You expect me to be able to speak for all scientists?

 

I guess that was the intent of my original question. Is it possible that a board has a legit concern about one's inability to separate science and religion and therefore not be effective at their job? I realize that you said scientists SHOULD separate them but maybe a board comes across someone who has the credentials but cannot separate the two.

I ask this because I am ignorant in the matter but how do Catholic or any Christian based schools hire Science teachers? Do they have to believe in creationism or are they free to teach evolution?

I ask this because I am ignorant in the matter but how do Catholic or any Christian based schools hire Science teachers? Do they have to believe in creationism or are they free to teach evolution?

 

Darn good question.

Darn good question.

 

I ask this because I am ignorant in the matter but how do Catholic or any Christian based schools hire Science teachers? Do they have to believe in creationism or are they free to teach evolution?

 

I concur with Clyde. Darn good question.

I ask this because I am ignorant in the matter but how do Catholic or any Christian based schools hire Science teachers? Do they have to believe in creationism or are they free to teach evolution?

 

Darn good question.

 

I concur with Clyde. Darn good question.

 

I think it comes down to the dogma of the particular denomination. I can only speak of Catholic schools, and creationism isn't the dogma. Therefore, it's actually not an issue. Since we believe that much of the Bible, the Old Testament in particular is allegorical, per se, it's not contradictory. The scientific evidence is not refuted by our religious beliefs.

I ask this because I am ignorant in the matter but how do Catholic or any Christian based schools hire Science teachers? Do they have to believe in creationism or are they free to teach evolution?

 

We were taught evolution and natural selection pretty thoroughly. In fact, it's hard for me to imagine a situation in which a science teacher at any of the Catholic schools I attended wouldn't teach it.

I guess that was the intent of my original question. Is it possible that a board has a legit concern about one's inability to separate science and religion and therefore not be effective at their job? I realize that you said scientists SHOULD separate them but maybe a board comes across someone who has the credentials but cannot separate the two.

 

Don't know that they took much of an effort to find out. I wonder if there was a bias that led them not to dig deeper.

Religion and science. Ah that's really why I never paid attention to science classes in high school. I want to believe in creationism but evolution seems really scientifically proven.

 

As for the guy getting passed over I don't have a problem with it. If they feel that his religious views would make him a poor candidate for the job, so be it. Plenty of places would try to not hire an athiest IMO. People love to discriminate over religion, it's sad but I've just learned to accept it and move on. This man is better off I feel, because he doesn't have to work in an environment that would become uncomfortable. I sadly feel that everyone's individual rights are slowly being taken away, and it's not a liberal or conservative thing both sides are quickly destroying America. JMO

Religion and science. Ah that's really why I never paid attention to science classes in high school. I want to believe in creationism but evolution seems really scientifically proven.

 

 

Far from it. It remains a theory for good reasons.

 

The biggest problem with the current theory framework is the lack of transitional states. There are vertical trees but they show distinct stages. The fossil records lack the evidence of slow mutation over time. That is why the search goes on and on for 'the missing link'. Not only in humans but other species.

 

That is not say that proves or favors creationism or intelligent design. But the current, generally accepted theory of evolution has holes - big ones.

Far from it. It remains a theory for good reasons.

 

The biggest problem with the current theory framework is the lack of transitional states. There are vertical trees but they show distinct stages. The fossil records lack the evidence of slow mutation over time. That is why the search goes on and on for 'the missing link'. Not only in humans but other species.

 

That is not say that proves or favors creationism or intelligent design. But the current, generally accepted theory of evolution has holes - big ones.

 

As to the bolded, you aren't confusing the colloquial and scientific definitions of "theory," are you?

 

Edit: After re-reading your response and the one that you responded to, I don't believe that you are. However, it's a good time to point out that the word "theory" in science is not merely a guess. Scientific theories have much evidence to back them up, though not all mechanisms may be known.

Edited December 18, 201015 yr by True blue (and gold)

I think it comes down to the dogma of the particular denomination. I can only speak of Catholic schools, and creationism isn't the dogma. Therefore, it's actually not an issue. Since we believe that much of the Bible, the Old Testament in particular is allegorical, per se, it's not contradictory. The scientific evidence is not refuted by our religious beliefs.

 

Nice to know that these can co-exist.:thumb:

As to the bolded, you aren't confusing the colloquial and scientific definitions of "theory," are you?

 

Edit: After re-reading your response and the one that you responded to, I don't believe that you are. However, it's a good time to point out that the word "theory" in science is not merely a guess. Scientific theories have much evidence to back them up, though not all mechanisms may be known.

 

Are the theories proven facts?

Are the theories proven facts?

 

They incorporate scientific evidence into them. Again, a scientific theory is not some random, unsupported idea.

They incorporate scientific evidence into them. Again, a scientific theory is not some random, unsupported idea.

 

They incorporate evidence but are not proven facts, correct?

They incorporate evidence but are not proven facts, correct?

 

You'll have to forgive me, LBBC, but your very question leads me to feel that you are trying to downplay the significance of something being a scientific theory because it is not, in and or itself, a fact. Scientific theories are supported by factual evidence. Parts of a theory can be readjusted based on new evidence (new facts, if you will).

 

Here's an analogy for those that might still be misunderstanding the term 'scientific theory.'

 

Let's say that scientists find a partial skeleton of a dinosaur (which will be our "theory" in the analogy), the first ever discovered of its kind. They can "see" how most pieces fit together, but some of the missing pieces require them to extrapolate or use other logical means to fill in the missing pieces.

 

They put together a replica of the skeleton, based on the pieces that they have and those that they have to use extrapolation/logic to fill in. They call this creature "hexasaurus." Years down the road, another partial skeleton of hexasaurus is found, still missing some pieces, but some of the ones missing from the first skeleton are present in the new one.

 

After examining the new pieces, scientists conclude that their extrapolated pieces do not 100% match with the newly discovered bones. Additionally, the new bones will require some of the still missing bones to be redesigned. Scientists make the needed adjustments and wait until the next hexasaurus discovery so that they can "tweek" their interpretation of the evidence of what hexasaurus was like.

 

Even though adjustments had to be made, based on new evidence, hexasaurus still existed. Was their original interpretation of him 100% "factual"? No, but that doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't show that he existed. All it shows is that the finer steps of how he "worked" will need to be tweeked over time, until all of the pieces are found and put together.