of course, but I suppose the debate here is how to properly define "teaching science"

further, I don't necessarily disagree with exposing kids to religious beliefs in the classroom..

when I was a kid in school we learned about all the world cultures and religions.. in 7th grade history we spent months learning about Islam and Hinduism, learning their myths and religion and history, and no body was complaining that they were trying to convert us to Islam.. quite the contrary they were just exposing us to different belief systems and cultures of the world, which made me a rounder more open minded person in regards to my own religion.
just a thought..

That's a very good point.

That is why these things are tested and retested and debated. It's only after this long process that these things become accepted.


Eh?

I really don't see how it can fit in the latter. How could you argue in its defense? I think you don't realise how rigorous philosophy is. Though I agree a bit of philosophy should be taught in schools.

This is inspiring. I would rep you but I have to spread it.

I think you don't realize the difference between studying philosophy and practicing philosophy.

yes, of course! its the theory of evolution and common ancestors and DNA sequencing that gets you twisted into fairytale territory.

Living things evolve (ie, DNA mutates over time), but this does not automatically serve as evidence for certain theories of evolution.

I think I understand what you mean but I still don't see how you can argue in favour of creationism.

First cause principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summa_Theologica

there is only one THEORY OF EVOLUTION THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION

evolution is what happens. natural selection is the mechanism by which it happens.

any bit of DNA from any living thing (plant, paramecium, human, lichen, sasquatch) can be cut and spliced into the DNA of any other living thing, and the cells will not know the difference.

we are all ONE in spacetime. all living things on this teeny tiny planet Earth are RELATED, and if it so happens that our planet, among the trillions and quadrillions of possible planets i the multi-verse, is the ONLY ONE where the natural processes of stellar formation, planet formation, and ecosystem formation allowed for the crucial spriging forth of self-replicating "life", then we have a nearly GODLIKE responsibility to maintain it, spread it through the solar system and galaxy, and NURTURE it.

I think it is beautiful.

and it is as fragile as a frozen fart bubble in the asscrack of an underwater eskimo.

and there is a big difreence between teaching the histories and specifics of belief systems around the world and teaching the "truth" of one specific belief system, which is what I.D. and most american creationists want done.

save that shit for home and/or church.

at times like these, when the sky is falling, I am thankful to be a man of faith, as I have entirely lost my confidence in the abilities of people to be good stewards for the planet.. luckily for us we are not necessarily in charge here :)

I don't think ANYTHING should be taught to children as "truth" be it evolution or religion. But I think the school is an important institution to expose children to all the possibilities of the world, and this is the philosophy which I take into consideration as an educator myself.

I don't care what I.D. or most creationists want. They, however, do prey upon the philosophically ignorant who are the result of tyrannical materialist science.

That link just opens a black window. Anyway I stand corrected (I think). But you can't still argue that it happened exactly as in the Bible as that would possible. How could we know God did it seven days? I think that was what I actually meant, not that you can't argue in favour of God creating the universe in general.

It has already been done, in sci-fi novels, and it was great.
As for real, I guess it would take several thousands years for the fastest ship to reach the closest solar system.

I think the whole problem is that humans are hard-wired to look for causes, and for first causes, but there are bnever any "first" causes.

when cloud vapor gets heavy enough it falls as rain. cloud vapor does not form though unless there is some speck of dust or pollen to condense the water vapor. and that does not happen unless a windtorm kicks up dust from the sahara , let's say, and that does not happen unless living things dieand dessicate and become dust, and that does not happen unless something is born, and that does not happen unless single-celled organisms develop on earth, and that does not happen unless the earth is formed with a moon to stabilize it, and that does nto happen unless the solar system develops in the outer reaches of the milky way away from radiation and the tumult of the inner galaxy and that.....

(edited for spelling)

thousands of years are nothing compared to the 3-5 MILLION that life existed on earth solely as single celled organisms.

we could seed planets with microorganisms that match the planets characteristics. it is an idea I have for a sci fi comic.

send microorganisms that live deep under ground off off sulfur and chemicals to mercury, and semd methane eating microrganisms to venus, and send microorganisms that thrive in sub zero temps to titan around jupiter.

let them "mix it up" for 3-5 million years.

I don;t wanna say more cuz someone will steal my idea.

aquinas! oy...

that belongs in the attic of antiquities, before the invention of electricity, before there was empirical science, even... doesn't the practice of philosophy require us to be current, i.e., to address the situation at hand, with our current knowledge?

kant argued that the number of stars had to be infinite so that their gravitational pull would keep them in static orbits, because he only had newtonian physics and lacked the data regarding the expansion of the universe.

another time this science friend got me together with her philosopher friend so i could explain to her dawkins's selfish gene theory. the exposition was cut short when i used the expression "reproductive machines"-- she quickly chimed in to say that, per aristotle, genes could not be machines because machines had to be manmade. no manner of rhethorical licenses were allowed, and she managed to discourage me at any attempts at explaining a more-or-less current scientific theory--- because of what aristotle wrote 2500 years ago!

with this in mind, can you please explain how is aquinas relevant today in the discussion of creationism?

it would take a spacecraft some 7675 years to travel the 24,920,647,758,761 (coincidently that number is in the range to the total US debt right now which the CIA world fact book places around $12,000,000,000,000) odd miles that separates Earth from the nearest star system, Alpha Centauri..