How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one! (Page 6)

This nails my issue 100%.

Just because someone still has a biblical view of Creation does not mean that evolution should not be taught.

Natural selection and evolution exist in microbiology labs across the world.

Imagine fields such as oncology or immunology without it.

Why does it have to be an either or discussion?

We cannot explain the existence of both based on current knowledge, so the idea of censoring, stunting, or not pursuing answers on either end does not fly with me.

I went to MIT, and I knew quite a few people who had no problem being religious and having profoundly intelligent scientific minds. 

Maybe because I went to school before Fox news, but why is it so offensive to say.

Here is the theory of evolution.

Here is what evolutionists believe and why.

Here is the current evidence that supports them.

Here is the evidence against as well as what it cannot explain.

Here are the current real-world applications in the science and medical community.

We can have scientists teach science.

Religions can determine who teaches their religion.

Parents can impart their values to their children without someone trying to prevent it or doing it for them.

(Which does not mean that ever school or Sunday school teacher agrees with everything parents say or believe).

Occasionally, the two worlds can get together and have some intelligent, non-24-hour-newslike discourse and debate that is respectful and not dumbed down.

Don't know what I want to say exactly, but I keep randomly thinking of Thomas who asked to see physical evidence of the crucifixion and resurrection.

You can certainly generate testable hypotheses for the Big Bang. Cosmologists predicted mathematically that there should be a certain level of background radiation left over from the big bang. In 1963 two astronomers were able to detect this microwave radiation using radiotelescopes. You might not be able to see the big bang, but you can build a model for it that will lead to a testable hypothesis.

Sometimes you have to wait for the equipment to be developed, sometimes you have to wait for the right conditions. There's a story about testing part of Einstein's theory of relativity where he showed mathematically that a large enough object should exert enough gravitational force to bend light. There was an eclipse and two teams were dispatched to sites on the earth where there would be a total eclipse. One team got rained out, the other proved Einstein was correct (and that Newton was wrong). Random geek trivia for y'all

Why not just state what you want to state instead of "fixing" someone's statement?  I thought this type of response was frowned up?  I now I've gotten lambasted for it.

I read all those questions and the 4th grader did better than I would have. 

I think God put in a long day 5 and knocked out the dinosaurs that night.  He just knew no one would be at the office till the next morning so distributed them then.  Of course, if he wanted to show off how long he was working, he could have done an email blast with the time showing he was working after hours.

Actually, what's interesting is that it does nothing to really talk to creation.  It only suggests that you can measure when the radiation started and the universe started spreading, not what caused it or what created matter.  

That's because the Big Bang is the creation of the universe, not the creation of life.   The Earth Universe (edit) existed for about 9-10 billion years without life.  

Big Bang <>  Creation of life  <> Evolution.

Try looking up the Miller-Urey experiment for an example of how the creation of life has been tested.

I read about this in "A Short History of Nearly Everything".  But again, it's still a "theory" because I wasn't there...

Actually, what's interesting is that it does nothing to really talk to creation.  It only suggests that you can measure when the radiation started and the universe started spreading, not what caused it or what created matter.  How do we know that some other planet at some point didn't build a giant supercolliding superconductor and cause the big bang that led to where we are?  And we're just about to have the same thing happen?  Then we'll all be there...

Knocked out means literally? or you mean he made them.. then changed his mind.. and who was God working for? and the company name? 

And how do you know that the Creator didn't create all the laws of physics and everything that existed prior to the Big Bang, and that was sufficient? I mean, I'm good with that.

And you know, if the universe stops expanding at some point it will contract again and we will undergo the "Big Crunch, " and everything ends in a singularity, maybe another Big Bang. Or, worse yet, now the possible discovery of the Higgs Boson suggests that the universe may be unstable, and could undergo a phase change, destroying the universe. Now let's see what the preppers are gonna do about that!

Miller-Urey from what I can find didn't prove that life could be created from inorganic compounds.  Only that Synthetic Amino Acids could be produced from inorganic chemical compounds.  Synthetic ain't real last I checked...

If he proved that you can make life from chemicals, he'd be a lot more famous.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "synthetic"?    Synthetic (in this context) means "created from simpler compounds".   The chemistry is precisely the same.    We're not talking about NutraSweet vs. sugar here.  

And Miller & Urey (two separate people, incidentally) are friggin' rock stars in the world of chemistry.  You should have seen the posters I had on my wall as a kid.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "synthetic"?    Synthetic (in this context) means "created from simpler compounds".   The chemistry is precisely the same.    We're not talking about NutraSweet vs. sugar here.  

And Miller & Urey (two separate people, incidentally) are friggin' rock stars in the world of chemistry.  You should have seen the posters I had on my wall as a kid.

Not just amino acids, but sugars and nucleic acids too. Basically the building blocks for life. Other work has shown that those amino acids can for proteins that spontaneously fold, and that RNA is likely the first molecule to form that had catalytic activity. Have a fatty acid layer encapsulate them and you have a proto-cell.

There's a big step missing between the building blocks and life.

You can certainly generate testable hypotheses for the Big Bang. Cosmologists predicted mathematically that there should be a certain level of background radiation left over from the big bang. In 1963 two astronomers were able to detect this microwave radiation using radiotelescopes. You might not be able to see the big bang, but you can build a model for it that will lead to a testable hypothesis.

Sometimes you have to wait for the equipment to be developed, sometimes you have to wait for the right conditions. There's a story about testing part of Einstein's theory of relativity where he showed mathematically that a large enough object should exert enough gravitational force to bend light. There was an eclipse and two teams were dispatched to sites on the earth where there would be a total eclipse. One team got rained out, the other proved Einstein was correct (and that Newton was wrong). Random geek trivia for y'all

many christians DO believe in a literal bible.  baptists and evangelicals, for an example.  or some things are parables and some are not. 

but -- i'm really surprised that this is the view taken at a catholic school.  i've come to this conclusion on my own over many years, but growing up catholic that was not really their thought whatsoever...

Catholics have never been required to adhere to a literal interpretation of the bible. What turtlegirl teaches is the same thing I was taught throughout 12 years of Catholic School.

Catholics have never been required to adhere to a literal interpretation of the bible. What turtlegirl teaches is the same thing I was taught throughout 12 years of Catholic School.

OK, major sidetrack here (and maybe it should be spun off to a new thread) but when then why did it take so long for the Catholic church to accept birth control?  Honest question... (I'm not Catholic)