-
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.
What would be achieved if Creation Science replaced Evolution in biology lessons?
- Thread starter thinbo
- Start date
- Status
Bushido216
Well-Known Member
- Aug 30, 2003
- 6,383
- 210
- 39
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Then the USA would no longer hold the forefront of scientific research in the world
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
That we would replace teaching a valid theory as valid and instead teach a falsified theory as valid. What this would mean is setting the precedent of lying to kids in school on a massive scale. No good can come to any society when it teaches all kids a lie as though it is truth. Look at Nazi Germany teaching the lie of "Aryan Supremacy" or Communist Russia teaching the lie of Marxism.
Upvote
0
Bushido216
Well-Known Member
- Aug 30, 2003
- 6,383
- 210
- 39
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Since they've been scientifically refuted, I doubt they'd make much of an appearance in a science lessonBushido216 said:
.
.
.
I think that bringing a deity into Science is ridiculous. Too many people would disagree, and hence refute the REAL science.
Kids need to learn facts in science, bible stories in RE, and put the puzzle together themselves in whichever way they see most appropriate.
Upvote
0
Bushido216
Well-Known Member
- Aug 30, 2003
- 6,383
- 210
- 39
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
And I responded to "Creation Science". How so are they light years apart? This is how "Creation Science" was defined by "Creation Science" for the Arkansas law:ej said:
"(a) Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for creation and the inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: 91) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living things form a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanations of the earth's early geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and its living kinds."
Upvote
0
Late_Cretaceous
<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Creation science is a totally differnt thing then creationism?????
Wow I never new that.
How about teaching alchemy as an alternative to chemistry
Wow I never new that.
How about teaching alchemy as an alternative to chemistry
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Whoa! Let's slow down here. Ej is a theistic evolutionist and therefore isn't trying to play word games with us. I agree with you that Creation Science and creationism are the same thing under 2 different names, but let's give Ej a chance to explain his reasoning, OK?Late_Cretaceous said:
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
I'm sorry, but you don't have the female symbol by your name. Hard to tell without that (altho I bet it would be easy in personej said:1 - I'm a girl!
2 - I thought the 2 were different, my mistake
)Yeah, Creation Science is YEC and YEC is Creation Science. ICR is the "official" site of Creation Science, but if you notice AiG and ICR borrow each other's articles all the time. The differences between the two are too minor to matter. Creation Science is also the same as Harun Yahya; he plagiarizes ICR and AiG all the time.
ID is a bit different, altho Creation Science borrows a lot from ID -- particularly irreducible complexity and information.
Upvote
0
Bushido216
Well-Known Member
- Aug 30, 2003
- 6,383
- 210
- 39
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Well... I think that both me and lucaspa can be charged as being creationists just like the YECist's, we just argue the time and the method used.
But generally speaking no one is going to make that distinction.
But generally speaking no one is going to make that distinction.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Certainly the creationists aren't going to call us creationists!Bushido216 said:
Phillip Johnson in Darwin on Trial states early in the book that a "creationist" is "is simply a person who believes the world (and especially mankind) was designed and exists for a purpose." However, later in the book and in his other writings Johnson makes it clear that theistic evolutionists are not welcome!
Upvote
0
It would indeed be very easy in person...lucaspa said:I'm sorry, but you don't have the female symbol by your name. Hard to tell without that (altho I bet it would be easy in person
I'm certainly not your average surgeon
Upvote
0
Dracil
Well-Known Member
- Dec 25, 2003
- 5,005
- 245
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Well, I don't know, but I think it's better not to be associated with Creationists...lucaspa said:Certainly the creationists aren't going to call us creationists!
Phillip Johnson in Darwin on Trial states early in the book that a "creationist" is "is simply a person who believes the world (and especially mankind) was designed and exists for a purpose." However, later in the book and in his other writings Johnson makes it clear that theistic evolutionists are not welcome!
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Yes, it is easy to tell by picture.ej said:
But you are not that atypical as a surgeon. Sorry, but the programs I have been associated with -- both general surgery and orthopaedic surgery residencies -- have had several women in them. And about 60% of the medical school classes for the last 15 years I've been teaching at medical schools have been female.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Dracil said:
Probably. However, it does point out an inconsistency among the creationists, even the IDers. TEs would fit Johnson's definition of "creationist" yet he specifically excludes them.What it shows is that all forms of creationism are based on god-of-the-gaps and can't accept that God created thru the mechanisms discovered by science.
So, yes, it is better not to be associated with creationists. It's best to avoid that terrible theology.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
