If I decide that I won't repair motors and won't teach theory any longer because I don't believe in it, I daresay I won't retain my position for more than a few days.
Of course not, but we don't teach theories that don't have strong scientific backing.
Why
not teach both theories and think of them in the context of what they are; theories, with potentially more theories to evolve in the future..
Not exact matches
This course
teaches leadership
not just by reading
theory, but actually putting the
theory into practice.
In the real world, this is simply
not true» Guy Spier «A whole body of academic work formed the foundation upon which generations of students at the country's major business schools were
taught about Modern Portfolio
Theory, Efficient Market
Theory and Beta.
We should also
not be
teaching naturalistic ideas along side provable and observable
theories just because they are derive from a naturalistic viewpoint.
Lawrence, You started by asking a foolish question about why
not teach religious origins
theories in science class?
but
not taught as fact and right after science class where they learn Darwin's
theory of evolution, watch videos on the big bang
theory, have a field trip where they meet up with an archeologist to uncover one of our ancestors remains that weren't as evolved, learn how old the earth truely is etc.....
southerneyes44, you wrote «Germany doesn't
teach about him» in regards to Hitler That's a ludicrous assertion as is «
Theories in science change with the newspaper.»
-LRB-... Still
not sure how the Big Bang «
THEORY» even became a theory, other than somebody desperately trying to find an alternative to creation, but it should NEVER be taught as a fact, but rather as a TH
THEORY» even became a
theory, other than somebody desperately trying to find an alternative to creation, but it should NEVER be taught as a fact, but rather as a TH
theory, other than somebody desperately trying to find an alternative to creation, but it should NEVER be
taught as a fact, but rather as a
THEORYTHEORY).
The lives of the saints do
not present us with a new
theory of virtue, but a new way of
teaching, a new strategy that builds on the tradition of examples, but enriches it by unfolding a pattern of holiness over the course of a lifetime.
And for the record
teaching evolution is
teaching a
theory and does
not necessarily contradict the concept of creationism.
The
theory is
not uncontroversial even among Muslims, many of whom believe that
teaching anything other than the «substitution» model is tantamount to heresy.
hey G, I am acquainted with your
theory there... it is called Preterism... it is the standard interpretation of Revelation given by liberals... I walked away from that belief and the church I was raised in when I found out what they are
teaching... Nope, the book of revelation is
not a «code» for the events of the day at the time of the fall of Jerusalem.
The biblical
teaching, after all, was
not aimed at one or another of the various
theories developed in the history of modern science but at the cosmological understandings of origins found among surrounding peoples.
By saying there is no room for «personal salvation» in your understanding of Jesus»
teaching and then claiming that personal salvation gets us to the topic of atonement
theory — what was it that you were wanting to say if
not making a link between atonement
theory and salvation?
Rollie, I too have issues with atonement
theory but I don't see the link you are making with Jesus»
teaching on salvation with that.
I was in my early twenties when I first encountered a fossil record that didn't match what I'd been
taught in Sunday school about the «myth» of evolutionary
theory.
For one thing Evolution is
not proven... It is still considered a
theory... It should be removed because it is
not science but only a
theory... Evolution is the stupidest thing
taught today and should be removed...
Whether that means
not participating in an organized religion but still studying its
teachings, proposing a new mathematical
theory to explain the origin of the universe that can't easily be tested experimentally, taking the notion of a personal God and trying to have an actual personal, and
not a corporate, herd - instinct, everyone - else - is - doing - it, relationship?
Ironically, while Biblicists claim to take the Bible with utmost seriousness for what it obviously
teaches, their
theory about the Bible drives them to try to make it something it evidently is
not... Regardless of the actual Bible that God has given his church, biblicists want a Bible that is different.
We should further learn from the same Constitution that the Church really does
not teach a two - tier
theory of her members, according to which some would trot along the common road, hoping nevertheless to arrive at God, while the others, priests and religious, constituting as it were the aristocracy, walk in more exalted paths.
The Christian must normally adopt an analogous attitude in
theory and practice in regard to
teachings and moral precepts of the Church which are put forward authoritatively by the Church, even if
not as irrevocable dogma.
Yeah but they want to
teach the controversy... you know, how the earth might be only 10,000 years old (no it isn't) and that humans and dinosaurs roamed the earth together (no they didn't) and that evolution has no evidence (yes it does) or that there was a global flood (no there wasn't) or that the earth might be flat or the center of the universe or a million other wrong headed
theories that fly in the face of the evidence.
Evolution is still just a
theory, yet
taught everyday as being proven when it has
not.
Ahh nerve 9, but they do
nt just say they are
theories, they are
taught in our schools as facts.
One is that most
teaching and learning
theories are based on the research and
theory of modern psychology, which has
not been focused primarily on complex forms of communication and reception.
It has been close to two hundred years that we have been
teaching the
theory of evolution in our universities, yet still almost 50 % of America don't believe in it or believe God is involved.
There were many ways to live,
not simply one, the spiritual
theory taught, all of them good, some of them better than others from one moment to the next.
Now, as to the matter of
teaching creationism in schools, I don't think it's a particularly good idea however, I also think that Darwinism needs to be
taught as a
theory and that children need to be
taught about the strengths and weaknesses of the
theory.
Evolution was
not correctly
taught if you believe that it is a belief or a mere
theory in the colloquial sense, that it unnecessarily complicates the world, and that understanding how organisms change over time is
not crucial for environmental policy, agriculture and biomedical research.
I think it's fine to show problems with evolutionary
theory, HOWEVER, we can
not teach creationism.
Religion
teaches people to be content with
not exploring
theory.
let's
teach them a flawed
theory and
not a science backed up biblical approach.
You can try and
teach me the
theory of creationism... oh wait it does
not quality as a
theory.
How long did it take humans to believe the world wasnt flat, the center of the universe orbited by the sun even when hard facts (
not trillionth of partial scientific
theorys but easily observable truths) becuase the
teaching of religion contradicted them?
And now they are being
taught Queer
theory; that gender either doesn't exist, or has nothing to do with biology, or is «fluid».
Please remember, that the Catholic Church has come out saying that Darwin's
theories do
not go against the
teachings of the Bible.
I am
not as high profile as you but if I were, it would be like me telling you
not to
teach your kids about evolution or the big bang
theory.
When we view the domination of the university by academic disciplines based on modern metaphysics, and the domination of the world by policies that derive from the
theories taught there, it is hard
not to become deeply discouraged.
I don't believe that children should have their educations compromised by being
taught a
theory that distorts facts to artificially create room for god.
And the RCC
teaches that evolution is
not a valid
theory for humans.
But this is
not entirely satisfying, for the
theory of development is itself predicated on the fact that the creeds of the Christian religion, however much they seek to declare the
teaching of Scripture faithfully, employ language and even concepts absent from Scripture.
Although a moderate
theory of evolution is
not objected to by the
teaching Church at the present time, it does
not follow that the theological question is thereby settled and that the whole matter henceforward is a purely scientific one.
From another quite different point of view, too, the reconciliation which was accomplished by Humani Generis between a moderate
theory of evolution and the
teaching of faith, can only be regarded as a beginning and
not as an end.
For it must be noted that the Church's magisterium as such can
not and does
not seek to attribute to itself any real competence to decide on the degree of intrinsic scientific probability of a
theory in cases where it does
not at least provisionally declare the
theory to be contrary to the
teaching of Revelation.
Thus, a
teaching regarding the primacy of Christ must
not limit itself to a hypothetical stance that, despite its importance, runs the risk of reducing Christ to a final cause or to a unifying
theory.
The
theory of evolution does
not conflict with the
teachings of the Bible as long as the
teachings are correctly interpreted.
Its an unprovable concept, and therefore it should
not be
taught in science classes, which aim to study those things that have been proven by scientific
theory.
You want to
teach a single religion's creation story as scientific
theory, and you think that's
not going down that road?