@Mark (3157): science is God.

Good thing this wasn’t a test because you are a horrible regurgitator.

What types of art do you teach?
Drawing, wheel thrown pottery (more hand-built than wheel thrown but I’ve helped in both), mixed media, the occasional craft workshop on jewelry making. Most anything, however, painting lessons are few and far between which may sound odd since I had my art degree concentration in painting but after one class disaster of epic proportions, I’ve been been hesitant to bring the paints back to my kids. My boss enjoys making fun of me about that. She accused me of being scared and I whole-heartedly agreed with her, lol.

What types of art do you teach? Some examples, because I’m too tired to think and I’m pretty sure I will be tomorrow as well

“…OK, music analogy. You’re given the basics, right? Hold guitar just so. This is how you play a chord. So on and so forth. Does your teacher also teach you what to do for every song you may have worked on, essentially writing all your material? No, obviously not, or at least I certainly hope not. They should provide the skill set that helps you do your own learning…”

Funny you should mention that, I’m just about to try to complete my third rough song-outline for the evening (although it will be morning momentarily, and I’ve got school tomorrow ) Not a bad effort…

We learn what we are taught, who’s to say that that is right?
What you’re thinking of in regards to your biology class is probably what you’ve been given to regurgitate on a test – not really what you’ve learned. Real learning is related to what Maggot mentioned earlier about critical thinking skills. That’s not simply being told what is what but actually using it to figure out the problems to your own solutions. OK, music analogy. You’re given the basics, right? Hold guitar just so. This is how you play a chord. So on and so forth. Does your teacher also teach you what to do for every song you may have worked on, essentially writing all your material? No, obviously not, or at least I certainly hope not. They should provide the skill set that helps you do your own learning.

You’re confusing a lot of things here, Mark. Metaphysics isn’t a science nor would metaphysical explanations constitute as theories. Science is not the atheist god nor is Science mutually exclusive from religion. Capische? There’s your “skill set”. Figure out the why’s of what I said on your own.
btw, this also means that your dislike of your biology class shouldn’t be a reason you stick to some religion or other. Not mutually exclusive, remember? Just a little preaching from gabi319.

The issue most take with YEC is that the explanations from the Bible are INfallible. It says the world was created in six days and so it must be regardless of any new information we may have gained. Conclusion (from the Bible) MUST BE SET prior to venturing into any “observation” or “analysis”.

As far as electron weight go…haven’t seen anything you were referring to. I think you might be talking about size of the Universe and what electrons have to do with it? The original concept is that galaxies and galaxy clusters are held together from the gravitational pull of colliding atoms. However, some researchers believe the information doesn’t add up and that it’s actually colliding electrons and photons that may be what is keeping these galaxies together. Electrons are smaller than atoms, therefore the pull may not be as strong, therefore galaxies and clusters may be smaller, therefore the Universe could be smaller than previously believed. However, it’s not set in stone yet. More research to be done.

You said yourself that science will change and I point out that science HAS changed. We certainly have grown leaps and bounds from centuries past. The discovery of cells essentially erased much of prior science in a second. The discover of viruses and bacteria greatly changed medical research and medical treatment. Have you noticed how human genome mapping has greatly altered medicine just within the last ten years? As far as electrons and the universe go… the concepts of Universe might change and so our concept of them will change in the present and this new information would further help us figure out the future. But it’s all rooted in the Scientific Method, which hasn’t changed since it was standardized. So while the answers may be refined as new information is brought in, the process of how to find these answers would not.

“….Congrats on that econ prize! I’ll give you a sticker and a cookie! I’ve recently become a teacher of sorts so I’m authorized to do so! By the power vested in me and such…yada yada…I grant you this cookie and a sticker that says A++……”

I wouldn’t joke about that, I might take you up on it… Teacher? What are you teaching, art?

“…What’s the difference between back then and now? The Enlightenment. Before then only a select few were educated…”

We learn what we are taught, who’s to say that that is right? What if the scientific process *is* wrong, or it has limits. Uh-ohs… Don’t ask me how it would, I’m no longer a real science person. But from a metaphysical viewpoint, who knows? Can we know? If so, how? There are so many viewpoints out there that I’m going to keep my mind open to fallibility, even in the atheists’ God.

“…I don’t think “science as we know it” will change since its foundation is rooted in a standardized practice – the scientific method…”

I read somewhere that they think that the weight of electrons may have changed since the beginning of the Universe. Sure, that doesn’t show a problem with the Method, per se, but it does show how easily everything we have gained from it in certain fields – Physics, and therefore all sciences – can be erased in a second. How do we know that the make-up of the Universe won’t changed drastically in the next 1000 years?

Do you Gabi?

God was the logical thing back then.
What’s the difference between back then and now? The Enlightenment. Before then only a select few were educated. Even further back in history, even less people were even literate and those people usually resided within the clergy. They had the power of knowledge so they could effectively steer collective thought however they saw fit and lucky for them “God Did It” was answer enough to plug up and holes or gaps in logic. Now that we begin to ask ‘Why?’ the Goddidit answers become unsatisfactory.

Of course people a 1000 years from now would look on us and think we’re crazy. Some of my college friends who are only a year or two younger look back on “my age” and think the concept of mix tapes or actual tape decks to be very foreign. However, despite how they (future people) might think that some of our current scientific findings are antiquated by their standards, I don’t think “science as we know it” will change since its foundation is rooted in a standardized practice – the scientific method. I also think it would be hard to prove the actual method wrong. After all, we use it outside of the science classroom except we call it “trial and error” or even “stupid childhood mistakes we strive never to repeat as adults”.

My economics teacher’s the cool one, is not that he’s a great guy or anything, it’s just that I like the way he teaches (sp?). I won the Queensland State Prize in Economics in a competition I did in May, $250 cash prize!!! It was awesome…

“…Sure there are clarifications and sometimes full out retractions to be made along the way for evolution studies but there is a HUGE difference between the two…”

The way I look at it, God was the logical thing back then. Science still has lots of holes in it. Maybe one day “science” as we know it and “the scientific method” as is commonly preached (like the analogy) by the fanatics might all be wrong too. People 1000 years from now could look back and us and say “what were they thinking”.

I could be wrong and science could survive forever (but do you really think so?) but I think that it will be almost unrecognizable to the scientists of today.

teaching evolution in schools could one day amount to what teaching creation is now.
Sure there are clarifications and sometimes full out retractions to be made along the way for evolution studies but there is a HUGE difference between the two. It’s mainly that with Evolution, if there are discrepancies between hypothesis and evidence then the hypothesis changes. That’s part and parcel of the scientific method. With Creationism, gaps are usually filled in with assumptions or the evidence would be flat out warped beyond recognition to fit “the answer.” Read some of the creationist responses on this thread and you’ll see what I mean.

@Maggot (3150): Does that mean I should’ve just blown off my penmanship and cursive writing lessons back then?
When I was…I think in 3rd or 4th grade, I was freaking out because I had some important government documents to sign but over the summer I forgot how to write in cursive. I was told to write my whole name in block letters and then draw little lines to connect the letters together. They also told me – but not until after I wrote that monstrosity – that it would be my signature for the rest of my life. The jerks. I didn’t keep that special “cursive” but I still feel compelled to spell out my whole name on official documents. …all 25 letters of it, lol.

My point is just that given what we don’t know, and the fact that we obviously don’t know what we don’t know in some cases, teaching evolution in schools could one day amount to what teaching creation is now.