is only a theory, yet is presented as fact in our children's classrooms. Creationists don't mind it, why? If they truely want the best education for our children, why do they not encourage General Theory of relativity to be taught along side newtonians mechanics in high school, as they do with evolution. Perhaps because theory of gravity does not threathen their beliefs?
THEORY of gravity
- Thread starter a_ht
- Start date
Are you religious ?
Are you an Anti-evolutionist ?
Are you a creationist ?
Are you an Anti-evolutionist ?
Are you a creationist ?
I see where a_ht is coming from. Proponents of intelligent design would have you believe that they are motivated by scientific concerns, i.e. that enough doubt exists regarding Darwinian evolution to justify the teaching of an alternative evolutionary mechanism. This is obviously a bogus claim since they do not reject other physical theories on similar grounds. Rather, it is quite clear that they reject Darwinian evolution because it contradicts their precious brand of revealed 'truth'.
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Coming from a part of the country where intelligent design is being pushed, perhaps I have a bit of insight. Intelligent design is just the start. Once they get that in KS classrooms, I do expect to see a push for intelligent falliing to challenge the theory of gravity. The xians will also challenge relativity as soon as they can get "evidence" to support what ever claim that wish to make. I am afraid that it is just a matter of time. These people are real and they do have an agenda. It's just not a good agenda for the future of our education system.
In my last year in highschool (several months ago), I studied general relativity. Specifically I learned the following bits of trivia:
- Einstein's mass-acceleration equivalence postulate
- Observation that light bends in accelerating reference frames ==> gravity bends light
- Space is CURVED
- A fancy formula I can't quite remember for calculating the size of a black hole.
Out of curiosity I looked up the Einstein field equation on wikipedia a few months later: a differential equation with "tensors" in it. I don't really know what tensors are, and definitely have no idea how to apply the techniques of calculus to them, so maybe that's why they don't go into too much detail with GR in highschool? I've heard its the last thing I'll study in my physics course, in about 4 years.
- Einstein's mass-acceleration equivalence postulate
- Observation that light bends in accelerating reference frames ==> gravity bends light
- Space is CURVED
- A fancy formula I can't quite remember for calculating the size of a black hole.
Out of curiosity I looked up the Einstein field equation on wikipedia a few months later: a differential equation with "tensors" in it. I don't really know what tensors are, and definitely have no idea how to apply the techniques of calculus to them, so maybe that's why they don't go into too much detail with GR in highschool? I've heard its the last thing I'll study in my physics course, in about 4 years.
a_ht,
Hi and welcome to sciforums.
You appear to have spotted the inconsistencies and hypocrisy prevalent with the creationist position. Science if of no real interest to them only their faith based belief system. If that is threatened then of course they will attack the offender with whatever political tactic they can muster. In this sense they merely see science as a potential weapon in their arsenal.
Hi and welcome to sciforums.
You appear to have spotted the inconsistencies and hypocrisy prevalent with the creationist position. Science if of no real interest to them only their faith based belief system. If that is threatened then of course they will attack the offender with whatever political tactic they can muster. In this sense they merely see science as a potential weapon in their arsenal.
Sadly, this is the truth.Cris said:
Then again, if someone of faith tryed to use faith to persuade me, I'd think they were just as crazy as if I used science, assuming they are the types of people described in this post.
I guess the differance is that science is based on facts :/
Evolution gets a bad rap because of bad PR. According to my biology teacher, Darwin made the first PR error when he referred to "The Descent of Man." He should have called it "The Ascent of Man" to make his theory more acceptable to the masses.
I have not always been a person of faith. Prior to my religious conversion I had problems with the theory of evolution, not because it contradicted christianity, but because the conclusions changed too often. The things I was taught in my earlier years became obsolete -- such as the eastern U.S. salamander example of speciation. I have looked everywhere and unfortunately I can not recover this study, which is now considered bogus. Yes, speciation does happen, but somebody made the wrong conclusions in this particular study. Today's "evolution facts" can become obsolete in this manner, and it causes credibility problems (understandably). Perhaps a little more caution should be used upfront to prevent obsolescence.
Evolution theory needs to be presented by someone that can straddle the gap between religion and evolution. Darwin was preparing for the ministry prior to his discovery, then became a naturalist. A naturalist is needed to join the ministry. I've read that there are very few biologists that believe in a God or the supernatural. Microbiology, however, is getting an increase in believers from what I've read.
Isn't it odd that life is an ongoing struggle to reconcile incompatible information, and when you feel you've figured it all out, the world passes by? At a job you aren't needed anymore when it gets easy.
I have not always been a person of faith. Prior to my religious conversion I had problems with the theory of evolution, not because it contradicted christianity, but because the conclusions changed too often. The things I was taught in my earlier years became obsolete -- such as the eastern U.S. salamander example of speciation. I have looked everywhere and unfortunately I can not recover this study, which is now considered bogus. Yes, speciation does happen, but somebody made the wrong conclusions in this particular study. Today's "evolution facts" can become obsolete in this manner, and it causes credibility problems (understandably). Perhaps a little more caution should be used upfront to prevent obsolescence.
Evolution theory needs to be presented by someone that can straddle the gap between religion and evolution. Darwin was preparing for the ministry prior to his discovery, then became a naturalist. A naturalist is needed to join the ministry. I've read that there are very few biologists that believe in a God or the supernatural. Microbiology, however, is getting an increase in believers from what I've read.
Isn't it odd that life is an ongoing struggle to reconcile incompatible information, and when you feel you've figured it all out, the world passes by? At a job you aren't needed anymore when it gets easy.
Last edited:
Woody said:
Here we go again
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Wrong, evolution needs to be taught by someone with a knowledge of biology and the religious types need to accept that their bible is wrong and that no amount of pseudo-evidence will change the factsWoody said:
edited for typo/srr
snake river rufus
Registered Senior Member
Forget common ground. Keep religion (taught as science) out of schools. The bible is most certainly not compatable with evolution. Schools should teach facts or ideas clearly identified as ideas. I do not carre about burning the bridge, let the xians swim, sink, or float on in their delusions.
a_ht said:
I am sure the creationists in Kansas will turn it into the theory of intelligent falling...
Many very bright scientists propose that science and religion are compatible. And many very bright theologians insist in the existence of god (of course!). I fear that they are both sadly mistaken. The scientists who claim science and religion can peacefully coexist are trying, I believe, to not make waves and just get on with the business of science. Science and religion are diametrically opposed and completely incompatible. You will say "but they're both the search for truth!". No they are not. That is a modern myth. Religion is about the suppression of any knowledge that threatens its edicts since its edicts are what give power to religious leaders. Certain sects have only grudgingly accepted some of the findings of modern science, because to do otherwise makes them look like fools even to their followers.
How can any doctrine that claims truth is bestowed by one instance of a text (the bible), based on what is most likely an enormous hoax (Jesus) be seeking truth in any fashion? Religion seeks power for its leaders, and pacification of its followers. Free inquiry and the mere suggestion that it is wrong is blasphemy. And you will be ridiculed, shunned, jailed, tortured, and ultimately burned for your suggestion.
Science is first and foremost the questioning of everything. And by that I mean EVERYTHING. And those who question successfully are praised and rewarded highly.
So, how are science and religion compatible again?
How can any doctrine that claims truth is bestowed by one instance of a text (the bible), based on what is most likely an enormous hoax (Jesus) be seeking truth in any fashion? Religion seeks power for its leaders, and pacification of its followers. Free inquiry and the mere suggestion that it is wrong is blasphemy. And you will be ridiculed, shunned, jailed, tortured, and ultimately burned for your suggestion.
Science is first and foremost the questioning of everything. And by that I mean EVERYTHING. And those who question successfully are praised and rewarded highly.
So, how are science and religion compatible again?
Why not mix Islam with Science hun ?
Last edited:
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
my theory of gravity...
-MT