Should schools teach Father Georges Lemaitre's creation theory as part of their science curriculum?

Xelor · May 16, 2019

Should public schools teach Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre's creation theory in science classes?

Yes
No
I don't know
Schools should teach the/a non-Catholic version of his theory.

Personally, I would never cotton to a public school's teaching Creationism, but private schools can teach whatever they want, and they definitely should teach Lemaitre's creation theory as part of their science curricula, and Christian one's should include it in their theology curricula.

What is Creationism?

ETA:
I was raised in the Episcopal faith, but Lemaitre's creation theory is good enough AFAIC.

marke · May 16, 2019

Xelor said:
Should public schools teach Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre's creation theory in science classes?

Yes

No

I don't know

Schools should teach the/a non-Catholic version of his theory.

Personally, I would never cotton to a public school's teaching Creationism, but private schools can teach whatever they want, and they definitely should teach Lemaitre's creation theory as part of their science curricula, and Christian one's should include it in their theology curricula.

What is Creationism?

ETA:
I was raised in the Episcopal faith, but Lemaitre's creation theory is good enough AFAIC.

God teaches the truth about the creation of the universe and the formation of original life on earth. All contrary theories are wrong.

Felis Leo · May 16, 2019

Xelor said:
Should public schools teach Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre's creation theory in science classes?

Yes

No

I don't know

Schools should teach the/a non-Catholic version of his theory.

Personally, I would never cotton to a public school's teaching Creationism, but private schools can teach whatever they want, and they definitely should teach Lemaitre's creation theory as part of their science curricula, and Christian one's should include it in their theology curricula.

What is Creationism?

ETA:
I was raised in the Episcopal faith, but Lemaitre's creation theory is good enough AFAIC.

I vote "Yes" with a caveat. As far as teaching so-called "creationism" with respect to the history of science and the scientific method is concerned? Absolutely. It can be taught in the same manner as the history of natural philosophy which predated modern science and the scientific method. I see no problem with discussing the fact that George Lemaitre was a genius mathematician and astrophysicist and his ideas while being a devout Jesuit, any more than I have trouble discussing the fact that Sir Isaac Newton was a brilliant mathematician and pioneering physicist while at the same time believing that alchemy was valid scientific pursuit. But as far as creationism being taught as some form of scientific truth on the same shelf as, say, the Big Bang Theory? Absolutely not.

HonestJoe · May 16, 2019

Xelor said:
Personally, I would never cotton to a public school's teaching Creationism, but private schools can teach whatever they want, and they definitely should teach Lemaitre's creation theory as part of their science curricula, and Christian one's should include it in their theology curricula.

I’m not sure if this was intended as a gotcha against people who weren’t aware the Big Bang theory was initially proposed by a scientist who also happened to be a Catholic priest but if it was a gotcha, you messed it up with this paragraph.

Lemaitre never proposed a “creation” theory as you’re implying. He proposed the basis Big Bang theory, developing work of scientists before him and it was developed and expanded on by many scientists after him. His faith was irrelevant to his science, indeed he directly opposed the Pope of the day claiming his ideas supported Catholic faith, asserting that the two were not connected in any way in his mind.

Captain Adverse · May 16, 2019

HonestJoe said:
I’m not sure if this was intended as a gotcha against people who weren’t aware the Big Bang theory was initially proposed by a scientist who also happened to be a Catholic priest but if it was a gotcha, you messed it up with this paragraph.

Lemaitre never proposed a “creation” theory as you’re implying. He proposed the basis Big Bang theory, developing work of scientists before him and it was developed and expanded on by many scientists after him. His faith was irrelevant to his science, indeed he directly opposed the Pope of the day claiming his ideas supported Catholic faith, asserting that the two were not connected in any way in his mind.

I accidentally selected "No" when I meant to select "other." I was aware that Lemaitre's "Big Bang" theory was already being taught in science classes, just as Gregor Mendel's work is taught in biology, and other men of faith have added to our scientific knowledge. However, I don't believe that the Catholic Church's allegation that this was a validation of Christianity should be included in such studies. Religious interpretations of Creationism have their place in philosophy classes, but not in science classes.

rocket88 · May 16, 2019

marke said:
God teaches the truth about the creation of the universe and the formation of original life on earth. All contrary theories are wrong.

Yes, and He gives us clues all along the way. You will be greatly disappointed to find out that Adam and Eve were a myth. Much of the Bible is literature, and is unabashed in being so. The Psalms, for instance, are all songs about God, but is not in any way a history.

Myths are good. Myths are useful. That's why we still reference Greek myths, but nobody actually believes that Zeus lives on Mt. Olympus.

rocket88 · May 16, 2019

I voted no, because public schools should not be teaching religion. Religion is for churches, not for the state.

Xelor · May 16, 2019

Xelor said:
Should public schools teach Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre's creation theory in science classes?

Yes

No

I don't know

Schools should teach the/a non-Catholic version of his theory.

Personally, I would never cotton to a public school's teaching Creationism, but private schools can teach whatever they want, and they definitely should teach Lemaitre's creation theory as part of their science curricula, and Christian one's should include it in their theology curricula.

What is Creationism?

ETA:
I was raised in the Episcopal faith, but Lemaitre's creation theory is good enough AFAIC.

HonestJoe said:

I’m not sure if this was intended as a gotcha against people who weren’t aware the Big Bang theory was initially proposed by a scientist who also happened to be a Catholic priest but if it was a gotcha, you messed it up with [the above blue emboldened] sentence.

Lemaitre never proposed a “creation” theory as you’re implying. He proposed the basis Big Bang theory, developing work of scientists before him and it was developed and expanded on by many scientists after him. His faith was irrelevant to his science, indeed he directly opposed the Pope of the day claiming his ideas supported Catholic faith, asserting that the two were not connected in any way in his mind.

Click to expand...

Red:

What Is the Big Bang Theory?
- "The Big Bang Theory is the leading explanation about how the universe began."
The Origin of the Universe
Three Theories that Might Blow Up the Big Bang
- "In the standard interpretation of the Big Bang, which took shape in the 1960s, the formative event was not an explosion that occurred at some point in space and time—it was an explosion of space and time. In this view, time did not exist beforehand."

If a theory that posits how the universe came into existence isn't a creation theory, I don't know what is; moreover, I can think of no better place to teach Lemaitre's creation theory than in science classes, no matter one's stance on its veracity/accuracy.

marke · May 16, 2019

rocket88 said:
Yes, and He gives us clues all along the way. You will be greatly disappointed to find out that Adam and Eve were a myth. Much of the Bible is literature, and is unabashed in being so. The Psalms, for instance, are all songs about God, but is not in any way a history.

Myths are good. Myths are useful. That's why we still reference Greek myths, but nobody actually believes that Zeus lives on Mt. Olympus.

You can believe whatever you like. I will believe the Bible. The truth will always be true and everyone will become acquainted with the truth in the end no matter what they choose to believe for now.

Daisy · May 16, 2019

I prefer for schools to leave such teaching to the parents...I sent my kids to school for learning reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history...etc...I taught them about the Bible...

Xelor · May 17, 2019

Elvira said:
I prefer for schools to leave such teaching to the parents...I sent my kids to school for learning reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history...etc...I taught them about the Bible...

Red:

The "etc" at the end of the "red" sentence includes the most important skill schools teach, -- critical thinking, sound/cogent analysis -- in every class, subjects being but contextual applications of that skill. Absent critical thinking, the information taught in math, science, history, English, foreign language, and other courses is useful for little but winning games like Trivial Pursuit and Jeopardy.
As for learning Georges Lemaitre's creation theory and thinking of my K-12 education, various aspects of it were taught in different classes.

"The origin of the universe" has a summary presentation of the content.
- History -- The content from "Flat Earth Cosmologies" to about the middle of the "The Discovery of the Galaxy" section was taught in history class. Elements from that section showed up also in biology, math and physics. Also, bits of the remainder of also received coverage in history class.
- Physics, math and biology -- The bulk of rest of the paper's content (except, of course, the post ~1960s stuff) was the stuff of physics, math and biology. Physics is the class in which we were taught the 20th century history of the development of the Big Bang Theory itself and the relevance and relationship among the key events in that development. In math we had a handful problems that called us to use the redshift technique to calculate distances.[SUP]1[/SUP]
- Theology/Philosophy -- My theology/philosophy teachers didn't attempt to expressly teach Lemaitre's theory. Rather they, relying one's having mastered the content taught in history, math, biology and physic curricula, endeavored to reconcile Lemaitre's theory with the faith-based belief system to which my school ascribed. That reconciliation basically comported with the ideas, form and structure found in "Cosmology and the Origin of the Universe: Historical and Conceptual Perspectives."

Note:

The math was really quite rudimentary, but it introduced us not only to math conventions, but also served as a reinforcement of concepts we would use in physics and English composition. As an illustration, a redshift math problem similar to one we had in math is this:
Z is the number of years it takes light from a distant star to reach Earth. Z represents the ratio of the difference between the observed wavelength of a spectral line and the line's wavelength, were it stationary, to the line's stationary wavelength.

Given the preceding predicate:
-- Determine Z's for an observed wavelength is 10 and a normative stationary wavelength is 25.
-- Determine the observed wavelength when Z is 4 and the expected static wavelength is 15.

From that, one was expected to answer roughly as follows:
Let W[SUB]m[/SUB] = a moving line's wavelength
Let Ws = a stationary line's wavelength
Z = (W[SUB]m[/SUB] - W[SUB]s[/SUB])/W[SUB]s
[/SUB]After that, it was just "plug and chug" to provide the requested information. (In math, the variable we used was irrelevant; in physics, we were had to use "λ" rather than the W, X or whatever variable we chose in math.)

At some point in the term, the same concept would appear again, only the next time we'd be told that wavelength is the ratio of a light wave's velocity to its frequency and, in turn, given those two values, whereupon the above predicate would be restated in terms of that ratio, thus forcing us to incorporate the calculation of the wavelength into the equation for Z: Z = ((V[SUB]m[/SUB]/F[SUB]m[/SUB]) - (V[SUB]s[/SUB]/F[SUB]s[/SUB]))/(V[SUB]s[/SUB]/F[SUB]s[/SUB]).

I cannot say the above is precisely a problem we were assigned, for I don't remember them. What I remember is the myriad "wait...we did this in math, right" epiphanies that moved me to go look back at a math test or text section only to find the same concept had been presented in math, albeit without all the specific terminology we were later given in science class. The syntax for our math problems was also deliberate; it reinforced and forced us to apply our English composition learnings.

Of course, the math lesson described above doesn't expressly teach the Big Bang. It's not until one gets to physics class and is taught about the role of redshift in the Big Bang Theory's development that one realizes one'd been in math taught a portion of what one needs to know to fully understand (at a high schooler's level) about the Big Bang, aka Lemaitre's creation theory.

Casper · May 17, 2019

marke said:
God teaches the truth about the creation of the universe and the formation of original life on earth. All contrary theories are wrong.

Except they are not Theories, they are not Contrary, and why do you underestimate the Lord......?

Daisy · May 17, 2019

Xelor said:
Red:

The "etc" at the end of the "red" sentence includes the most important skill schools teach, -- critical thinking, sound/cogent analysis -- in every class, subjects being but contextual applications of that skill. Absent critical thinking, the information taught in math, science, history, English, foreign language, and other courses is useful for little but winning games like Trivial Pursuit and Jeopardy.

As for learning Georges Lemaitre's creation theory and thinking of my K-12 education, various aspects of it were taught in different classes.

"The origin of the universe" has a summary presentation of the content.

History -- The content from "Flat Earth Cosmologies" to about the middle of the "The Discovery of the Galaxy" section was taught in history class. Elements from that section showed up also in biology, math and physics. Also, bits of the remainder of also received coverage in history class.

Physics, math and biology -- The bulk of rest of the paper's content (except, of course, the post ~1960s stuff) was the stuff of physics, math and biology. Physics is the class in which we were taught the 20th century history of the development of the Big Bang Theory itself and the relevance and relationship among the key events in that development. In math we had a handful problems that called us to use the redshift technique to calculate distances.[SUP]1[/SUP]

Theology/Philosophy -- My theology/philosophy teachers didn't attempt to expressly teach Lemaitre's theory. Rather they, relying one's having mastered the content taught in history, math, biology and physic curricula, endeavored to reconcile Lemaitre's theory with the faith-based belief system to which my school ascribed. That reconciliation basically comported with the ideas, form and structure found in "Cosmology and the Origin of the Universe: Historical and Conceptual Perspectives."

Note:

The math was really quite rudimentary, but it introduced us not only to math conventions, but also served as a reinforcement of concepts we would use in physics and English composition. As an illustration, a redshift math problem similar to one we had in math is this:
Z is the number of years it takes light from a distant star to reach Earth. Z represents the ratio of the difference between the observed wavelength of a spectral line and the line's wavelength, were it stationary, to the line's stationary wavelength.

Given the preceding predicate:
-- Determine Z's for an observed wavelength is 10 and a normative stationary wavelength is 25.
-- Determine the observed wavelength when Z is 4 and the expected static wavelength is 15.

From that, one was expected to answer roughly as follows:
Let W[SUB]m[/SUB] = a moving line's wavelength
Let Ws = a stationary line's wavelength
Z = (W[SUB]m[/SUB] - W[SUB]s[/SUB])/W[SUB]s
[/SUB]After that, it was just "plug and chug" to provide the requested information. (In math, the variable we used was irrelevant; in physics, we were had to use "λ" rather than the W, X or whatever variable we chose in math.)

At some point in the term, the same concept would appear again, only the next time we'd be told that wavelength is the ratio of a light wave's velocity to its frequency and, in turn, given those two values, whereupon the above predicate would be restated in terms of that ratio, thus forcing us to incorporate the calculation of the wavelength into the equation for Z: Z = ((V[SUB]m[/SUB]/F[SUB]m[/SUB]) - (V[SUB]s[/SUB]/F[SUB]s[/SUB]))/(V[SUB]s[/SUB]/F[SUB]s[/SUB]).

I cannot say the above is precisely a problem we were assigned, for I don't remember them. What I remember is the myriad "wait...we did this in math, right" epiphanies that moved me to go look back at a math test or text section only to find the same concept had been presented in math, albeit without all the specific terminology we were later given in science class. The syntax for our math problems was also deliberate; it reinforced and forced us to apply our English composition learnings.

Of course, the math lesson described above doesn't expressly teach the Big Bang. It's not until one gets to physics class and is taught about the role of redshift in the Big Bang Theory's development that one realizes one'd been in math taught a portion of what one needs to know to fully understand (at a high schooler's level) about the Big Bang, aka Lemaitre's creation theory.

Not impressed...I sent my kids to school to learn to read and write, not what their morals or beliefs should be, so you wasted your time...that was/is my job, no one else...

Xelor · May 17, 2019

Elvira said:
Not impressed...I sent my kids to school to learn to read and write, not what their morals or beliefs should be, so you wasted your time...that was/is my job, no one else...

Red:
Well, that's fine for that outcome wasn't sought or expected.

Daisy · May 17, 2019

Xelor said:
Red:
Well, that's fine for that outcome wasn't sought or expected.

Finally...a short and to the point answer...:bravo:

blarg · May 17, 2019

marke said:
God teaches the truth about the creation of the universe and the formation of original life on earth. All contrary theories are wrong.

god is that true?

hello?

guess its not true

Xelor · May 17, 2019

Elvira said:
Finally...a short and to the point answer...:bravo:

The length of my replies is directly proportional to the gravitas/banality of the remarks that inspire them.

Daisy · May 17, 2019

Xelor said:
The length of my replies is directly proportional to the gravitas/banality of the remarks that inspire them.

lol...

marke · May 17, 2019

Casper said:
Except they are not Theories, they are not Contrary, and why do you underestimate the Lord......?

Some people believe God created life on earth in the beginning. Others believe it just happened and God was not involved. Which is science?

Casper · May 17, 2019

marke said:
Some people believe God created life on earth in the beginning. Others believe it just happened and God was not involved. Which is science?

Both.

marke · May 17, 2019

blarg said:
god is that true?

hello?
guess its not true

24. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; …
28. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early but they shall not find me.
Proverbs 1

Manc Skipper · May 17, 2019

marke said:
You can believe whatever you like. I will believe the Bible. The truth will always be true and everyone will become acquainted with the truth in the end no matter what they choose to believe for now.

You will believe what the bible says, as you understand it. That's two possibilities of being wrong. You and the Bible are fallible.

marke · May 17, 2019

Manc Skipper said:
You will believe what the bible says, as you understand it. That's two possibilities of being wrong. You and the Bible are fallible.

How many possibilities of error exist in 4 or 5 billion people with their own opinions?

Manc Skipper · May 17, 2019

marke said:
How many possibilities of error exist in 4 or 5 billion people with their own opinions?

Not all of them have the misplaced arrogance to claim to possess "The Truth".

blarg · May 18, 2019

marke said:
24. Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded; …
28. Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early but they shall not find me.
Proverbs 1

god is that true have you ever come a calling?

hello?

guess its not true

Should schools teach Father Georges Lemaitre's creation theory as part of their science curriculum?

Should public schools teach Father Georges Lemaitre's creation theory in science classes?

Yes

No

I don't know.

Schools should teach the/a non-Catholic version of his theory

Reformed Republican

Classical Liberal Sage

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

Mod Conspiracy Theorist

"guide our feet in the way of peace.”

"guide our feet in the way of peace.”

"guide our feet in the way of peace.”

"guide our feet in the way of peace.”

Wrinkly member

Wrinkly member

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency