David Attenborough joins campaign


Persia
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Blackwhite

    17

  • questionmark

    24

  • Setton

    14

  • Chimpanzee

    10

Of course it should be banned from the science cirriculum. it has no basis in science.

Edited by itsnotoutthere
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for David! :tu:

No religion of any sort should be taught in School. It has no place in Modern Society, and it wont help you to get a job. Where in the Bible does it say "go learn the Word at school"?? Sorry, being a bit facetious I know :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for David! :tu:

No religion of any sort should be taught in School. It has no place in Modern Society, and it wont help you to get a job. Where in the Bible does it say "go learn the Word at school"?? Sorry, being a bit facetious I know :cry:

Unless you go to a religious school. I went to a Catholic school, and while I knew that R.E. was bull and had no place in school, I completely understand why a Catholic school would teach it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you go to a religious school. I went to a Catholic school, and while I knew that R.E. was bull and had no place in school, I completely understand why a Catholic school would teach it.

"Religious schools" ... dont start me off :rofl: Why they are allowed is beyond my comprehension totally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Religious schools" ... dont start me off :rofl: Why they are allowed is beyond my comprehension totally.

I agree but some do have benefits. Catholic schools for instance have the highest/best pass rates in Scotland or Britain, can't remember if it is one or both (or at least they used to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh.....no, no, no, religion has no place anywhere near a science class. It has nothing to do with science. The whole point of religion is to reject science; thats what it does.

If they wanna teach it, teach it in R.E class, but absolutely no where near science.

If religion is scientific enough to teach in science class, does that mean science is spiritual enough to teach in church? Hmmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree but some do have benefits. Catholic schools for instance have the highest/best pass rates in Scotland or Britain, can't remember if it is one or both (or at least they used to).

The pass rate for Catholic schools in England is similar to that of Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of religion is to reject science; thats what it does.

While I agree whole heartedly about keeping Cretinism out of science lessons, I have to disagree with the quoted comment. Religion is about building a philosophical framework for viewing the world and for interacting with it and other people in a moral manner. At least, that's what it says in my syllabus documents about religion ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I'm no fan of religion but believe that kids should make there own mind up. I think all religions should be taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I'm no fan of religion but believe that kids should make there own mind up. I think all religions should be taught.

Doesn't that go more into Religious classes? I know that in Sweden we teach kids about all the major and some of the minor religions. But as far as i know Creationism doesn't want a spot in those classrooms, it wants equal footing with biology/physics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good for David! :tu:

No religion of any sort should be taught in School. It has no place in Modern Society

Try telling that to the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people who worship in churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and other religious establishments around the world every single day.

Try telling that to the builders of the all those brand spanking new mosques all over Bolton with their huge domes and minarets which is making the town look more like Mecca or Medina every week.

To say that religion has no place in modern society is completely and utterly absurd and wrong.

Edited by Blackwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Darwin say just before he died that he was wrong about evolution?

why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-lifecf.jpg

Edited by Blackwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole point of religion is to reject science

You are wrong. It is actually the complete opposite. Religion came BEFORE science. The whole point of science is to reject religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong. It is actually the complete opposite. Religion came BEFORE science. The whole point of science is to reject religion.

Err no, the point of science is to explain the Universe and the material world - it has no inherent agenda to reject religion. One realm is the physical the other is the psyche and metaphysical, there is no conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. I'm no fan of religion but believe that kids should make there own mind up. I think all religions should be taught.

In science?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong. It is actually the complete opposite. Religion came BEFORE science. The whole point of science is to reject religion.

Thats it. Medical science only treats disease for the sole purpose of rejecting religion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong. It is actually the complete opposite. Religion came BEFORE science. The whole point of science is to reject religion.

No, the point of science is to find answers. The problem is that some of these answers are against what religion teaches. For example, science has proven that earthquakes are caused by the movement of the earth's tectonic plates but varies religions said that earthquakes were the 'wrath of god'.

The intention of scientists isn't to disprove religion but find answers. It's just religion doesn't always like those answers, especially when it means it's proven wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you go to a religious school. I went to a Catholic school, and while I knew that R.E. was bull and had no place in school, I completely understand why a Catholic school would teach it.

I went to a catholic (Jesuit) boarding school and can't remember anybody trying to push creationism down our throats and Darwin was taught in Biology. The only ones who want creationism to be taught are those who, besides the bible, are totally ignorant (not to say not knowing what they are talking about).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the point of science is to find answers. The problem is that some of these answers are against what religion teaches. For example, science has proven that earthquakes are caused by the movement of the earth's tectonic plates but varies religions said that earthquakes were the 'wrath of god'.

Scientists, when they have discovered the cause of something like earthquakes or hurricanes or volcanic eruptions assume that this therefore disproves the existence of God. Or, at least, they think that they are not caused by God's wrath but rather the result of natural processes.

So they think: "We have discovered that earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates. THAT is what causes earthquakes, not the "wrath of God" as all these religious loons believe."

However, I do NOT believe that these scientific discoveries prove that these natural processes, such as earthquakes, are NOT caused by God. Any religious person could say: "Ok, so earthquakes are caused by the movement of tectonic plates, but it is God who moves the tectonic plates to cause earthquakes to happen."

I believe that science cannot disprove that God causes natural phenomena.

If evolution exists it also does not disprove the existence of God. It could have been God who created evolution in the first place.

Edited by Blackwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are wrong. It is actually the complete opposite. Religion came BEFORE science. The whole point of science is to reject religion.

It did? And you can demonstrate that a Neanderthal first worshiped something and then made a club to hunt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It did? And you can demonstrate that a Neanderthal first worshiped something and then made a club to hunt?

Religion came long before science. I hardly count the making of a club to be science. Humans were worshipping gods long before proper science came along. The Ancient Egyptians believed the pharaoh was Horus in human form long before the Big Bang theory came along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Religion came long before science. I hardly count the making of a club to be science. Humans were worshipping gods long before proper science came along. The Ancient Egyptians believed the pharaoh was Horus in human form long before the Big Bang theory came along.

I don't care what you say, what part of demnonstrate did you miss? And science did not start with math, it started with discovering what was edible, what was inedible and what killed you.

Science can demonstrate every stage of "creation" since the big bang, religion can only yaddah that science is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care what you say, what part of demnonstrate did you miss? And science did not start with math, it started with discovering what was edible, what was inedible and what killed you.

Science can demonstrate every stage of "creation" since the big bang, religion can only yaddah that science is wrong.

Religion came before science. Science asks the question: "Why are things the way they are?"

When early man was discovering what was edible and what was not I doubt they looked at it from a scientific perspective. They didn't say: "Oh, the berries from this plant are more poisonous than the berries from that plant over there because these berries contain aconitine and, as we all know, scientific studies show that aconitine disables nerves, lowers blood pressure, and can stop the heart."

No. They didn't do that. They would have eaten a berry and got poisoned. Then the others members of the tribe knew not to eat that berry. They didn't know WHY that berry was poisonous. They just knew it was poisonous because they saw someone get poisoned by it and therefore knew not to eat it. It was hardly scientific.

It was only later, when science came along, that we found out WHY some berries are poisonous and some aren't.

Edited by Blackwhite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They would have eaten a berry and got poisoned. Then the others members of the tribe knew not to eat that berry. They didn't know WHY that berry was poisonous. They just knew it was poisonous because they saw someone get poisoned by it and therefore knew not to eat it.

That process involves nearly every step of the scientific method, from observation through hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.