Right. Stop imposing the religion of science theory like Big Bang Theory and Black Hole Theory on our kids in the public schools.
Teach the kids reading, writing and arithmetic in school. Forget all the other nonsense, except if the kids and their parents want to go that route.
Yeah, stop teaching science to the masses. The last thing we want is religious nutters tainting scientific studies with non factual data, although we could release all the tainted scientific papers in a separate book and call it "The Bible 2 - How To Hold Back Humanity For Another 5000 Years".
I don't think we should stop teaching science to people. After all, we uses aspects of it in our lives everyday. In fact, people of all times have used the science of levers to move trees and rocks to build the homes they lived in.
The thing we should do is something like you suggested. Take the things of science that are theories, and state them as such, possibly in a separate section of science. For example, NASA at
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html has many pages that have various science theories listed as fact, when it is not know that these things are fact. Among them are the two that I mentioned above, Big Bang Theory and Black Hole Theory. Three others that are common are Evolution theory, E=MC
2, and Gravity theory.
The mix-up seems to lie in the connection between reality and the theory. For example. Gravity is real. It is a science that exists, that everybody uses everyday, and many people understand in limited form. But the explanation of gravity that we call the Theory of Gravity isn't necessarily correct.
It almost seems that some big organizations are attempting to teach science fiction as real science, simply because aspects of real science are used in making the fictional theory.
BADdecker, it's posts like this from you that lack your usual bible thumping that make me think that we're dealing with someone who is either not of stable mind, or a different person entirely.
We could get all abstract and talk about living in a simulation, but that doesn't fit the understanding of common people.
The things that fit the understanding of common people have to do with simple science all over the place.
More complex science proves, and nature shows, that God exists.
The history of the Bible shows that there is miracle-strength as well as miraculous strength in the Bible. The Bible is truth, but even if one can't discern much of the truth in it, more truth can be seen in it than anywhere else except, possibly... actual real "stuff" that we live with right at our fingertips... stuff that we can feel, taste, smell, recognize easily.
God, the Bible and real science are all tied together. Some people who don't like the idea of God (who knows why?) are trying to make reality to be warped in the minds of common people by expressing things that are not necessarily true, as though they were truth.
I agree with your sentiment regarding the classification of theories. What you're missing though is the fact that scientific theories are already labelled as such ie.
I'm not missing that at all. Somebody is though. How do we know? They are claiming that the things of at least some of the theories are factual when they don't know this to be true.
The distinction is this. Theories exist; this is the truth. The major point of every theory is an unknown. Why mix the two? Say it like it is.
Theory of Evolution, Big Bang Theory etc. You need to take this classification one step further and include religions as theory ie. Theory of Christianity, Theory of Islam etc. Once you do this you can then set about finding evidence to prove each theory and offer this evidence to peers to examine, review and reproduce. If reproducible, then your theory becomes an understanding that it has been proven to be a reality.
The distinction here is that when scientists examine Christianity and the the Bible as thoroughly as they examine other things, and make the examination outside of their theories, the Bible and Christianity come way closer to being proven accurate than many of their theories. Of course, where a theory does not have anything to do with something in the Bible or Christianity, this distinction isn't evident.
For the record, I attended a school where both religion (Catholic) and science were taught side by side.
Such a thing (your schooling) might make it even more difficult for you to see the truth. Why? Because often schools that teach science theory along with religion attempt to make the two to be compatible with each other.
For example. The Bible suggests in several places that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. And, there is at least one way that the Bible says that the earth is only a little over 6,000 years old (
http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm ). But the Roman Church used to teach for a while (and may still teach this) that the creation story in the Bible shows billions of years, just to make it compatible with modern science theory.
On the opposite side, when you get into the basic papers that detail the age of the earth, the scientists that say that the earth appears to be billions of years old, say that they don't really know it as fact. But they are saying it this way so that there can be a general, organized order in science.
Then the common person looks at the general order idea that the scientists put together, and thinks that the scientists have found out that the earth is billions of years old. And other scientists, who have not done the studies, gloss over the fact that the papers state that they don't know for sure, and base their science on the wrong idea. And this is only one of the major false science ideas out there.
Then others come along and expand it all into Big Bang. And the media and the universities publish. And ignorant people believe what they publish, and support them with grants, and send their kids to school there. But the whole thing is based on either a theory or else a complete lie.
