createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
After having 5 or 6 people directly explain that the content in Of Pandas and People never changed beyond the name of the concepts, Gradyll still doesn't understand that the book contained, and still contains, religious content. What is so hard to understand?
It doesn't magically make content non-religious just because you call it something else.
And that's exactly what the judge ruled: ID is an inherently religious concept because it is a mere rebranding of creationism.
Why don't you understand that?
you obviously have not read the content, I posted a link 2 times stating that the content is not religious. So much in fact that ken ham is opposed to the movement. Why speak out agaist ID? Unless they were doing just that, taking the Bible out of it.
secondly and more importantly, pandas and people is not being actively sought out to be taught in schools anymore. I don't think. I think they have a specific curiculum for teaching the controversy, only. Pandas and people are from dover, and thats sort of outdated.
update: Ken ham not completely against it, just critical of it's limitations...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2005/10/18/president-bush-deeper-issues
Last edited:
Upvote
0