Who should set science curriculum ?
Moderator: Moderators
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #1Who should determine the science curriculum in publicly funded schools?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
-
- Sage
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #51JP Cusick wrote:I do not get why people, and especially Atheist, try to deny that their version of evolution includes the rejection of God as the Creator.Monta wrote: According to evolution around here on these boards,
there is no God and He is not needed, therefore atheistic.
As a believer in a Creator, you have to specify this difference.
Why are not they proud of it? why do they run and hide from it?
And truly the denials are fooling nobody.
Evolution does not directly say that there is no God nor Gods, and yet that is their point and purpose in preaching that anti God version of evolution.
I myself accept the reality that God is evolving life on earth, and so I take pride in declaring my Theist version of evolution.
I agree with one here.I myself accept the reality that God is evolving life on earth
The process of evolution started millions of years ago with the word/commandment "be" from One-True-God and everything started taking shape as per the design set by Him :
[2:117] And they say, ‘Allah* has taken to Himself a son.’ Holy is He! Nay, everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. To Him are all obedient.
[2:118] He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a thing, He does only say to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... &verse=117
*One-True-God
Regards
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #52Sure they did, in Post 41. Here, I’ll paste the line from Bust Nak for you so there can be no misunderstanding:JP Cusick wrote: You and that person do not give any specific as to what am I wrong about? what do you want explained? what about the thread topic?
--We expect more than that here, in case it wasn't clear, this is a debate forum. You are expected to defend your message, not merely to deliver the message. Again, we are not in a teacher/student saturation here, you are being challenged, either put up or concede.
And previously in Post 38:
--Please, your point wasn't complicated, you were asked to prove the spiritual and you want to paint that as some sort of learning exercise. That won't work here, we are not in a teacher/student saturation here, at least not in the way you envisage. Instead we are in a debate, you are being challenged, either put up or concede.
As did Neatras in Post 43:
--Cusick, it's really important that we all understand that simply stating something as fact is not enough. What you are doing is insubstantial.
And:
--Do you believe, that simply by claiming you are right and honest, that everyone should take you at your word? If not, then for what reason should anyone take your arguments seriously, when all you've done is relied on credibility you've never established to make sweeping assertions? That is what your arguments up to this point have ALL consisted of, man. We can't debate this if you keep on retreating away from even substantiating a single point. Instead, you repeat, ad infinitum, the exact same thing.
Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
-all the best
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #53All of that is past-tense,KenRU wrote: Sure they did, in Post 41.
And previously in Post 38:
As did Neatras in Post 43:
Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
as all of that has been settled,
and we moved on.
I am completely satisfied.
SIGNATURE:
An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:
An unorthodox Theist & a heretic Christian:
- Peter
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:46 pm
- Location: Cape Canaveral
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 2 times
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #54The Theory of Evolution does not require any gods. That's not the same as denying gods exist. I myself cannot say that no gods exist only that the 1000+ man invented gods don't exist.JP Cusick wrote:I do not get why people, and especially Atheist, try to deny that their version of evolution includes the rejection of God as the Creator.Monta wrote: According to evolution around here on these boards,
there is no God and He is not needed, therefore atheistic.
As a believer in a Creator, you have to specify this difference.
Why are not they proud of it? why do they run and hide from it?
And truly the denials are fooling nobody.
Evolution does not directly say that there is no God nor Gods, and yet that is their point and purpose in preaching that anti God version of evolution.
I myself accept the reality that God is evolving life on earth, and so I take pride in declaring my Theist version of evolution.
Religion is poison because it asks us to give up our most precious faculty, which is that of reason, and to believe things without evidence. It then asks us to respect this, which it calls faith. - Christopher Hitchens
-
- Sage
- Posts: 940
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:19 pm
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #55Peter wrote:The Theory of Evolution does not require any gods. That's not the same as denying gods exist. I myself cannot say that no gods exist only that the 1000+ man invented gods don't exist.JP Cusick wrote:I do not get why people, and especially Atheist, try to deny that their version of evolution includes the rejection of God as the Creator.Monta wrote: According to evolution around here on these boards,
there is no God and He is not needed, therefore atheistic.
As a believer in a Creator, you have to specify this difference.
Why are not they proud of it? why do they run and hide from it?
And truly the denials are fooling nobody.
Evolution does not directly say that there is no God nor Gods, and yet that is their point and purpose in preaching that anti God version of evolution.
I myself accept the reality that God is evolving life on earth, and so I take pride in declaring my Theist version of evolution.
Is it just one's conjecture or from religion or from science or from one's no-god position/no-position, please?The Theory of Evolution does not require any gods.
If it is from science then:
If it is from science then:
1. Please quote from a textbook of science
2. Or from a peer-reviewed article published in a journal of Science of repute.
3. Please also mention the discipline of science to which it is related.
Regards
- help3434
- Guru
- Posts: 1503
- Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2013 11:19 pm
- Location: United States
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Who should set science curriculum ?
Post #56Er, all of them? No scientific publication of repute claims that any phenomenon requires a god.paarsurrey1 wrote:Is it just one's conjecture or from religion or from science or from one's no-god position/no-position, please?The Theory of Evolution does not require any gods.
If it is from science then:
If it is from science then:
1. Please quote from a textbook of science
2. Or from a peer-reviewed article published in a journal of Science of repute.
3. Please also mention the discipline of science to which it is related.
Regards