By ignorance I mean literally ignoring reality and substituting myth and superstition. The solution is simple. If the students insist on replacing reality with dogma on science tests let them be graded accordingly.

Seems a fruitless battle for the minds and hearts of our children.

Simply teach them to think for themselves and love them the best you can. They will return what you give them, good or bad.

A god of love wouldn't force himself down someones throat.

Science seems to be vying for the throne of God. But God created science, so it's a dead end.

Unlike Science, God can rescue a heart.

Science seems to be vying for the throne of God.

Oh really! How so?

By suggesting that 'scientific fact' is King.

Who is suggesting that scientific fact is "King". And what is "King" referring to?

The science of evolution is in contradiction with the Word of God.

'King' as in most knowing.

So would I be wrong to guess that you want to have religion taught in science class?

Religion as a course of study but not as an indoctrination?

So you're saying religion is a form of biology? That it is scientific? How about astronomy or chemistry or physics? Should they also contain a religious component? And what might that be? And what is being indoctrinatied? I don't understand how the topic of indoctrination is used in science? I'd love to find out more.

Science is used by some to refute the creation story of the Bible.
It is indoctrination in the sense below:

2. To instruct in, or imbue with, doctrines, principles or
ideologies, especially from a specific point of view which
may be partisan or biased; to strongly press one's own
point of view upon.

Science is used by some to refute the creation story of the Bible.

So if the creation story is not based on evidence why should it be taught in a science course?

which may be partisan or biased; to strongly press one's own point of view upon.

You're aware, I hope, that science is based on evidence and deniability. How is that partisan or biased?

So if the creation story is not based on evidence why should it be taught in a science course?

Taught as its own course, not within the science department.

You're aware, I hope, that science is based on evidence and deniability. How is that partisan or biased?

Because science is only relative to the truths we are aware of.

Taught as its own course, not within the science department.

Something like a comparative religion course I assume. That would be cool.

Because science is only relative to the truths we are aware of.

If what you're saying is that science is built on what we've discovered previously I'm with you. I wonder what you mean by "truths". I know that you're aware that the basics of science is it's ability to be refuted. I've heard too many people throw around terms like "truth" which have more to do with metaphysical dogma than science. Just wondering...

For me, it's from my religion. This tells me what truth is.

Science may have the ability to be refuted, but until a particular aspect of it IS refuted, that particular law is considered to be written in stone, generally.

Whether or not I know what truth is, Science is still only based on what we know. And Science claims to be truth, for the most part.

that particular law is considered to be written in stone, generally.

Actually, that's false. There are some aspects of nature that have been so thoroughly tested and are verifiable and deniable but no one has been able to come up with a refutation that we pretty much take them as fact. Written in stone? That's the realm of dogma, as in religion.

Now, of course, you understand that to refute a scientific claim the evidence against it must also be able to be refuted, independently tested and be deniable. That just the way science work. No dogma - nothing written in stone.

But it does become written in hearts and taken in as truth. There lies the hitch.

But it does become written in hearts and taken in as truth. There lies the hitch.

Only by people who have a limited grasp on what science actually is.

And Science claims to be truth, for the most part.

By whom? This sounds like an argument used by creationists so they are able to agrue their "Biblical Truth" with this strawman scientific truth. As I mentioned before, this is contrary to the scientific method. Your premise is false. And there is no Science. There is science which is a methodology, not a dogma.

Kat, what does one have to do with the other? I don't get how you can link the War in Iraq to science in that way, especially when it is the religious wacko in the WH who said God told him to invade Iraq?

Science is being sold now as a hope for the the crumbling world

As opposed to what? Prayer? As far as finding solutions to questions concerning alternative energy, health, feeding the masses, clean water, etc. I think I'll stick with science. It has a positive record of accomplishment.

It is helping mankind to feel free to squander his planet(we will just
jump to another) and put less value on the individual human

This simply doens't make any sense. In fact, it is exactly opposite of reality. And your subsequent comment on Iraq is curious to say the least.

the religious wacko in the WH who said God told him to invade Iraq?

To believe means to obey. Something the wacko does not do.
Their is no provision for war or killing in the New Covenant.

As opposed to what? Prayer? As far as finding solutions to questions
concerning alternative energy, health, feeding the masses, clean water,
etc. I think I'll stick with science. It has a positive record of
accomplishment

This is where I disagree with you about your belief that life has value without a god. You think that with Science, you can change the nature of man or at least control it enough to create a utopia for the 'good' people.

This simply doens't make any sense. In fact, it is exactly opposite of
reality. And your subsequent comment on Iraq is curious to say the
least.

I am not sure what you are getting at.

A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Is it 'Faith' or an abomination of faith?

This is where I disagree with you about your belief that life has value
without a god. You think that with Science, you can change the nature
of man or at least control it enough to create a utopia for the 'good'
people.

And you come up with that how? Making stuff up and knowing what my thoughts are is not exactly conducive to discussion. Change the nature of man? Control him? Utopia? Good people?

Is it 'Faith' or an abomination of faith?

I suppose that depends on what particular sect or religion you choose. One man's fruit is another's poison.

Now, try to play nice. Staying on topic is appreciated.

Sorry for being offensive.