You're right, but let me put it this way, the archaeological / historical evidence doesn't confirm the often hugely exaggerated and romanticized image of the native Americans.

Politically correct or not history was written by those very same white men who actually came to conquer.

Well ,the temple with 136.000 ( or so ) skulls , the pyramids stained with human blood stll exist
They are not an exageration

Alright, I'm back...

So I have revised my view of the Quran, as it pertains to science. In a nutshell, I don't think I would have believed in the Quran, based only on its scientific statements. Without my more personal, subjective experiences, I would probably have viewed in much more skeptically.

Therefore, I will not be bringing the Quran into this discussion in this capacity, any more. If you would like to know more details on why I've changed this opinion, you may send my a private message, as it does not relate directly to this thread.

On the other hand, I'm still not ready to give up on Intelligent Design for science class. It should not be taught as a scientific theory, or hypothesis, because it is not testable, i.e. it is not science per se.

However, the influence religion has had on the sciences cannot be denied, and it should be brought in to give some perspective on how science has evolved. The influence of religion has sometimes had a positive effect, and sometimes a negative, but the effect itself cannot be denied.

Also, many of the worlds greatest scientists were believers of one sort or another. Who could deny Isaac Newton's influence on science?

At the same time, who could deny the influence of the church, in trying to suppress certain scientific ideas which conflicted with Biblical teachings?

Science also needs to teach it's limitations. It is a great tool for discovering the physical laws of the universe, but it has very little effect on many other important things. For instance, morality cannot be proved or disproved with science, nor can religion, or relationships between people. These things have more influence on our daily lives than scientific evidence does, and while they should not be taught as science, they should be acknowledged as valid human endeavors.

Science, and scientists have a bad habit of trying to discredit everything that's not science. This is a problem. Science class should also teach exactly what a scientific theory is... a theory.

A theory is never accepted as 'the truth', it is only a working model. The theory is only valid as long as none of the evidence invalidates it. Many theories lasted much longer than that of evolution, but then later, when new evidence became available, were thrown out in favor of newer, better theories. This should be explained, especially to young impressionable children, who might take every scientific theory at face value, and never question the conclusions.

Let's have a look. What religions teaches about how the world has been made is disproven. And i don't just mean the christian or islamic tales here. You by yourself admit that even the Qran way to explain how the world is made is not correct. And science right. But you still want this wrong stuff be teached as right.

Does that make any sense?

Just to remind:



I am VERY against teaching intelligent design and creationism too

That's not what I said, actually. I don't think the Quran teaches something wrong. It actually teaches things in a way which can be interpreted in more than one way. To me and other believers, this is a sign of its truth, whereas a skeptic, will see this vague language as a sign that it is not true. That's why I don't think it really belongs in this discussion.

However, you did not address my other reasons. Science class does not only teach people scientific theories, it also teaches about the people who discovered them, and about the history of the sciences and how they evolved. In this context, it would be very appropriate to mention religious ideas.

Whether good or bad, religion has had a lot of influence on science. Many scientists who laid the foundations for modern science, were believers. The idea of intelligent design is not a theory, but more of a conclusion. You can argue that it's a wrong conclusion, but since it is not testable in this life, we can't really say for sure. This is a great example of where science cannot answer certain questions. I really think science class should teach this idea i.e. that it cannot answer certain questions.

There are a lot of questions which science is just not the right tool for. The concepts of right and wrong are another example of this. With science, you could prove that it would be most efficient for humans to eliminate their elderly, once they get sick, or the handicapped, because they pose a burden on society, indeed this has even been suggested, and tried. But this does not make it 'right'.

Science needs to stop claiming that it is the only way to truth. I think it's an important and valid method of learning about the physical universe, but it is strangely deficient when it comes to anything outside of this arena, like morality, religion, and relationships.

As for creationism, as taught in the Bible, your absolutely right. I still think it could be addressed in a science class, just for its historical influence on the sciences (good or bad). It should not be introduced as a 'working theory', because it is not supported by the data.

I'm not suggesting that scientist hand over the curriculum to the church, or mosque, or temple. Simply that science needs to know where it works and where it doesn't, and to be honest about where it originated and evolved- in a religious society, by religious people.

You could also describe the more current trend of science leaning towards atheism. Whether it's a permanent trend or just a phase, we have yet to find out. But saying 'there is no God' is a positive statement which also needs proof or evidence. It is a conclusion, not a theory.



I know, but is this because they are not testable theories, or because they have nothing to do with science? I would agree that they are not testable, but really they have a lot to do with science and how it evolved.

Science has produced theories about how life was begun, so far those that have been tested like the Miller experiments done in the 50's, have not provided evidence that life generated through chemical processes. Should we not mention these experiments? Science class should teach the history of science, and where it has been successful, and where it has failed, and also where it does not serve to provide answers.

Over the course of this discussion, I have changed my views. I realize that Intelligent Design is not really a theory. I agree that it should not be taught as a theory, but science is a whole subject, not just a string of theories, in this way, I think it does fit.

Ah, we are at point zero again? Haven't we been at that points again and again since over 60 pages?

Again, Religion is faith and not knowledge. Science is knowledge. Religion not. It doesn't belong into a school class and getting teached as knowledge. It isn't. Nothing of it.

See, that's what I'm talking about. You have expressed a conclusion. Other people look at the same data, and have come to a different conclusion.

What's wrong with teaching about the areas where science and religion have overlapped or collided in a science class. It is still about science, it has had an impact on science, and it continues to effect the way people perceive science today.

Is morality also not knowledge, because it can't be proven? Should we not teach people right from wrong?

Hey, for that matter, language is also not science, therefor not knowledge. Let's stop teaching language too.

This in my opinion is EXACTLY why it should be taught and especially respectfully explained why it doesn't make sense at all. No offense, but the only way to get rid of ignorance is by fighting it with actual knowledge,

Cheers

That is a good point.

First of all, language is not being taught in a science class, as a science.



Yes we should, but there are other classes to teach morality in.

As has already been stated, ID should only be taught in science to explain why it is not valid as a scientific theory, if taught at all.