Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > talk.origins > #755367

Re: Teaching science and religion

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 18:36:46 -0500, RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com>
wrote:

>https://phys.org/news/2026-07-science-religion-stem-engagement.html#google_vignette
>
>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13617672.2026.2679953#summary-abstract
>
>
>In the UK they have compulsory religious education, 

It is compulsory in that it is one of a number of subjects that every
school has to offer. It is not compulsory for children to take it as a
subject; parents have a *legal right* to opt their children out of
Religious Education or any form of religious worship without giving
any reason.

>and this news 
>article is reporting a study done where they incorporated science into 
>their Religious Education program.  

No they didn't; please go back and read again the papers you cited.

>They mislead the students about 
>science being compatible with their religious beliefs.  Like the ID 
>perps they lie to the students about how their religious beliefs can be 
>compatible with science, and they somehow integrate a biology example 
>into the program.  They claim that the students gain a better outlook on 
>science.  It seems stupid to prevaricate about how science can't deal 
>with their religious beliefs when that has never been the issue.  
 
So much bullshit in there that it is hard to know where to start.

First of all, you demonstrate yet again your lack of comprehension
skills where you clearly don't understand what "compatible" actually
means.

Secondly, the schools involved in this were *state schools* where
Religious Education does not promote any specific religious beliefs.
Unlike religious run schools which do teach RE in line with their
religious beliefs, state schools have their syllabus set by their
local council/education authority. A typical example is this one for
Derbyshire County Council:

https://www.westhouses.derbyshire.sch.uk/_site/data/files/migrated/religious-education/2025-30-derbyshire-agreed-syllabus-for-re.pdf

It says:

<quote>

We want pupils to develop rich knowledge of 
religions and worldviews and use this to 
increase their levels of religious literacy and 
conceptual understanding.  

We want them to be able to articulate, with 
confidence, their own positions and ideas 
about religion, beliefs and spirituality - and 
then to change their minds, if they choose to 
do so.  

</quote>

>The 
>issue is how religiously motivated creationists have to deny the science 
>because nature is not Biblical.  
>It isn't the fact that science cannot 
>make any determination as to whether there is some god or gods, but what 
>science can tell us about nature.  Accommodations have always been made 
>as science knowledge has gained acceptance.  Religion has always had to 
>back down and change their views.  MarkE and Sticks and even Harran are 
>examples of Biblical creationists that can't accept the fact that their 
>religious text has been known to be wrong about some things that we can 
>figure out for ourselves since before Christ was born.  


Yet again, you try to bolster your bullshit arguments by making up
bullshit lies about other people.


>The Hebrew were 
>giving up on their flat earth cosmology before Christ was born. 
>Eratosthenes had used physical measurements to estimate the 
>circumference of the earth a couple of centuries before the birth of 
>Christ.  I recently put up an article written by an Orthodox Jew where 
>he noted that the Biblical firmament was believed by historical Rabbis 
>to be a solid dome above the earth until the failure of geocentrism 
>after Copernicus.  The descendants of the authors of the Bible had to 
>give up on their geocentric cosmology and the firmament over 1500 years 
>after Christ was born.  There are still geocentric flat earth 
>creationists both Christian and Jewish that exist today in spite of what 
>science has determined to be the case.
>
>Creationists like MarkE, Sticks, and Harran that still want to believe 
>that the Bible accurately describes nature have to lie to themselves in 
>order to believe that science is compatible with their religious 
>beliefs.  

More Ron bullshit.

>If science is ever able to fill the origin of life gap with 
>some god, it will just be more science for MarkE to deny.  He is 
>currently in denial of all the scientific evidence for biological 
>evolution (Behe is a theistic evolutionists and believes that his 
>designer is responsible for a lot of the evolution that has created the 
>diversity of life on earth) and MarkE will be in denial of any science 
>filling the Top Six gaps that the ID perps have claimed as the best 
>evidence for the existence of their god.  The god responsible for the 
>Top Six gaps is not the god described in the Bible.  The young earth 
>creationists at Answers in Genesis understand that to be true, and want 
>the ID perps to more clearly lie to everyone about the issue.  They do 
>not want the Big Bang, fine tuning and origin of life on earth to be 
>taught in an honest fashion that would demonstrate how each is dependent 
>on the others.  If the students are not told that very clearly, the 
>educators have just lied to them about reality.
>
>What the Religious Education course should do is be direct in telling 
>the students that the Bible has never been a good source for telling us 
>about nature.  Science is just the study of nature and nature is not 
>Biblical.  The students need to be confronted by that reality, and deal 
>with it.  

That is exactly what does happen this side of the Atlantic -- once
again, you make the mistake of conflating what goes on in the USA with
the rest of the world. The contentious intertwining of religion,
science and politics that goes on in the USA is non-existent in the
UK. That suggests that the UK approach is  a more effective one.
Instead of attacking it, you should be trying to encourage it in the
USA.


>Some will never accept the fact that the Bible is not a 
>science textbook, and will end up like MarkE and Sticks.  Guys like 
>Harran will always have to lie to themselves about "misinterpretation" 
>when the authors of the Bible just wrote about what they believed about 
>nature, and they were just wrong.  

Even more Ron bullshit.

>The Top Six should tell anyone that 
>if we rewrote the Bible today that we could still be wrong about some 
>aspects of nature.  Saint Augustine thought that the 6 day creation was 
>wrong, but his alternative would have also been found to be incorrect if 
>he had written the first chapter of Genesis.  These are things that the 
>UK's Religious Education program should make sure that the students 
>fully understand about their Biblical religious beliefs.

You are calling for them to do what they already do. You really should
focus on sorting your own mess out.

Back to talk.origins | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Teaching science and religion RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> - 2026-07-27 18:36 -0500
  Re: Teaching science and religion Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 10:05 +0100
    Re: Teaching science and religion RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 09:35 -0500
      Re: Teaching science and religion Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-11 08:43 -0600
      Re: Teaching science and religion Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 13:48 +0100
        Re: Teaching science and religion RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 09:17 -0500
          Re: Teaching science and religion Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 08:09 +0100
            Re: Teaching science and religion RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> - 2026-08-13 11:05 -0500
    Re: Teaching science and religion sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2026-08-11 13:30 -0500
      Re: Teaching science and religion RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> - 2026-08-11 19:02 -0500
      Re: Teaching science and religion Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-08-12 13:59 +0100
        Re: Teaching science and religion sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> - 2026-08-12 10:13 -0500
          Re: Teaching science and religion Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> - 2026-08-14 11:23 +0100
            Re: Teaching science and religion Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-14 12:09 -0600
        Re: Teaching science and religion x3 <x@x.net> - 2026-08-12 11:55 -0700
          Re: Teaching science and religion Lane W <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-08-12 13:47 -0600

csiph-web