Quote:


Apart from children educated in the Catholic system - many kids from religious schools have trouble fitting into mainstream life.  If the government has no right to pass judgement on religion - then they should not subsidise these schools.  

They should intervene where necessary.  There was a case recently in the US where this occurred and you would hope the same practise would be followed here.

Quote:


As far as creationism goes - it is thriving in Australia.  

Quote:


http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/cgcreationisminaust.htm

Not so, scientific theory is NOT generally considered as wrong. Scientific theory begins as hypothesis. Then it goes through a virgorous discreditation process where they try and prove that the hypothesis is wrong.

Yes, they are generally considered wrong. Because they are inevitably shown to be wrong. The process you described does not change this. Anyone who considers a scientific theory or law to be a fact is fooling themselves.

If the government has no right to pass judgement on religion - then they should not subsidise these schools. 

Discriminating on the basis of religion is passing judgement on it. All schools should get equal consideration, regardless of religious affiliation.

Children's rights should be put before those of the religiously inclined to indoctrinate them into the faith of their parents at school.

Chidlren have freedom of religion too. That means freedom to be indoctrinated. That means freedom to attend a religious school. You do not get to decide how to raise other people's children.

Parents decide what their children wear, what music they listen to, what books they read, What sport they play, what they eat, what TV shows they watch, what languages they speak, what instruments they learn to play, what church they go to, what school they go to, etc. This is the role of parents. It is not the role of government. The only thing they cannot control is what their children actually believe. If a child makes a choice they are free to make, the government has no right to question the influence of a parent in that choice. This is especially true for fundamental human rights, like religion. Parents make decisions for their children, not the government. Parents are free to decide what is good for their children. However good your intentions, you have no right to take children away from their parents because you think you know better. You don't. You are just looking for an excuse to impose your views on others.

www.ozpolitic.com

Not so, scientific theory is NOT generally considered as wrong. Scientific theory begins as hypothesis. Then it goes through a virgorous discreditation process where they try and prove that the hypothesis is wrong.

Yes, they are generally considered wrong. Because they are inevitably shown to be wrong. The process you described does not change this. Anyone who considers a scientific theory or law to be a fact is fooling themselves.


HaHa, you crack me up FD, do not be too quick to dismiss theories, or your argument may float away.
If as you state that theories are wrong, Sir Isaacs' included, we may see a proliferation of floating apples. lol

You are really outdoing yourself on this subject, still it is good for a laugh.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 11:41am:


Sure, scientitsts deliberately avoid the use of the term fact. In science knowledge is never static. As technology improves they are finding out new things all the time and the theories get modified.

Dark matter was put forth by by Fritz Zwicky in 1933. He couldn't conclusively prove its existance and has remain a hypothesis since then. However, scientific technology has enabled scientist to provide further corrobarating hypotheses that dark matter could exist. It is not taught as fact. It will always be refered to as a hypothesis until proven otherwise.

Nicholaus Copernicus was working on his hypothesis "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" as an alternative to the Ptolemaic system. When other scientists can corrobarate his hypothesis it became a theory - that the sun does not revolve around the earth; but that the planets orbit the sun.

Pythagoras first hypothesis that all celestial bodies are spherical in 600 BCE. Aristotel provived observational evidence to that hypothesis in 330 BCE. Erastosthene calculated the earths circunferance in 240 BCE. Geographer Strabo suggested in 10 BCE that the earth was spherical by observing and measuring the horizon which he noted had a circumferance. Chinese philosopher and astronmer Xu Yi summised in 330 CE that all clestial bodies are spherical by observing the moon and the various phases of lunar eclipses. With enough corrobarting evidence world wide over the centuries it became the accepted theory.

So how can theories be generally wrong? There are many theories I can cite for you, molecular theory, relavity theory, gravitational theory etc that forms the basis of theoretical physics (our world).

They are wrong because they are all inevitably proven wrong. It is just our experience. Only extreme arrogance would lead someone to claim that we now, finally, have it right.

Celestial bodies are not spherical. They are bigger across the equator than through the poles. Newtonian mechanics is wrong. Relativity has replaced it, but we are still groping in the dark on that one. Do you really think relativity will stand forever?

Or because it started out as a theory it must be genearlly wrong.

It has nothing to do with how it started out. It's just the nature of scientific enquiry to eventually destroy old paradigms.

Of course, that doesn't stop these things being taught as fact. It's all part of the indoctrination.

Dark matter was put forth by by Fritz Zwicky in 1933. He couldn't conclusively prove its existance and has remain a hypothesis since then. However, scientific technology has enabled scientist to provide further corrobarating hypotheses that dark matter could exist. It is not taught as fact.

As far as I know, dark matter is not taught in primary or high school. High school teachers are loath to present theories they cannot pretend are facts.

freediver wrote on Jun 17^th, 2008 at 1:42pm:


Now, you're being pedantic. Of course, celestial bodies are not spherical. Next you'll be saying that the colour is not really "black" but RAL 9005 in the colour chart.

Forever? We'll never know. Maybe one day we'll have the technology for space travel via black/white hole (another hypothesis, I know) meet up with another advance alien race and compare notes. But as I've said theory is not static. It's is not fact, true; but it is not unfounded (layman) theory either.

We should start another thread to continue this methinks as it is taking away from the core subject of religious schools. LOL.

FD,

The Earth orbits the sun - fact or theory?

The earth is supported by four pillars  - Fact or theory (or perhaps article of faith) ?

Let me get this right. You're implying is that the current state of knowledge as determined by scientific methodology is just a theory, and that it is somehow equal to an untested hypothesis written on cured animal skins by xenophobic camel riding nomads who would use physical violence on their sons or daughters for all manner of transgressions, and who quite frankly had not invented soaps, antiperspirants and other forms of modern hygiene?

Maybe you're just arguing for argument's sake, but wake up to yourself.

Christianity is just a religion. Islam is just a religion. Religions have no rigorous testing methodology and they mostly don't even attempt to adapt to changes in society.

The Earth orbits the sun - fact or theory?

Actually, the earth and sun orbit their combined centre of gravity. Unless of course you want to take other celestial bodies into account in which case it gets more complicated. Or, you may want to abandon Newtonian mechanics because it is wrong and say that space is actually curved, but that doesn't completely get you out of Newtonian mechanics because you haven't been indoctrinated into the more recent paradigm.

Of course, these are all just theories. I wouldn't be arrogant enough to declare one as fact. It is however, reasonable to declare direct observation as fact, but it takes a bit of practice to distuinguish observation from the paradigm you filter it through.

The earth is supported by four pillars  

Elephants, not pillars.

You're implying is that the current state of knowledge as determined by scientific methodology is just a theory

Not 'just' a theory. It is a scientific theory. Which means it's wrong.

and that it is somehow equal to an untested hypothesis

No.

written on cured animal skins by xenophobic camel riding nomads who would use physical violence on their sons or daughters for all manner of transgressions, and who quite frankly had not invented soaps, antiperspirants and other forms of modern hygiene?

Please don't launch into personal attacks against against other members just because they want to impose their views on others.

Maybe you're just arguing for argument's sake, but wake up to yourself.

No, I'm proving a point.

Christianity is just a religion. Islam is just a religion. Religions have no rigorous testing methodology and they mostly don't even attempt to adapt to changes in society.

True, but luckily we have freedom of religion, so they don't have to. The last thing you'd want is the government adapting religion to the latest teaching fad.