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.
@DogmaHunter has done a great job of showing the error of this line of thought. I'd like to ask one more thing - which view of creationism do you think should be taught as the opposite view of evolution? My guess is you think it should be your fundamentalist Christian view. But why? And which Christian creationist view (young earth, old earth, gap etc)? Why not Hindu, Islamic, Bahai or Jewish creationism?If nothing in biology makes sense without evolution, then teaching biology with the opposite views of evolution and creatiuon would show this and that a creationist view of biologywon't work.
The simple fact is that biologists can do there work without refernce to evolution. Biology does make sense without evolution.
But it's okay for you to tour the Holy Land, isn't it?Evolutionism is a science, its factual. There is lots of physical evidence. YEC is a religion, if they taught that they wouldn't have any evidence to present. They would just take the kids to the AIG museum. The smart kids would just fake a migraine that day!
He wouldn't take his own advice and "fake a migraine"?Of course. Why wouldn't it be?
In 1968, the US Supreme Court ruled on Epperson v. Arkansas, another challenge to these laws, and the court ruled that allowing the teaching of creation, while disallowing the teaching of evolution, advanced a religion, and therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the constitution. Creationists then starting lobbying to have laws passed that required teachers to Teach the Controversy, but this was also struck down by the Supreme Court in 1987 in Edwards v. Aguillard. Creationists then moved to frame the issue as one of intelligent design but this too was ruled against in a District Court in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in 2005.
The issue has remained contentious, with various US states debating, passing, or voting down alternative approaches to creationism in science classrooms. There is no bar in US law to creationism being taught in civics, current affairs, philosophy, or comparative religions classes.
Science needs to be taught in science class....it's kind of like asking "Why is WW2 taught in history class?" It's a question with a self-explanatory answer.
Science needs to be taught in science class.
Creationism needs to be taught in history class.
Kicking creationism out of school because it isn't science is like kicking gym class out of school because it isn't home economics.
Yes, it does.No, it doesn't...
That is correct.ThatRobGuy said:... there's no demonstrable, tangible evidence to support creationism,
What do you call history class?ThatRobGuy said:... therefore there's nothing to teach.
That is correct.
That's why it's not science ... it is a series of miracles whereby God brought mass and energy into existence, then raised it to its current level over a period of six days.
What do you call history class?
And as far as "nothing to teach," here's a copy/paste from another thread:
Let's see as much evidence for Millard Fillmore being our President as you have for evolution.The "provable"/"tangible" requirement exists for history class material as well.
You mean like you did, when you said "there's nothing to teach"?ThatRobGuy said:It seems that you just want to be able to inject your own personal beliefs into the public school curriculum.
Evolution is taught because the mindset is that there is no need for a God, so fits what into the agenda being pushed by secular education. We should teach both evolution and Intelligent Design in the schools!Why is evolution taught in our public schools? Should it be? Why or why not? I dont think it should be. I'm not saying creationism should be taught in our public schools even if I believe in creationism and think its a good idea in a perfect world. No Satan doesnt want creationism taught to our children so it will never be. I'm just saying that a theory that hasn't been 100% proven shouldn't be taught in our schools as scientific fact.
I mean around 18 years ago when I was in high school it was taught to me that we evolved from monkeys and it was taught to us as if it was a proven fact. Yet science has proven recently that we didn't evolve from monkeys scientists now think we evolved from something else. Well which is it? If evolution is such an ironclad piece of science than why did scientists get it wrong? When teaching evolution why not say that nobody knows exactly where we came from and that evolution is one theory that explains the origins of life?
I mean to an average scientist evolution has been proven and they deny that a God created the universe and to an average Christian scientist creationism has been proven and it's been proven that not only did a God create the universe but it was their God. Do you see what I'm saying? They can't both be right on the origins of life. Either we evolved or Christ created us. But I still argue that you cannot teach a theory as scientific fact and then when parts of it are proven false then say "It's still scientific fact we just got part of it wrong."
so the similarity between human and chimp is evidence for both common descent and non common descent? it doesnt make sense...That is a stupid idea. Just because there is an alternative explanation for evidence does not remove the fact that it is evidence. So, no, I strongly disagree with that statement, and I doubt it makes any better sense in your native language.
my signature link will show you otherwise.At best, what you are saying is true in such a restricted sense that your claim is almost meaningless. You appear to believe - or at least claim to believe - that since there is not 100% certainty that evolution happened, it is not a fact.
Well, only mathematical and logical “truths” have 100% certainty.
Evolution is certainly a “fact” in the sense that reasonable, thinking people use the term.
No. Pay attention.so the similarity between human and chimp is evidence for both common descent and non common descent? it doesnt make sense...
No, it doesn't...there's no demonstrable, tangible evidence to support creationism
No. Pay attention.
Statement 1: Certain observations can be evidence for more than one hypothesis or theory. For example, sea floor spreading was evidence for plate tectonics and for Earth expansion. The eventual victory of plate tectonic theory was because there was much additional evidence supporting it, while other evidence contradicted Earth expansion. This is all very basic stuff.
Statement 2: I see nothing significant about the similarity of human and chimp that is evidence for non-common descent. This is an idea you have which you have failed to support or demonstrate.
Statement 3: If you were able to provide solid support for your speculation then we would have a common situation in science: two competing hypotheses both with supporting evidence. We would then examine other available evidence. There is a wealth of material supporting common descent. There is practically none supporting non-common descent. Consequently the non-common descent hypothesis would be discarded.
Note: I have no idea what you mean by non-common descent. Did you really just mean special creation?
it all came from 'nothing' and over billions of years, chaos became order and things started taking shapes. Eventually there were rocks in space, and on some of those rocks came some gases which poofed life somehow, and now here we are.
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?