Funny. I missed that, must have been after I give up on getting anything out of anyone and stopped checking the thread.
I started reading but stopped after the first sentence for obvious reasons.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You once asked me to explain as if to a 5 year old. Did you understand my explanation?
Where the Light shines the brightest?should have driven a stake through the heart of anti-science "education", but no, these people are determined to push America back to the Dark Ages.
Interesting. It seems Darwin was a bit of a theist. Wonder why his followers haven't been.
I like the optimism here, that school age children can learn to understand controversial scientific issues by exploring both sides
You can not have one without the other. You need both Paley and Darwin.should have driven a stake through the heart of anti-science "education", but no, these people are determined to push America back to the Dark Ages. I'm glad I don't live there.
Revamped "Anti-Science" Education Bills in U.S. Find Success
Then why do evolutionists object so strongly to creationism, or even intelligent design?
Funny. I missed that, must have been after I give up on getting anything out of anyone and stopped checking the thread.
I started reading but stopped after the first sentence for obvious reasons.
The problem is there really isn't "both sides" here. On the one hand, you have legitimate science. And on the other hand, you have people that flat out reject science because of beliefs in magic.
The day that creationists can bring forward a rigorous theory with both the same level of explanatory power as the ToE (and no, "goddidit" is not an explanation) and at least the same level of application in biology related fields is the day there will be "both sides".
Until then, creationists are firmly living in la-la land.
You can not have one without the other. You need both Paley and Darwin.
"Paley's Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy was one of the most influential philosophical texts in late Enlightenment Britain. It was cited in several parliamentary debates over the corn laws in Britain and in debates in the US Congress. The book remained a set textbook at Cambridge well into the Victorian era. Charles Darwin, as a student of theology, was required to read it when he did his undergraduate studies at Christ's College, but it was Paley's Natural Theology that most impressed Darwin even though it was not a set book for undergraduates. Portraits of Paley and Darwin face each other at Christ College still today.[7]" wiki
Ok so what about climate change? Do we teach the controversy or assume the scientific consensus is immutable?Because it is bad science or not science. Neither should be taught in place of, or alongside, science in science class.
You mean God
There is no theory of evolution
It's been my experience that Darwinians are the modern mythographers
Ok so what about climate change? Do we teach the controversy or assume the scientific consensus is immutable?
If ever Intelligent Design rises to the level of a scientific theory...“I do not think I hardly ever admired a book more than Paley’s Natural Theology: I could almost formerly have said it by heart.” (Charles Darwin, 1859. Letter to John Lubbock.)Darwin ultimately rejected intelligent design in favor of natural selection, that's a simple choice. Would we deny that choice to future generations because Darwin's theory is the only option?
I tend to equate *poof* Goddidit with magic.
Whatever you say there, chief. Good luck with that.
Then your experience sucks. Get new experience.
(Of course, I know that you're likely using some private definition of the term "Darwinian" and likely equating it with atheism in some way, so it's probably beside the point to begin with.)
It's never been a naturalistic epistemology, it was, is and always will be metaphysics. That would be for Intelligent Design to rise, that would be to drag it down to a base naturalistic worldview it opposes.If ever Intelligent Design rises to the level of a scientific theory...
Ok so what about climate change? Do we teach the controversy or assume the scientific consensus is immutable?
Huh?
Glad to hear that he retained a semblance of faith.A the time Origin was published, Darwin was a unorthodox Christian.
Darwin has been hugely influential (and detrimental) to Christian theology. There are plenty of books on creationism and intelligent design for those interested.Not sure what that has to do with the fact that Darwin is not some spiritual leader or whatever you seem to be implying.
Again, no idea what any of this has to do with the fact that Darwin is not a spiritual leader nor is he held a some sort of law giver or whatever straw man version you imagine him to be. That said, I see you're still using hyperbolic and emotional language rather than addressing any evidence for evolution.
Any chance you can actually address the evidence rather than attack people?
Right--exactly as God intended it.The doctrine, or teaching, that all change is the result of natural law not miraculous interposition. It's a presuppositional logic known as naturalism in Darwin's day and equivocated as science and evolution today.
That's what it's called but discussion of the Dover trial hasn't been part of the thread. The link in the OP was:This thread is about the Dover Trial.
But to dispense with this briefly -- there is no controversy to teach.
Unless he created life on earth about 6000 years ago.Right--exactly as God intended it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?