TED Conversations

Christopher Halliwell

Secondary Education Physics, Mississippi State University

This conversation is closed.

Should we "teach the controversy"?

By "teach the controversy", I mean the Christian attempt to bypass the scientific method in order to teach religion in science class.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 24 2012: Hey Gabo, hope u r great! lets teach our children not to observe either e christian view or the darwinian view, but to investigate the evidence themselves!

    its fashionable these days to have an archaic view of christianity. is this objective thinking, or you're simply going into your anti-christian mode of arguing? "horoscope style..?"

    i appreciate your sincerity though.

    ok, let me defend a few ideas. the two major verses on creation Gen 1:1 & John 1:1 when calculated numerically produce the result of the 2 math constants pi & e respectively. pi is correct to four decimal places, & with this talk of the constants changing, we r in for a rude awakening! i recomend u read the works of the russian mathematician Dr Ivan Panin who was able to demonstrate scientifically that the bible could not have originated in the mind of man. "the inspiration of the scriptures scientifically demonstrated." you'll find it free online! read it if you're not scared of being proven wrong!

    Hebrews 11:3 "...the things which are seen were not made of the things which do appear." information is immaterial. & biblical propositions r objective!

    its also interesting to note that the bible records history before it happened! cf Daniel 7-12! approx 500yrs before the fact! in fact, the scripture was translated into greek septuagint 300yrs before the actual events, thats an objective reference point for u.

    i could site many. but please read dr panin then we can talk sense.

    A good and just God will punish the transgression of his law! lets not forget the fact that we did not create ourselves. if a creator is responsible, and we do him wrong (by doing what he dis-approves), he has every right to call even the death penalty (we call it justice!). i wont debate homosexuality... the fact that in this age we have not been judged owes its explanation to the fact that he is merciful. good doesnt mean that you're let off when u do wrong... i think you need re re-read your bible after you have suspended your prejudices.

    lets talk!
    • May 25 2012: Hi Raphael,

      I hope you are all right too.

      You started with your left foot, and now you insist on limping on it. You start with the myth that this is about darwinian versus christian views. Well, no, I don't believe in any gods, and yours is but one of them. Then, the very fact that I properly understand evolution, and have no option but to accept that evolution happens and continue to happen is not the reason why I recognize your beliefs as myths. If there was no understanding of evolution, I would still know that the bible and your god are myths. I would still notice that the bible contains different versions of ancient cosmologies. Different moralities. Contradictions. Nonsense.

      For numbers, well, I found that they are far from correct by many orders of magnitude, except that your astrologists concentrate on the number before the 10-exponential. Have you wondered why pi and e are hidden in those passages rather than ones where they would make sense? I also find it quite unconvincing that there is error in the calculations. Isn't this supposed to be an all-knowing god? Once a friend showed me that he could make a program and find such kinds of stuff (pi, e), provided some numerical rules and a big text. So, if you know some programmer, ask her for better ones. I know she will find something. It's all about probabilities (avoid checking texts other than the bible, otherwise you will find that there's plenty of "sacred texts").

      The things not seen, did you check the context? It is about faith, and the "things not seen," obviously, are about the words of this myth (the god) making things. But your astrologers interpreted it to be about atoms. Again, no different to reading the newspaper horoscopes.

      I told you. I have seen and read a lot of this kind of quackery. So, I am far from impressed. What about before continuing with bible citations you check contexts? All you need is to suspend your prejudices to notice that you have bought snake-oil.

      Be well.
    • May 25 2012: Ho, seems like I was right on the mark about Ivan Panin's numeracy:


      As you see, obvious manipulation of data to fit this numerical snake-oil about the bible.

      So, you see? If we had to "teach the controversy," I would have plenty to teach, and it would be fun. Students would learn a lot about avoiding pitfalls and recognizing snake-oil sales pitches.

      Be well again.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.