Religion forces science teacher to quit

[Chevron]

Any teacher that considers themselves to be a teacher of the sciences, should not impart anything implying intelligent design, nor allow their creationist beliefs affect what syllabus they teach. Those that do should be fired.

Plain and simple.

[Kharrak]

Any teacher that considers themselves to be a teacher of the sciences, should not impart anything implying intelligent design, nor allow their creationist beliefs affect what syllabus they teach. Those that do should be fired.

Plain and simple.

I do believe there's some crossfire between the conception of keeping an open mind, and the concept of only teaching one aspect while hiding/ignoring others.

[Flangenimblick]

Fuel to fire: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17239059

Gorilla genome could hold key to the human condition

Researchers in Cambridge have deciphered the genetic code of the gorilla - the last of the Great Ape genuses to be sequenced.


Writing in the journal Nature, the scientists say that researchers can now begin to examine the similarities and differences between the apes.

Genome sequences of humans, chimpanzees and orangutans are already published.

The team hopes their work will help to uncover genetic mutations that led to language, culture and science.

"I'd like to think that in the next 20 or 30 years we will get a deeper understanding of what happened genetically in our evolutionary history, and of how those genes affect the brain and other properties that make us modern humans," said Richard Durbin of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, who led the study.

Initial comparisons confirm that chimpanzees are our closest relatives, sharing 99% of our DNA. Gorillas come a close second with 98%, and orangutans third with a 97% share.

That reflects the evolutionary history of apes. Genome comparison indicates that the human lineage separated from orangutans 14 million years ago, gorillas 10 million years ago, and chimps 6 million years ago.

That order of events is not a surprise, but the dates are earlier than many scientists had thought.

Although on average we are closest to chimps, many of our individual genes are more like those of gorillas.

Among them is a gene that enables us and gorillas to hear better than other apes.

Until now, some scientists had thought that the development of hearing was what enabled us to develop language - but as a result of this research, we now know this theory is wrong.

Fifteen percent of the human genome is closer to the gorilla than the chimpanzee, and 15% of the chimpanzee genome is closer to the gorilla than to humans.

One genetic difference that will be of interest to medical researchers is a mutation that results in dementia in humans, but seems to leave gorillas completely unaffected.

Rapid emergence

The genome unravelled in the research came from a female western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) called Kamilah.

The study shows that humans are more similar to gorillas than previously thought
Researchers searched through more than 11,000 genes in her genome, as well as in the published versions of the human, chimp and orangutan genetic codes, for changes important in evolution.

"Our most significant findings reveal not only differences between the species, reflecting millions of years of evolutionary divergence, but also similarities in parallel changes over time since their common ancestor," said Chris Tyler-Smith, who works with Dr Durbin.

Comparative studies will also shed more light on the evolution of all the Great Apes; but the key question is whether the bounty of genetic information contains clues to the moment when the first genes emerged that made humans capable of abstract thought.

"This is the question we are all fascinated by," Dr Durbin told BBC News.

It is unlikely that a single development led to our species' advance towards modernity, or that all developments along that path were genetic.

Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) emerged around 200,000 years ago, but it was not until about 50,000 years ago that our bigger brains began to make a difference.

Until then, humanity was one among small number of apes in Africa, probably living not very differently from gorillas.

So, something happened very rapidly around that time that led to the emergence of abstract thought, allowing humans to invent advanced tools and use them to shape the environment.

"There will have been genetic factors," said Dr Durbin, "but also cultural and historic factors."

The one Great Ape not to be sequenced so far is the bonobo, a close relative of the chimp. That project is underway, and scientists expect its genome and that of the chimp to be very similar.

The availability of the genomes of all the Great Apes will help scientists answer what happened over the past 200,000 years to enable our species become what we are now.

[Garson007]

Gorilla gorilla gorilla

**** yeah scientific names.

It's fascinating how closely great apes resemble us. I wouldn't be surprised if we found that it's a few keys holding them back, but that none of them are related to intelligence. The Great Ape Project is one of the very few animal rights groups I can get behind. Pretty much this:

[Stalker 103]

Can anyone explain to me how the NG Kerk is different from normal churches, other than that they are extremely rascist?
My parents are sorta religious, me and my brother aren't at all, and they respect that. I refuse to be brainwashed, as at my previous school we had to endure 3-Hour long Hymn Sessions. Praying was mandatory, failure to do so was detention (probably why I had so many detentions back then :P)

I respect other peoples religions, but I don't abide by people trying to convert me, I tell them to turn around and leave.
I've got a Court thing tomorrow and I've been told by people not to mention that I'm atheist to the prosecutor, because then I will get a bad punishment, because this guy is deeply religious, but I feel that people should voice their views. I don't believe that some guy up there created the life, the universe and everything so why should I lie to people just so I don't offend them. I don't care if Mr Priest McPriestly get's offended that I don't believe in Heaven, Hell or a giant bearded man who kills people for the lulz. Let him send me to hell.

I do however believe that some "events" in the bible actually happened but were intrepeted as something divine in origin. The great flood might have been a Tsunami and the flying chair thing that pickep up ezekiel might have been a Aircraft from a ancient, lost civilization.

[Garson007]

I've got a Court thing tomorrow and I've been told by people not to mention that I'm atheist to the prosecutor, because then I will get a bad punishment, because this guy is deeply religious, but I feel that people should voice their views.

DUI? Assault? Rape? Murder? Serial killer? Hitler type hate crime? Don't leave us hanging.

[vii]

DUI? Assault? Rape? Murder? Serial killer? Hitler type hate crime? Don't leave us hanging.

He said ATHEIST! It's obviously for baby eating.

[Garson007]

He said ATHEIST! It's obviously for baby eating.

Discrimination and stereotyping!

[Zoop]

DUI? Assault? Rape? Murder? Serial killer? Hitler type hate crime? Don't leave us hanging.

He was probably caught robbing a bank with a gasmask on.

[Garson007]

He was probably caught robbing a bank with a gasmask on.

You've earned this gold star!

[Toxxyc]

He was probably caught robbing a bank with a gasmask on.

Oh good crap man, you've just made my day!

[MonGooS]

Because of our old, dear friend, called paradox. If you chose to believe, for example, that God set evolution in motion to create everything, you would soon find yourself with a rather troubling conundrum, that is, Who/what created God then? and so forth.

It's a nasty paradox that you can't get past unfortunately.

Science and Religion (at least Christianity) don't mix. One has to eventually explain the other, but in fact they do the exact opposite.

Fortunate then than I do not believe paradoxes exist. To me a paradox is nothing more than something we cannot yet understand or explain.

Take the "Unstoppable force meets an Immovable object" paradox. We call it a paradox because we have never seen either, and we cannot even begin to fathom what would happen if the two would meet. To call it a paradox is to say it defies logic and reason. Did the sun and moon not defy logic and reason a 1000 years ago? Would telling someone that we were made of billions of tiny little balls with more balls floating around them not invoke a "U mad bro?" response many years ago? People claim to follow science but then dare to say "That's impossible!", if you are of a scientific mind then nothing is impossible until proven otherwise. Even after something has been scientifically dis-proven/proven, there is still a chance that we will re-prove/prove it at a later stage. If science has taught us anything, its that the universe is filled with things that we cannot, and will not understand for many many years.

As far as I know neither science or religion have ever dis-proven each other; however unlikely the two may be.

[Squirly]

As far as I know neither science or religion have ever dis-proven each other; however unlikely the two may be.

They can't because that would be like saying the existence of apples disproves the existence of oranges. (See what I did there?)

And as for the "Unstoppable force meets an Immovable object" paradox, strictly speaking there is no way either of the two exist. Nothing is immovable, just so huge and/or heavy that it requires that much more force to move. It's word-play more than it is anything else. We can't explain it? That's because there's nothing to explain.

[Kharrak]

So nobody watched the video I posted? :P

Science and Religion have coexisted for centuries - those that actively speak out, actively express their desire to hinder, unravel, and resist the other are in fact the vocal minority. In the states, 40% of scientists are people who are religious, people who "pray to a personal god" - not just people who go to church.

[echo]

I did! But it just states that religion and science can co-exist, so it's nothing really new. I liked that he classified religious as "If you pray to a personal God". That is exactly what it's about (and should be about IMHO).

[Grimnebulin]

I did! But it just states that religion and science can co-exist, so it's nothing really new. I liked that he classified religious as "If you pray to a personal God". That is exactly what it's about (and should be about IMHO).

But isn't that more spiritual rather than religious? It's a grey area I'll agree, but I've always operated from the basis that when using the term religious, it refers to an entire outlook that is based upon the framework of a personal belief. I think it's an important differentiation to make, because classifying religious as 'praying to a personal God' seems more to me an effort to water down the impact the word carries. I can understand wanting to find common ground, but I don't think redefining the word is the way to go about it.

It's precisely when one understands what the definition of religious means, that you begin to understand the crux of the issue; it isn't that religion and science can't co-exist, but rather that we understand the potential dangers inherent in the notion that someone can be both religious and a scientist. Again, I'm not saying that isn't the case, and many scientists are able to separate their religious beliefs from their scientific investigation, but what of those who can't?

Maybe it's just because I'm not a fan of the recently evolved personal philosophy that seems to be prevalent of late, by which people proclaim to believe in God, but only in a kind of private facility, so no one gets offended and everything is tolerated and permissible. Again, I'm not saying that spirituality and religion aren't compatible, in many ways it could be argued that one cannot exist without the other, and that's my concern.

[nukehead]

Just to add to what Grim said regarding a personal God and differentiating from religion versus spirituality. Where do you draw the line about what to include from the various teachings? Isn't it against religion to be interpreting it?

[echo]

But isn't that more spiritual rather than religious?.

I agree, and if asked I would say I am spiritual and not necessarily religious (Not a fan of organized religion). I was referring to the video in which Neil deGrasse Tyson calls it religious.

Maybe it's just because I'm not a fan of the recently evolved personal philosophy that seems to be prevalent of late, by which people proclaim to believe in God, but only in a kind of private facility, so no one gets offended and everything is tolerated and permissible.

But why do have a problem with this? If I believe in God but I keep it between me and Him, why would that bother you? I can still go on and accept the things science tells me, without my spirituality coming into it. Or maybe I'm just understanding you wrong?

[Grimnebulin]

But why do have a problem with this? If I believe in God but I keep it between me and Him, why would that bother you? I can still go on and accept the things science tells me, without my spirituality coming into it. Or maybe I'm just understanding you wrong?

Thanks for asking me to clarify!

This is really the kind of discussion that threatens to derail, but I'll try (and probably fail) to be succinct. It's not so much that I have a personal issue with that kind of outlook, and this is probably more a reflex from old theological college days, but I suppose it boils down to my questioning whether it is rational to adhere to a belief of a relationship with God without it having a profound affect upon the manner in which you view the world. You have a personal relationship, but what informs the nature of the God that you have a relationship with? Does He match the biblical version? Is it an amalgam of the characteristics of God from a variety of religions? If you believe in a force powerful enough to have created the universe and everything in it, do you believe that He has revealed the manner of his creation to you?

The moment you accept in the idea of a deity, and the notion that you are able to have a relationship with this deity, it informs every aspect of your life, how could it not? I accept that you may believe you can have a spiritual relationship with God without it being the foundation for everything else in your life, I just can't accept that it's a rational decision.

All said with great respect and with the knowledge that I have no right to dictate what you choose to believe in, simply to question it.

[echo]

You have a personal relationship, but what informs the nature of the God that you have a relationship with? Does He match the biblical version? Is it an amalgam of the characteristics of God from a variety of religions? If you believe in a force powerful enough to have created the universe and everything in it, do you believe that He has revealed the manner of his creation to you?

I think everyone is different in how they believe and in saying that I personally don't know what I believe. I kinda believe in the God mentioned in the Bible but at the same time I don't believe everything the Bible tells me. What I do believe in is truth. And if the God I believe in really created the Universe then He would have no problem with us finding out how (through science, because there is no other way). I do believe that He created a certain set of rules (Physics, Biology etc) and He sticks to them.

The moment you accept in the idea of a deity, and the notion that you are able to have a relationship with this deity, it informs every aspect of your life, how could it not? I accept that you may believe you can have a spiritual relationship with God without it being the foundation for everything else in your life, I just can't accept that it's a rational decision.

It does impact every part of your life but just like my gaming doesn't always have anything to do with my cooking, the same way my salvation doesn't have anything to do with how I understand the world. If this doesn't make sense, it's ok. I see it as ongoing search for the truth.

I'm not sure this answers your questiosn because looking back at it, it just sounds like I'm ranting on. Sorry about that.