Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rekna
For those of you who asked here are my degrees.
BS in CS
BS in Math
Now i'm working on a MS/PHD in CS with a focus in scientific computing.
Now to address some of the things people have said (or more specifically assumed I said).
I did not say teach creationism or teach ID. No I said if you teach evolution then make sure you teach it as a theory and if there is any evidence against it present it also.
I have not done a lot of studing on this topic itself (from either the creationist or evolutionist point of view). I actually know more from the evolutionist point of view. But was recently exposed to some information that argued the earth was young. That was the information I posted. My pastor is snail mailing me the powerpoint now which might take some time to get here. When I get it i'll do my best to post the evidence he had in his presentation.
Again I stress, I am not saying teach creationism. I am saying teach evolution as a theory because that is what it is a theory. Today it is being taught as a fact. What happens if a year from now we discover something and we realize we were wrong but yet we said this was a fact.
|
CS is not near the same as a hard science. programming and physics, biology, etc. are incredibly different, especially in their methodology. in programming you have an outcome you want and program what you need to get it. in science, you make your outcome based on the "programming" that is already there. (probably not the best analogy)
and evolution is a fact. so it should be taught that way. how exactly it happens is still being determined (just like we don't know yet the mechanism for gravity but gravity is still a fact). these contradictions to evolution you want taught aren't contradictions to it. if something were discovered that proved that gene mutation had nothing to do with evolution, then gene mutation would not be taught to kids as a mechanism by which life evolves. i suspect that most, if not all, of the 'evidence' you're planning on supplying us with can and will be easily refuted.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Suave
This is a semantic argument that I'm sure many of you will disagree with, but science is pretty much just another form of religion. I do not support the teaching of creationism in schools, but at the same time I felt the need to posit my belief of science as another, more universal form of religion.
|
whether it is just a semantic argument or not, it's wrong. religion is based on faith (blind belief). science is based on observation. i believe in science (and have faith in science that is beyond my current knowledge) because i can drop an apple and see it fall (repeatidly, accelerating at the same rate each time), because i can turn on my computer and type this response to you, because i can listen to the radio and hear a news story about something happening on the other side of the world that they heard about through a telephone call or on tv. other than bore me on a saturday morning, god hasn't done anything that i can observe (and i wouldn't hold god responsible for the boredom, damn rabbi). so there's a big difference between the two.