God versus science.
Science teachers' views of science and religion vs. the Islamic . relationship between science and religion as in conflict, the other student might regard. Occasionally religious students think of like science is, not about what people .. Arguments Over Cosmology (God vs. this tendentious connection. An interview with chemistry professor Daniel Romo. What would you like to say to students who have an interest in science at a young age? members longer here on earth to enjoy rich relationships and bring glory to God.
Einstein was a rabid atheist as a teenager, as is recounted in his autobiographical quotes. His Deist religious instincts came much later in life, but he never believed in a meddlesome sort of God. In this case, the story does, indeed, appear in many forms and with many attributions, including Einstein.
However, to discard this as false "because we can't source it" is a logical fallacy. To discard it "because it appears with other people's name" is a similar logical fallacy.
A Philosophy Professor Analyzes God’s Not Dead’s Case For God | Daniel Fincke
To discard it, using broken logic, is also a logical fallacy. I have seen the excuses, "Einstein didn't say it because he didn't believe in a supernatural god" I have seen many other logical fallacies applied to say "Einstein didn't say this" or "Einstein didn't believe in god" Therefore lets do this: Lets break this up into the two arguments: With all the writing about or by Einstein, one would thing something of this magnitude might have been confirmed in their writings.
That it is not, is not proof that he DID NOT say it proving a negative but it is proof that it is unlikely that he did say it. He, at one time, was, in his words, "religious". Later in life, he became "agnostic" with a leaning toward the existence of a "god" or "God", but not the belief in a "personal god God ".
We do know that he respected Religion, in general, but was not a follower of any one specific religion, including his own previous Jewish faith.
Which cannot be sourced either. Goldstein on 24 April and reported in the New York Times on 25 April"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
For instance, from a letter to Guy H. They came back somewhat astonished, "Hey! The survey-of-ministers approach may not work if the community is religiously homogeneous, especially if that homogeneity is conservative Christian, but it is something that some teachers might consider as a way of getting students' fingers out of their ears.
Define evolution as an issue of the history of the planet: The present is different from the past. Evolution happened, there is no debate within science as to whether it happened, and so on.
Then, list for later discussion a number of causes or processes which might explain in whole or in part, how this change through time might have taken place. Stress that this is where debating takes place. List both currently-debated and also rejected explanations, such as Lamarckism, saltation, Darwinian natural selection, neodarwinism, non-Darwinian evolution, and so on. At the end of the list and I recommend using a transparency or writing the list on the blackboardinclude "Supernatural Causation".
Explain that some people think that change through time is caused directly or indirectly by a supernatural being, including God, the Hero Twins Navajoor some other supernatural power.
At this point you then state because this is a science class, and science is limited to explaining through natural forces, we cannot discuss supernatural causation here.
I have used this approach at the college level and seen a remarkable development: Just by mentioning the fact that some people believe God was responsible for change through time, you are recognizing the view of many Christian and Jewish students, even though you are not going to discuss it further you're not a theology teacher!
Many religious students have never been exposed to a continuum of religious views, and in a very real sense, you are giving them an opportunity to listen to you and not shut you out. Note that you are not to promote theistic evolution: The purpose of this exercise is to give the student some critically important information so that he or she will be more willing to listen to the scientific information you will present.
Similarly, it is useful to separate "creationism" into two parts. As discussed above, mainline Christian and Jewish theology accept evolution as the way God created.
DEALING WITH ANTIEVOLUTIONISM
The other type of "creationism" tries to more specifically answer the question, "what happened? From my experience in dealing with the general public on this issue radio talk shows are very educational Whether God created is of course, not a scientific question, because science is restricted to explaining natural phenomena using only natural processes.
But science can tell us a great deal about "what happened," and the evidence powerfully leads us to conclude that change has taken place, not that everything appeared in its present form. Helping students understand that evolution, like all scientific explanations, deals only with proximate, never ultimate cause, allows them to accommodate their religious views to evolution, if they so choose. Much resistance to evolution is overcome by allowing the religious student to retain his or her faith in God the creator, while still accepting the scientific evidence for descent with modification.
Remember, the job of you and your colleagues at the K level is to help students understand the consensus view of a discipline, whether it is history, literature, mathematics, or science. No one said a student has to "believe" in a spherical earth, and in fact, a teacher in a small mountain community in Appalachia told me that she had a brother and sister who would walk out of the class when she discussed a heliocentric solar system! It's the job of the teacher to instruct, not to indoctrinate.
All you are asking is that the student learn the subject. Whether he agrees with what is being taught is up to him. Although you'd feel silly telling students, "Well, kids, today we're going to discuss the theory of heliocentrism, but you don't have to believe it! Whether they accept the modern scientific consensus that evolution occurred is up to them.
The theories of kin selection and parental investment derived from sociobiology are not "popular" views, but if they continue to explain social behavior successfully, they will be utilized. If scientists could vote to choose theories, I'd vote for Lamarckism! It's a lot more humane and useful than natural selection!
But the world doesn't work that way.
The laws of nature work as they will, irrespective of human wish or will. The explanations scientists accept are the ones that work, and Lamarckism doesn't work. The special creationism explanation that the universe was created all at one time in its present form doesn't explain nature nearly as well as the evolutionary explanation that the universe has had a history and that change has taken place.
Thus, special creation has been discarded as a scientific explanation.
We do not present geocentrism and heliocentrism as if they are currently contending theories. We only confuse students by presenting special creation and evolution as if both were equally scientific and as if scientists were still trying to decide between them.
There is another question regarding the "fairness" approach: How should educational curricula be determined? Most of the time, we agree that the consensus scholarship of history, literature, art, or science should be presented to Kindergartenth grade students.
We do not teach astrology with astronomy because professional astronomers and physics teachers tell us that astrology is not considered good scholarship. Biologists, geologists, astronomers and other scientists tell us that evolution should be taught, and creation "science" should not.
The proponents of creationism in the curriculum are a political pressure group outside of the educational and scientific communities. A good defense against the "fairness" argument is to point out that we do not determine scholarship depending on what a political pressure group wants, otherwise we would teach Holocaust revisionism along with standard World War II history, and give equal time in medical school to the ideas that AIDS is caused by viruses and AIDS is a curse sent from God.
It makes more sense to have students practice critical thinking by evaluating ideas that are truly in contention. Few teachers would have students evaluate the "scientific" evidence for flat-earthism there is some, with emphasis on the quotation marks! The scientific debates concern the latter, not the former. It is possible to use creationism and evolution as foils in a discussion of the nature of science, but this may well result in a student's taking offense at what may appear to be criticism of his or her religion.
It is better to avoid this, for many reasons. Most teachers would not ask students to evaluate whether balloon angioplasty or by-pass surgery should be used to treat heart failure, and that question deals "only" with medicine, one field in biology. Consider that organic evolution not to mention astronomical and geological evolution relies on data from biochemistry, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, biogeography, and many other fields.
The vast majority of students are not well enough versed in even one of these areas to critically evaluate it.