>>So... is the idea here, that creationism could be true, but even if it were true, you wouldn't be >>allowed to teach it in science class, because science is only about "natural" things?
If god(s) exist and (s)he/they/it created the universe and we possessed irrefutable evidence for both of those things, then s(he)/they/it would be "natural", and so, yes, you would be allowed to teach this in science class in that case.
>>Let me try again. People deploy the term "god" in different ways and mean different things by it.
There are in fact three definitions I am aware of:
(1) Theist - god(s) interfere in the world today and listen when we do stuff like "pray",
(2) Deist - god(s) created the world at the beginning, but no longer actively interfere after than point, and
(3) Pantheist - god(s) are a metpahor for a concept like "mother nature" or "the laws of physics".
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
>>So... is the idea here, that creationism could be true, but even if it were true, you wouldn't be >>allowed to teach it in science class, because science is only about "natural" things?
If god(s) exist and (s)he/they/it created the universe and we possessed irrefutable evidence for both of those things, then s(he)/they/it would be "natural", and so, yes, you would be allowed to teach this in science class in that case.
>>Let me try again. People deploy the term "god" in different ways and mean different things by it.
There are in fact three definitions I am aware of:
(1) Theist - god(s) interfere in the world today and listen when we do stuff like "pray", (2) Deist - god(s) created the world at the beginning, but no longer actively interfere after than point, and (3) Pantheist - god(s) are a metpahor for a concept like "mother nature" or "the laws of physics".