Arkansas House Votes to Allow Teaching of Creationism in Science Classes

[Speedwell]

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"???

It's your word--you can define it.

 

[BobRyan]

The theory of evolution is science, thats a fact.

Is it reproducible? observable in terms of rocks, dust, gas, sunlight turning into a horse over time - given enough time and chance? you know... the basics of actual science.

 

[VirOptimus]

Is it reproducible? observable in terms of rocks turning into a horse over time - given enough time and chance? you know... actual science.

Your mischaracterisation only shows your ignorance.

But the ToE is still a scientific theory.

 

[Speedwell]

Is it reproducible? observable in terms of rocks, dust, gas, sunlight turning into a horse over time - given enough time and chance? you know... the basics of actual science.

Evidence of those events can be examined and the observations are reproducible--the basis of actual science.

 

[dlamberth]

And yet - evolutionism is still taught in public schools. Given that they already have that breach - then find - creationism as well.

I completely and totally agree. Sky Woman and Turtle Island need to be taught in public schools along side Evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

Teaching Creationism or, more precisely, teaching "Creation science" has been ruled unconstitutional in several courts, but teaching of the existence of some alternate theories concerning the origin of the universe--turtles included--is not. Many elementary and secondary schools teach about the culture of pre-Columbian peoples, for example.

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.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

Christianity does not in general equal science deniers. Its a very small subset.

 

[BobRyan]

the observations are reproducible

Observations of what "are reproducible" .

I can look out my window and see a tree - and claim that my observation is reproducible but that does not mean "observed" or "reproduced" either the creation event or the much imagined evolution of life on Earth event from a lifeless rock.

 

[BobRyan]

Christianity does not in general equal science deniers. Its a very small subset.

objecting to the "thumb-on-the-scale" does not equal "science denier"

 

[Speedwell]

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.

You don't have the authority to speak for Christianity as a whole in this context.

 

[VirOptimus]

objecting to the "thumb-on-the-scale" does not equal "science denier"

Your posts certainly deny science.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

You don't have the authority to speak for Christianity as a whole in this context.

And I don't need to -- the evidence on page one speaks for itself.

 

[BobRyan]

Your posts certainly deny science.

Not in real life - rather my posts appeal to science - I stated at the outset I would be fine with leaving religion out of the science class.

 

[Speedwell]

Observations of what "are reproducible" .

I can look out my window and see a tree - and claim that my observation is reproducible but that does not mean "observed" or "reproduced" either the creation event or the much imagined evolution of life on Earth event from a lifeless rock.

Observations of physical evidence and the results of experiments. The scientific method does not require that the events themselves being investigated be reproduced.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not in real life - rather my posts appeal to science - I stated at the outset I would be fine with leaving religion out of the science class.

And that means what? Should the ToE be taught?

 

[Speedwell]

And I don't need to -- the evidence on page one speaks for itself.

There is no general denigration of Christianity anywhere in this thread so far as I can see. Biblical creationists? That's a different story (unless you think that biblical creationists are the only "real" Christians...)

 

[sfs]

Is it reproducible? observable in terms of rocks, dust, gas, sunlight turning into a horse over time - given enough time and chance? you know... the basics of actual science.

Where did you get your notion of what constitutes actual science? How many technical scientific papers have you written?

ETA: I ask because your idea of what science is bears little similarity to what scientists think it is.

 

[Albion]

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.

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.

 

[Albion]

You don't have the authority to speak for Christianity as a whole in this context.

It's a "Discussion board!"

 

[Speedwell]

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.

What two doctrines on origins are you referring to? Presumably one is 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?