4th Grade "Science" Quiz - Were you there?

[FA_Q2]

It doesn't? The sudden, inexplicable appearance of something out of literally nothing does not suggest at least the possibility of directed creation? Why not?

We are entirely ignorant as to Origins for the universe, therefore any assertions that lack empirical evidence and sound demonstration are automatically an argument from ignorance. This being the case, god is simply a guess. There is no reason to believe this is the actual truth of the matter.

Since we are entirely ignorant on the subject, is not God still a possibility? If not, why not? Is there some reason to believe God is NOT the actual truth of the matter? Is His reality automatically precluded from the list of possibilities? If so, why?

He is a possibility but one that is just as likely as the flying spaghetti monster.

Simply put, the correct path for science in this matter is ‘I don’t know.’ That does not mean that God is ‘the most logical answer’ because that is outright false. There is no answer because we simply do not know enough.

God might have created the universe but that does not matter. Science has nothing to go on in this case to say anything.

 

[LittleNipper]

A better way of putting it, is to say that public school students only get what is repeatedly demonstrable via the scientific method and empirically verified across a vast network of experts over the course of an 150 years without any contrary evidence to negate it.

^Id rather take this over a fairy tale in book. Being taught the lies of creationism is not education, it is miseducation, and harms the future of this country's competitive standing next to countries that aren't feeding their posterity this garbage.

But this is a lie. No teacher has ever been able to create life from an inanimate object, no matter how much electric is sparked through it. No teacher has ever been able to induce a species to become another. No teacher has been able to prove that fossils are not the end result of Flood waters and mud. What public school teachers do infer is that GOD is not necessary for anything to occur and destroy the spirituality of the weaker students. And yet they offer no ABSOLUTE proof. It is all conjecture founded in faith of materialism.

It's not the teachers job to impart or sustain "spirituality" in their students for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that all teachers do not share the same faith, nor should they be compelled to.

The spiritual instruction of children should be done in the home, with assistance from a local house of worship if you like. Biblically speaking, that responsibility rests with the father. Not Mom, or granddad or the preacher, and certainly not with the teacher.

Perhaps we would all be better off if fathers (or, in their absence, a male role model) would quit trying to shirk their responsibility and do the job they're supposed to be doing.

It is the teacher's job to encourage students to ponder but not selectively. And both parents need to be active in the matter of spiritual things. And the teacher should be aware of the parent's values and opinions to some degree.

 

[LittleNipper]

A better way of putting it, is to say that public school students only get what is repeatedly demonstrable via the scientific method and empirically verified across a vast network of experts over the course of an 150 years without any contrary evidence to negate it.

^Id rather take this over a fairy tale in book. Being taught the lies of creationism is not education, it is miseducation, and harms the future of this country's competitive standing next to countries that aren't feeding their posterity this garbage.

But this is a lie. No teacher has ever been able to create life from an inanimate object, no matter how much electric is sparked through it. No teacher has ever been able to induce a species to become another. No teacher has been able to prove that fossils are not the end result of Flood waters and mud. What public school teachers do infer is that GOD is not necessary for anything to occur and destroy the spirituality of the weaker students. And yet they offer no ABSOLUTE proof. It is all conjecture founded in faith of materialism.

Likely because none of that has anything to do with evolution.

Remember that evolution concerns the Earth changing, and life responding to that change to adapt and survive. Indeed, without evolution, life would have ceased to exist on Earth eons ago.

But you have not proven that the earth is eons old absolutely or that there are not other forces at work. There is no proof that change is an upward and not a downward spirl. And without CREATION there can be no life. This at least is an absolute that no scientist has been able to disprove.

 

[Oldguy]

We are entirely ignorant as to Origins for the universe, therefore any assertions that lack empirical evidence and sound demonstration are automatically an argument from ignorance. This being the case, god is simply a guess. There is no reason to believe this is the actual truth of the matter.

Since we are entirely ignorant on the subject, is not God still a possibility? If not, why not? Is there some reason to believe God is NOT the actual truth of the matter? Is His reality automatically precluded from the list of possibilities? If so, why?

He is a possibility but one that is just as likely as the flying spaghetti monster.

Simply put, the correct path for science in this matter is ‘I don’t know.’ That does not mean that God is ‘the most logical answer’ because that is outright false. There is no answer because we simply do not know enough.

God might have created the universe but that does not matter. Science has nothing to go on in this case to say anything.

There, see? That wasn't so difficult, was it? Science has not yet eliminated God from being possible. We're perhaps not so far apart after all, so long as we believers don't discount the possibility that we too may be wrong.

But, when you amplify that admission by comments such as "is just as likely as the flying spaghetti monster," and "that is outright false," or "God...does not matter," you're revealing your FAITH that God does not exist, in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary.

Given your spirited defense of science and scientific thought, would it not be correct to make the assumption then that you have FAITH in science? (which is where this discussion began)

 

[Moonglow]

My youngest was educated by a home school course from a religious school and the science was involved with the same information provided in the OP.
He is now in public school learning more facts than opinions in science.

 

[Flopper]

My youngest was educated by a home school course from a religious school and the science was involved with the same information provided in the OP.
He is now in public school learning more facts than opinions in science.

The most important thing we should teach young scientists is to question because that is the cornerstone of all science. Accept nothing as scientific fact based on faith. To the scientist, beliefs are always subject to change.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Of course there is. In fact, New Testament Biblical faith is evidence based or it's not true faith.

In the NT, the word most commonly translated into English as "faith" is the Greek word "pistis," which means: conviction of the truth of anything. It comes from the word "peitho" which is defined as: to be persuaded. Paul defined faith as "evidence of things not seen."

See? Blind faith is no faith at all. It's a hope. True faith examines the evidence of the truth of the existence of God, the reality of Christ, the authenticity of Scripture and makes a decision to believe based upon that.

In that sense, it is very much like having faith in science because it too is based upon the evidence.

Interesting approach you are taking. Your differentiation between "blind faith" and your "conviction" explains why you are open minded since your "faith" is not "threatened by science".

You're right. My faith is not threatened by science. But, because of the actions of some of my brethren, science might very well be threatened by faith. We've seen it before in history, haven't we?

Yes, unfortunately enough.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes, but so is relying solely on science to explain things. That too is a faith issue.

No, it’s not. That is only true if you are going to redefine what the words mean. That is a pointless exercise. Faith is belief absent hard evidence. Science is not faith, it is belief WITH evidence.

The key here is that, when using science as a foundation, the words ‘I don’t know’ are common. The reality is that we know VERY little. Then there is also the acceptance that fact really does not exist. Gravity might seem like a fact yet it is not. It is simply the best current theory that we have for that particular phenomenon. Tomorrow it could be proven false. With science as a foundation, you accept that. Faith, however, does not make that distinction.

See above. There is no faith based on the preponderance of evidence. That really is not faith.

Faith:
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

I will dispute the ‘logical’ portion though tbh. Though I do not believe in a higher power, I do not find that belief lacking ‘logic’ per say, just hard evidence.

Personally, based upon my studies of both scripture and science, I see no reason to presume the universe did not start when God said, "Let there be a Big Bang." The point being that science and faith do not have to be mutually exclusive. It doesn't have to be a case of either/or, but that's the position most people take on both sides of the issue because they're not willing to consider any alternative other than the one they're defending.

There's a term for that: It's called being closed-minded.

Well, this we agree on again. Science and faith are defiantly NOT mutually exclusive. A LOT of people screw this up. They tend to mingle the two. Not only is faith not mutually exclusive to science, it has nothing to do with science at all. The basis of science is in nature. The observable world around us and the discovery of natural laws. Faith, on the other hand, deals with the supernatural. Science can NEVER offer proof of God or disprove God as it has nothing to do with God. I wish that more people would approach science with an open mind and stop trying to put God in the small box that they tend to. Instead of viewing something like evolution or the universe in it amazing journey from creation to now, they want to demand that God used the method that THEY want him to. Demanding that evolution did not take place or that the universe is 6000 years old confines creation. If there is a God and he created all, I highly doubt that he had done so without intricate systems that we are just beginning to peer at. For me, that makes the universe far more interesting and great than confining it.

On the contrary. Cosmologists tell us that all matter in the Universe was created in a huge explosion, an explosion that originated in a singularity the size of a proton. That's one half the size of an atom. They have no "proof" of this, they have calculations that can take us back to within 300,000 years (so they believe) of the Big Bang, but no closer.

So, you tell me....is it faith, or science, that we "believe" that all the matter in the universe originated from a point the size of half of an atom?

"All the matter in the universe" did NOT ORIGINATE from a "point the size of half of an atom". Instead all matter was COMPRESSED into a very small space a few millimeters in diameter. Matter has always existed and will always exist according to the laws of physics. There are new theories that postulate that the big bang was merely one in a series of similar events.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

No, it’s not. That is only true if you are going to redefine what the words mean. That is a pointless exercise. Faith is belief absent hard evidence. Science is not faith, it is belief WITH evidence.

The key here is that, when using science as a foundation, the words ‘I don’t know’ are common. The reality is that we know VERY little. Then there is also the acceptance that fact really does not exist. Gravity might seem like a fact yet it is not. It is simply the best current theory that we have for that particular phenomenon. Tomorrow it could be proven false. With science as a foundation, you accept that. Faith, however, does not make that distinction.

See above. There is no faith based on the preponderance of evidence. That really is not faith.

Faith:
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof

I will dispute the ‘logical’ portion though tbh. Though I do not believe in a higher power, I do not find that belief lacking ‘logic’ per say, just hard evidence.

Well, this we agree on again. Science and faith are defiantly NOT mutually exclusive. A LOT of people screw this up. They tend to mingle the two. Not only is faith not mutually exclusive to science, it has nothing to do with science at all. The basis of science is in nature. The observable world around us and the discovery of natural laws. Faith, on the other hand, deals with the supernatural. Science can NEVER offer proof of God or disprove God as it has nothing to do with God. I wish that more people would approach science with an open mind and stop trying to put God in the small box that they tend to. Instead of viewing something like evolution or the universe in it amazing journey from creation to now, they want to demand that God used the method that THEY want him to. Demanding that evolution did not take place or that the universe is 6000 years old confines creation. If there is a God and he created all, I highly doubt that he had done so without intricate systems that we are just beginning to peer at. For me, that makes the universe far more interesting and great than confining it.

On the contrary. Cosmologists tell us that all matter in the Universe was created in a huge explosion, an explosion that originated in a singularity the size of a proton. That's one half the size of an atom. They have no "proof" of this, they have calculations that can take us back to within 300,000 years (so they believe) of the Big Bang, but no closer.

So, you tell me....is it faith, or science, that we "believe" that all the matter in the universe originated from a point the size of half of an atom?

"All the matter in the universe" did NOT ORIGINATE from a "point the size of half of an atom". Instead all matter was COMPRESSED into a very small space a few millimeters in diameter. Matter has always existed and will always exist according to the laws of physics. There are new theories that postulate that the big bang was merely one in a series of similar events.

Infinity is difficult for us to comprehend though. We like to limit things to terms we can understand. That's why people assert things as facts even when they are not.

 

[laughinReaper]

this is most likely private school so what gets taught caters to the belief system of that school.

Personally I find it offensive that only evolution is taught in public schools that are funded with my tax dollars. There are more than one school of thought on how life on earth started and all are theories so all should be taught and let the kid decide. Only teaching evolution. promotes intolerance and atheist belief that does not s belong in school.

 

[Oldguy]

this is most likely private school so what gets taught caters to the belief system of that school.

Personally I find it offensive that only evolution is taught in public schools that are funded with my tax dollars. There are more than one school of thought on how life on earth started and all are theories so all should be taught and let the kid decide. Only teaching evolution. promotes intolerance and atheist belief that does not s belong in school.

All of them? You want your kids taught that Lord Krishna sleeps on a giant snake and the repeating cycle of the universe begins again when Lord Braham is born from the egg of life called Anda, which comes out of Krishna's navel?

Or, as Buddha taught, that the universe goes through an endless cycle of birth, destruction, rebirth? At a time of destruction, the existing creatures go to dwell in the Realm of Radiance to await the rebirth of the universe when they come back as human beings? (How's that for evolution!)

Or, that the earth is carried on the Great Turtle's back, as told by the Iroquois indians, or that it was birthed from a giant black egg, as some Chinese believe? Or, that the sun, moon and stars were vomited out by a giant diety, as the Bakuba Kingdom of the Congo thought?

I could go on and on, but you get the point. If we are to teach religious ideas about the origin of the universe, we must teach them all or be guilty of favoring one religion over another (see: 1st Amendment).

How about we just stick to known science and let the parents and churches teach whatever else they want their kids to learn and allow THEM to decide for themselves. Unless, of course, you want your kids being taught nothing else BUT religious dogma because by the time the schools get through teaching every conceivable religious explanation....why, the kids'll be out of high school!

 

[Flopper]

this is most likely private school so what gets taught caters to the belief system of that school.

Personally I find it offensive that only evolution is taught in public schools that are funded with my tax dollars. There are more than one school of thought on how life on earth started and all are theories so all should be taught and let the kid decide. Only teaching evolution. promotes intolerance and atheist belief that does not s belong in school.

We should not teach children in public school a scientific theory based on a religious text, particular since that theory has been rejected by most scientist. Such a theory can certain be taught in private or parochial schools, but not in a public schools because it's a theory based on theology not science. If you want your children taught this belief, then you should look to a parochial school or your church.

BTW Evolution does not address the origins of life, only how that life evolved.

 

[newpolitics]

It doesn't? The sudden, inexplicable appearance of something out of literally nothing does not suggest at least the possibility of directed creation? Why not?

We are entirely ignorant as to Origins for the universe, therefore any assertions that lack empirical evidence and sound demonstration are automatically an argument from ignorance. This being the case, god is simply a guess. There is no reason to believe this is the actual truth of the matter.

Since we are entirely ignorant on the subject, is not God still a possibility? If not, why not? Is there some reason to believe God is NOT the actual truth of the matter? Is His reality automatically precluded from the list of possibilities? If so, why?

Of course a god is a possibility. But It could be anything that started the Big Bang. We are ignorant, and as long as we are, all we can do is withhold from making assertions until proper evidence comes in to justify one. Simply invoking intuition for a matter like this is mere delusion. Humans have been wrong about everything about the natural world until science came along, so we must wait until some kind scientific evidence can be shown that points to a "first cause."

 

[Godboy]

Assuming that this is genuine (still pending verification) is this right or wrong for children to be taught in schools as "science"?

(Note that attacks on Snopes will be considered to be a deflection under the assumption that this is genuine.)

Is this the "science education" you want for your own 4th grader? What is the purpose of handicapping American children by giving them false information rather than a fact based education? Religion belongs in the home and places of worship. Schools are where children are supposed to learn about the real world so that one day they will know enough in order to survive.

So the question is a simple one. Is this what you want your own children to be taught in school? Yes or no?
Of course not.

"In a private or home school venue, however, parents are at liberty to teach their children any sort of such superstition or like nonsense they wish."

Absolutely, and I believe totally in such choice. I also hope my child would only have to compete with people educated that way.
__________________

Well, the reality is that Christian schools teach BOTH Creationism and evolutionary theory. So they get TWICE the education. The public school student merely hears that he'she is the end result of mindless natual influences without goal or purpose.

In other words, they spend half their time learning about fairy tale nonsense. I guess that makes them half wits.

 

[rightwinger]

this is most likely private school so what gets taught caters to the belief system of that school.

Personally I find it offensive that only evolution is taught in public schools that are funded with my tax dollars. There are more than one school of thought on how life on earth started and all are theories so all should be taught and let the kid decide. Only teaching evolution. promotes intolerance and atheist belief that does not s belong in school.

I have no issues with this if you allow the schools to discuss the scientific validity of all these other theories and supporting evidence

 

[idb]

On the contrary. Cosmologists tell us that all matter in the Universe was created in a huge explosion, an explosion that originated in a singularity the size of a proton. That's one half the size of an atom. They have no "proof" of this, they have calculations that can take us back to within 300,000 years (so they believe) of the Big Bang, but no closer.

So, you tell me....is it faith, or science, that we "believe" that all the matter in the universe originated from a point the size of half of an atom?

It is conjecture based loosely on observed data. The observation that all matter (for the most part) is traveling outward, the relative speed that it is traveling and the measurements that we take show us that it was once in a tight cluster. From there, we have observable data on gravity and how it works, a rough idea of the total matter that we can see and it is clear that the gravitational force is far more than needed for a singularity.

See, the difference here is that we have observable, natural phenomenon that this thesis is based on. There is data at the core of this. It is NOT faith.

Further, cosmetologists say that this is a POSSIBILITY. There is no faith in that because the idea is not something that we state as a truth, it is a POSSIBILITY and the best possibility that we have based on the observations. As soon as we have better possibilities, the old one will be tossed and replaced with the new one. Is faith the same? Of course not.

Are you going to trash your Christian faith because someone comes to you with a better one? Not likely, you have a strong faith in a Christian god. You might lose that faith one day, many have, and then move on to another faith but you do not hold that as a replaceable tenant in your life. Christianity is fact for you, not mere conjecture or theory. It is hard because you have FAITH in it.

I have no faith in science. When a better theory comes along, I trash my old thoughts and replace them with the new ones.

I realize that I am making the assumption that you are Christian here and you might not be. It does not matter, replace Christian with whatever faith you are and if you are not faithful you still get the idea.

Science conjectures explanations based on available evidence and adjusts the conclusions as that evidence is improved or extended.
Faith-based education comes with a fixed conclusion and tries to force the evidence to fit that conclusion.

Science adjusts its conclusions to fit the evidence while faith adjusts the evidence to fit the conclusion.

 

[idb]

Science finds god nowhere,

Maybe. Science must at least admit the possibility of God until it can explain where original matter came from. There has to be a point where something suddenly appeared out of nothing and science cannot yet account for that. Until it can, God remains the most logical conclusion.

'Science' will admit the possibility of anything, including that the universe was created by magical pink pixies.
'Science' will then accumulate evidence to narrow down the likely possibilities for the creation of the universe.
It may be that, as the process continues, the evidence shows that the universe was more likely to have been created by something that was purple.
Then, as more evidence is collected the possibility that fairies created the universe becomes just as strong as the pixie theory...and so on...and so on...

At the end of it all though, 'science' will not state anything with 100% certainty - only that the evidence points this way.

 

[FA_Q2]

Since we are entirely ignorant on the subject, is not God still a possibility? If not, why not? Is there some reason to believe God is NOT the actual truth of the matter? Is His reality automatically precluded from the list of possibilities? If so, why?

He is a possibility but one that is just as likely as the flying spaghetti monster.

Simply put, the correct path for science in this matter is ‘I don’t know.’ That does not mean that God is ‘the most logical answer’ because that is outright false. There is no answer because we simply do not know enough.

God might have created the universe but that does not matter. Science has nothing to go on in this case to say anything.

There, see? That wasn't so difficult, was it? Science has not yet eliminated God from being possible. We're perhaps not so far apart after all, so long as we believers don't discount the possibility that we too may be wrong.

Not that difficult?? You seem to be assigning thing to my statements that YOU think I have stood behind. I have NEVER stated otherwise. Never have I stated that God was an impossibility. It is not a matter of ‘not so hard.’ Don’t confuse me with the hard liners that treat atheism as a faith and misunderstand the relationship that science holds with the supernatural.

But, when you amplify that admission by comments such as "is just as likely as the flying spaghetti monster," and "that is outright false," or "God...does not matter," you're revealing your FAITH that God does not exist, in the absence of hard evidence to the contrary.

No, I am not. I am speaking scientifically. According to science, they are equally likely. If you think that is incorrect, I assume that you have actual, repeatable and concrete evidence of such? Of course not. I have outlined why this is true. If you feel that there is a hole in my statements then address that rather than bringing the fact that YOU believe god exists then science needs to admit that he/she/it is more likely to have created the universe than the flying spaghetti monster.

Given your spirited defense of science and scientific thought, would it not be correct to make the assumption then that you have FAITH in science? (which is where this discussion began)

No, it would not. I have explained EXACTLY why this is. In short, science requires evidence, repeatable experimentation and does not deal in absolutes. There is no ‘fact’ in science as things that have been ‘proven’ can always be disproven with new evidence requiring a change or refinement in the original theory. There is a fundamental difference in scientific study, thought and religious faith.

You keep trying to demand that there is faith there because you are marrying your religious belief in God and your scientific understanding of the universe. While coming close, I believe you have made a fundamental error in assigning personal belief and person proofs that your faith is real to scientific proof. They are different. Your faith is very real to you as the evidence that supports it is very real to you. Those are NOT actual instances of proof or evidence though in a scientific explanation. They are personal, non-repeatable and mean something different to each person. It is no less ‘real’ but it is fundamentally different than science because, as I said earlier, religion and religious faith deals with the supernatural and science is the study of the natural.

This is a basic fact of the words in question here.

 

[laughinReaper]

this is most likely private school so what gets taught caters to the belief system of that school.

Personally I find it offensive that only evolution is taught in public schools that are funded with my tax dollars. There are more than one school of thought on how life on earth started and all are theories so all should be taught and let the kid decide. Only teaching evolution. promotes intolerance and atheist belief that does not s belong in school.

All of them? You want your kids taught that Lord Krishna sleeps on a giant snake and the repeating cycle of the universe begins again when Lord Braham is born from the egg of life called Anda, which comes out of Krishna's navel?

Or, as Buddha taught, that the universe goes through an endless cycle of birth, destruction, rebirth? At a time of destruction, the existing creatures go to dwell in the Realm of Radiance to await the rebirth of the universe when they come back as human beings? (How's that for evolution!)

Or, that the earth is carried on the Great Turtle's back, as told by the Iroquois indians, or that it was birthed from a giant black egg, as some Chinese believe? Or, that the sun, moon and stars were vomited out by a giant diety, as the Bakuba Kingdom of the Congo thought?

I could go on and on, but you get the point. If we are to teach religious ideas about the origin of the universe, we must teach them all or be guilty of favoring one religion over another (see: 1st Amendment).

How about we just stick to known science and let the parents and churches teach whatever else they want their kids to learn and allow THEM to decide for themselves. Unless, of course, you want your kids being taught nothing else BUT religious dogma because by the time the schools get through teaching every conceivable religious explanation....why, the kids'll be out of high school!

No not all and not with the dogma attached. It needs to be simplified.

The three possibilities:

Creationism : a higher intelligence made us.
Evolution: we are the result of a series of mutations/adaptations
Ancient Alien Theory: life from another source came here and colonized Earth.

Those three in their base forms cover all. It could be easily taught,would back up everybody's personal beliefs,all three can be related to each other,and considering we really don't know it would leave all options open and be balanced and fair.

 

[laughinReaper]

this is most likely private school so what gets taught caters to the belief system of that school.

Personally I find it offensive that only evolution is taught in public schools that are funded with my tax dollars. There are more than one school of thought on how life on earth started and all are theories so all should be taught and let the kid decide. Only teaching evolution. promotes intolerance and atheist belief that does not s belong in school.

We should not teach children in public school a scientific theory based on a religious text, particular since that theory has been rejected by most scientist. Such a theory can certain be taught in private or parochial schools, but not in a public schools because it's a theory based on theology not science. If you want your children taught this belief, then you should look to a parochial school or your church.

BTW Evolution does not address the origins of life, only how that life evolved.

It wouldn't be taught with any religious text. Three basic theories,creationism,evolution and ancient alien theory. The dogma can be filled in at home to the families liking. Instead of arguing we should be accommodating each other but putting forward all theories and letting the individual decide which they believe to be true. All three are scientifically within the realm of possibility.