Rah!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

faith  [feyth]

–noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:

faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

—Idiom

9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Faith has a place in Science. A good many people just have no idea what Faith is.

Brass... you can take your last paragraph and just switch the words religion and science around. it will be just as true.

[Shade Everdark]

Shade.. perhaps you should talk to some astrophysisits. Or perhaps some astronomers. Faith is a major part of the hard core sciences. Some even refer to Science as their religion.

A good example of Faith in science... Dark Matter. Not one person on the planet knows what it is. Why is the Universe have 90% more mass than we can "see"? There are many ideas. People are trying every day to find out what that 90% is. Faith that they will infact discover the truth of the matter is what drives them.

btw... I need to do some major searching... you were one of the people.. in another thread.. perhaps the old board.. who argued that Science is it's own religion.. it's own Faith.

I have talked to some astrophysicists. I actually interviewed one when I was in school. I never really got that you HAD to have faith to be a scientist, nor even to do work with or about dark matter.

Science can be its own religion, from a certain point of view. But the dogma of science is not about faith, it's about evidence, observation, and fact. Science can be a religion, but it isn't a faith.

[TearSandrille]

faith  [feyth]

–noun

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing:

faith in another's ability.

2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.

7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.

8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

—Idiom

9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.

Faith has a place in Science. A good many people just have no idea what Faith is.

Brass... you can take your last paragraph and just switch the words religion and science around. it will be just as true.

I felt compelled to reply being a high school science teacher.

First of all, Brass hit it right on the nose when she said that if someone has faith then they will believe that science will back them up. You bolded number two, but just because it says hypothesis doesn't automatically make it scientific. The scientist has faith that their hypothesis will work out, because hypotheses are based on other information/facts they already know. You have to gather information in order to make an "educated guess". And, hypotheses have to be TESTABLE. Most religious beliefs are not testable. I can test that Jesus was an actually person, but I can not test that he was the son of God. That is where faith comes in.

As far as the whole debate goes. Teachers have enough to cover in a year without having to be forced to cover intelligent design. A science class is for science content, and evolution is what the majority of the scientists believe.

My two cents.

[BrassFusion]

I felt compelled to reply being a high school science teacher.

First of all, Brass hit it right on the nose when she said that if someone has faith then they will believe that science will back them up. You bolded number two, but just because it says hypothesis doesn't automatically make it scientific. The scientist has faith that their hypothesis will work out, because hypotheses are based on other information/facts they already know. You have to gather information in order to make an "educated guess". And, hypotheses have to be TESTABLE. Most religious beliefs are not testable. I can test that Jesus was an actually person, but I can not test that he was the son of God. That is where faith comes in.

As far as the whole debate goes. Teachers have enough to cover in a year without having to be forced to cover intelligent design. A science class is for science content, and evolution is what the majority of the scientists believe.

My two cents.

Thanks.

What she said.

[maeve]

I know I’m chiming in rather late here, sorry; I’ve been tied up between work and school. Anyway, I believe that some here have stated very well that science relies on testable hypotheses where as Intelligent Design relies on faith. There is of course no way to test any hypotheses regarding ID (Alien or Supernatural) and therefore should not be included in the realm of science. If ID is to be taught in a theology class then, as mentioned previously, it needs to be taught alongside all the rest of the ID beliefs.

As for the theory of evolution, this hypothesis has been tested on many occasions. There is also enough evidence to put its validity on a level equivalent to the theory that the world is round, not flat (This summary comes from Dr. Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist from Oxford University). Dr. Dawkins has a very interesting take on the matter and I believe it would be well worth the time of anyone interested on this subject to hear him speak. He recently appeared on Talk of the Nation, October 6th. You can listen to the broadcast via the following link if you so desire. It’s quite informative.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6210151

[HipsterDufus]

Dr. Dawkins has a very interesting take on the matter and I believe it would be well worth the time of anyone interested on this subject to hear him speak. He recently appeared on Talk of the Nation, October 6th. You can listen to the broadcast via the following link if you so desire. It’s quite informative.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6210151

I heard that as well; I'll agree that it's well worth a listen (though not for the easily offended!)

[Troy Spiral (13)]

Yeah they tried the first time with the term "creationism" that term , specifically was said "nope sorry" to by several school districts.

They re-packaged it as "Intelligent Design" this time, with virtually >zero

But its obvious were it comes from. I'm to be honest, still open to the idea. But until there is solid science to back it up it shouldn't be "taught" in schools.

But, i do think it would be fair to require say a minor side-mention of creationism as a philosophy when talking about evolution. Not teaching it as a fact of science but as a fact of opinion. We are trying to teach kids to think, not just memorize. They WILL run into this argument in the real world. might as well mention it to them.

There is some science on the side of creationism but its by no means "solid"... The Genesis Flood and The Case For Christ being the best pro-I.D. texts to date for my money and they are both still pretty weak. I read them both hoping for a really rock-solid alternative to evolution, sadly they are not. They just offer a few "hrmm.." points here and there.

Meanwhile stuff i've read on evolution are like DAMN thats clear. It doesn't SEEM clear if you've been brought up on creationism, but once you start reading the nitty-gritty of evolution it gets fairly solid. They break down the geologic column and the fossil record it gets pretty imposing to try and say "uh... no you made all that shit up, and your not interpreting the data correctly... me, random pastor knows better, god damn satanists" in response. I know, i tried, and tried and TRIED. I don't WANT evolution to be the answer. I'm still hoping, but my "faith" is pretty minimal at this point.

My guess is , 100 years from now Christians will be what is now called Deists. That is , god created the universe and then let it take its course. Every layer of assumptions that the church has put on mankind throughout the ages seems to slowly but surely be counteracted by the lets call it "laymans understanding of science" over time. Eventually various assertions just are finally put to rest as being ridiculous after centuries of chrisindom fighting against it as public understanding of "reality" becomes more and more widespread.

The earth as the center of the universe was first.

Anti-Enviornmentalism is next on the chopping block. (For ages its been viewed as a waste of time)

Gay's in the church and anti-gay marriage is next.

Sex out of wedlock is due for a re-vamp. (and there are catholic and general christian wirtings suggesting as such. Bishop Shelby Spongs "Living In Sin?" and "Rescuing The Bible From Fundemnetalism are interesting reads)

All of this is very threatening and frankly scary to somone brought up on christianity. Its hard to understand if you were not brought up to belive certian things.