Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[BobRyan]

Observations of physical evidence and the results of experiments.

I think we can all live with that as "Science" and not religion.

Sadly that is not what we have when it comes to the two competing doctrines on origins.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not aware of any schools that teach 'evolutionism'

I am

 

[Speedwell]

I think we can all live with that as "Science" and not religion.

Sadly that is not what we have when it comes to the two competing doctrines on origins.

You still haven't told us what the two doctrines are. Presumably one is the theory of evolution, but evolution does not rule out divine creation as such so that can't be the other one. What is left but biblical creationism?

 

[BobRyan]

Creationism is religion.

so is evoluionism.

I would be just fine with schools only teaching observable science - but in that case no "doctrine on origins" in the science class unless they can reproduce it.

No its not.

Its against the sites rules to call science a religion.

As an atheist (which your profile says you are) do you define evolutionism as being "science" - do you read the rule as "you cannot call evolutionism a religion"???

As an atheist I can see why you might want the CF rules to use such a thumb-on-the-scales-in-favor-of-evolutionism definition for the term 'science' - but I think there are creationists that do not pour that meaning into the term "science".

When I said "So is evolutionism" - you responded with "Its against the sites rules to call science a religion" - which I never do.

But you apparently take the term "evolutionism" to mean "science" -- hence your false accusation.

Just to be clear -- science is not religion. And when people try to get it to be religion we end up with competing doctrines on origins -- that we have now.

 

[VirOptimus]

so is evoluionism.

I would be just fine with schools only teaching observable science - but in that case no "doctrine on origins" in the science class unless they can reproduce it.





When I said "So is evolutionism" - you responded with "Its against the sites rules to call science a religion" - which I never do.

But you apparently take the term "evolutionism" to mean "science" -- hence your false accusation.

The ToE is science yes, you denying it wont change the facts.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

if you look closely at page 1 of this thread - you can see a hint of how Christianity is denigrated when the mere mention of equal footing is proposed for the two doctrines on origins.

Total misreading, the general take was to question which religions creation story should be taught. In fact Christianity was only mentioned once and that in response to your "cool" statement.

 

[Speedwell]

so is evoluionism.

I would be just fine with schools only teaching observable science - but in that case no "doctrine on origins" in the science class unless they can reproduce it.





When I said "So is evolutionism" - you responded with "Its against the sites rules to call science a religion" - which I never do.

But you apparently take the term "evolutionism" to mean "science" -- hence your false accusation.

Just to be clear -- science is not religion. And when people try to get it to be religion we end up with competing doctrines on origins -- that we have now.

And you're playing an equivocation game with your fictitious entity "observational science" so it looks like you two are at a draw.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think we can all live with that as "Science" and not religion.

Sadly that is not what we have when it comes to the two competing doctrines on origins.

I think one of the good things science does is keep religion in check.

Without science, religions and false ideas would be rampant all over the earth.

It's when science goes up against the Bible, that science oversteps its bounds.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think one of the good things science does is keep religion in check.

Without science, religions and false ideas would be rampant all over the earth.

It's when science goes up against the Bible, that science oversteps its bounds.

Science is a method of understanding and describing physical reality, nothing more, nothing less.

Treating it like an entity is just animism.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Oh yes, but it's how the courts rule that matters (so far as this proposal is concerned). I wanted to make the point that the language of this bill apparently avoids the usual reason given for not allowing "Creation Science" to be taught.

Which matters little since the teaching of "Creation Science" in a science classroom has already been determined to be unconstitutional and not mentioning it specifically will not affect its legality for anyone who wishes to use your apparent logic.

 

[St. Helens]

ADMIN HAT ON

ADMIN HAT OFF​

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

After Staff Review
Thread is Now
Permanently Closed
RV: Flaming and Goading​

MOD HAT OFF​