Do Creationists believe we should not teach the Newton's laws of motion?

Question

For those who do not know the three Laws

1.An object will remain at rest, or continue to move at a constant velocity, unless an external net force acts upon it.

2. Net force on an object is equal to its rate change of momentum.

3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The thing is that there are exceptions to the three laws. In particular when very small scales, very high speeds, or extreme gravity come into play.

Dose that mean we should no longer teach the three laws to school children, or should we stop a sixth-grade class to explain General relativity?

Kevin M- btw I am a theist, Jewish acctually.

Apostle Jeff- Yes he was jeff, but Einstein who discovered General relativity was not =P

Answer 1

No creationist don't care if you teach that. whatever. its physics.

Answer 2

If I understand you correctly, you're pointing out that Newton's laws are no longer considered universally valid. And yet, they remain an important part of science, and science education.

You suggest, tongue-in-cheek, that creationists may want to eliminate them from the curriculum. Apparently you see this situation as analagous to.. what? Frankly, that's where I lost you. So the rest is a bit of a guess.

Here goes. Creationists say that evolution cannot explain the original source of the matter that created the first one-celled organism. Also they point out that there may be steps in the evolution of specific organisms that we cannot fully explain. In short, they cite gaps in our knowledge of the specifics, and on that basis they discredit the entire theory.

Am I on the right track here?

As for my response, well of course there is sufficient basis to teach evolution, even though we may not yet know how a particular species developed a particular attribute. (We taught chemistry when there were blank spaces in the periodic table.) Surely over time, there will be refinements, and probably some of our current knowledge will prove to be inaccurate. That's how science progresses. Unless we teach the theory to *someone,* who will be equipped to develop the refinements?

And I believe in creationism too, though more in a metaphorical than literal sense. I find the bible inspiring and worthy of study. But religion has no place in public schools, and creationism is a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory.

Aside from the obvious issue of church-state separation there are practical matters to consider. If Genesis were part of the school curriculum, then fairness (and anti-descrimination laws) would dictate that any and all versions of creation would have to be covered. And it would not stop there. Those teaching about birth would have to include the theory, held by many, that the stork brings newborn children. Those teaching about the ego and self-esteem would have to explain the eastern religious perspective, that the skin-encapsulated self is merely an illusion. And so on.

Incidently, I'm Jewish too. Thanks for your thought-provoking question.

Answer 3

By their logic, they also shouldn't believe in any of the following either-
-That disease is caused by living organisms.
-The Big Bang
-"All men are created equal" The Bible supports slavery and the lesser rights of women.
-That the light of day is caused by the Sun.
-That the solar system is heliocentric, not geocentric
-Cellular degeneration (people living for over 1000 years)
-Dinosaurs
-The ecological Pyramid of Biomass (disproves that all of the Earth's living animals could have descended from only two of their kind, as each trophic level lower needs to have ten times the amount of mass to support the one above it. In other words, two mice couldn't support two snakes.)
-The bow-wow theory (this suggests that languages arose from onomatopoeias, instead of being created at the Tower of Babel.)

The list goes on and on. It's amazing how much some people deny just so they can go on happily believing the myths their ancestors cam up with thousands of years ago.

Answer 4

My husband teaches physics, and he doesn't see any conflict with newtons 3 laws of motion and creationism. Of course creationism is not taught in his school system dictated by the state board of education. Children must be fed bread (Newton's Laws) before they can eat meat (Relativity, Quantum mechanics)

Answer 5

no but i thinks there's a few quotes of einstein believing in a higher power(god). What we should stop teaching children, is lies to support a theory and stop mixing evolution up in science. Fact of the matter, there is more support to the earth being young with a worldwide flood. fact is you have faith certain things took place, that's not science..... Actually sounds like with your faith your kind of religious.

Answer 6

How about the existence of atoms? Should we teach that? After all, it's "only a theory". Never mind that atomic theory forms the whole basis of science.

Answer 7

Some, probably. This Creationist got tested on that the other day in physics.

Answer 8

I think Einsteins theory of physics is more refined...

Science is constantly refining and anti-dogmatic, while religion is supposedly stale and very dogmatic. They Preach dogma, but to survive they lend hands and lip-service to science.

Answer 9

Any and all forms of science should be taught because they are backed by creditable, plausible evidence.

Creationism should not be taught in school because
it is not backed by anything other than the bible

Answer 10

If you don\t give Kevin M the best answer award, ....man I'm still laughing!

Answer 11

You'll hurt their poor little brains!!! You cruel mean atheist!

EDIT:

"Kevin M- btw I am a theist, Jewish acctually."
LIES! That's just what the lying deceitful atheists would say!

I'll stop now. <3