The creationists are BACK

[NYcarbineer]

Is this a theory of creation worthy of treating as science?

Long before the world was created there was an island, floating in the sky, upon which the Sky People lived. They lived quietly and happily. No one ever died or was born or experienced sadness. However one day one of the Sky Women realized she was going to give birth to twins. She told her husband, who flew into a rage. In the center of the island there was a tree which gave light to the entire island since the sun hadn't been created yet. He tore up this tree, creating a huge hole in the middle of the island. Curiously, the woman peered into the hole. Far below she could see the waters that covered the earth. At that moment her husband pushed her. She fell through the hole, tumbling towards the waters below.
Water animals already existed on the earth, so far below the floating island two birds saw the Sky Woman fall. Just before she reached the waters they caught her on their backs and brought her to the other animals. Determined to help the woman they dove into the water to get mud from the bottom of the seas. One after another the animals tried and failed. Finally, Little Toad tried and when he reappeared his mouth was full of mud. The animals took it and spread it on the back of Big Turtle. The mud began to grow and grow and grow until it became the size of North America.

Then the woman stepped onto the land. She sprinkled dust into the air and created stars. Then she created the moon and sun.

...more here...

 

[Jack Fate]

I BELIEVE THERE IS AN INTELLIGENCE TO THE UNIVERSE.
My faith in God is so strong that I do not have to deny science to practice and live it.
Maybe you do but don't force that on those of us educated in fact.
Are you that STUPID Jack?
Seems that way. Everything we post goes 20 feet over your pin head.
Show me Einstein's thesis, tests, study and research on ID.
Uh, well DUH JACK, there isn't any.

You really are way too easy.


In the past few years numerous scientists, scientific journals, and popular authors have published a slew of articles and books ripping the concept of Intelligent Design. While not specifically denying the theory of evolution, the theory of Intelligent Design postulates that the incomprehensible vastness and complexity of the Cosmos are the result of design on the part of an inconceivably intelligent being.

Many scientists dismiss any concept of an intelligent designer as unscientific, and claim that any recognition of or belief in such a designer does harm to the scientific method. However, the greatest scientist who ever lived, Albert Einstein, did not share this outlook. His years of studying the universe not only led him to come up with the Theory of Relativity, but also led him to believe, in his own words, in a "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe," in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists" (Isaacson 2007: 44). He once wrote:
The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence (ibid. 46).
In a 1930 essay entitled "What I Believe," Einstein wrote:
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man (ibid. 47).
He also made the following statement in an essay entitled "The Religiousness of Science," which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title "The World As I See It":
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire (Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added]). These statements are highly significant, considering that no scientist of any worth would dismiss Einstein as superstitious or unscientific. Moreover, the above quotes can't be dismissed as the product of a religious bias on Einstein's part, because, except for a brief period of "deep religiousness" when he was twelve, Einstein rejected organized religion (ibid.).

According to the April 16 2007 issue of Time magazine, in his youth Einstein "rejected at first his parents' secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world (Isaacson 2007: 44)." The magazine further reported:
Einstein's parents...were "entirely irreligious." They did not keep kosher or attend synagogue, and his father Hermann referred to Jewish rituals as "ancient superstitions," according to a relative (ibid.).

As mentioned, the 12-year-old Albert briefly embraced strict Judaism, but he later wrote: "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true" (ibid. 46).

Einstein's belief in an intelligent designer thus derived not from a pre-conceived religious bias, but from the phenomenal insights into the Universe that he possessed as the most brilliant scientist who ever lived. His recognition of a creator refutes the recent claims by atheists that belief in any sort of god is unscientific.

Einstein and Intelligent Design

Einstein also denied quantum theory because of that belief. Massive strides in science have also been discovered since Einstein’s time period. Your whole argument is an appeal to authority and rather pointless. The fact that Einstein believed in god means nothing as to whether or not that view is scientific.

And who decides that believing God created the universe is not "scientific"?

 

[Jack Fate]

There is absolutely zero evidence that you have a brain.

You've lost the debate. Statements like that only underline the fact that you have nothing.

You obviously missed the point. Where is the evidence you have a brain? You don't have any. You've never seen it. You've never felt it. Show us the evidence.

 

[Newby]

You really are way too easy.


In the past few years numerous scientists, scientific journals, and popular authors have published a slew of articles and books ripping the concept of Intelligent Design. While not specifically denying the theory of evolution, the theory of Intelligent Design postulates that the incomprehensible vastness and complexity of the Cosmos are the result of design on the part of an inconceivably intelligent being.

Many scientists dismiss any concept of an intelligent designer as unscientific, and claim that any recognition of or belief in such a designer does harm to the scientific method. However, the greatest scientist who ever lived, Albert Einstein, did not share this outlook. His years of studying the universe not only led him to come up with the Theory of Relativity, but also led him to believe, in his own words, in a "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe," in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists" (Isaacson 2007: 44). He once wrote:
The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence (ibid. 46).
In a 1930 essay entitled "What I Believe," Einstein wrote:
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man (ibid. 47).
He also made the following statement in an essay entitled "The Religiousness of Science," which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title "The World As I See It":
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire (Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added]). These statements are highly significant, considering that no scientist of any worth would dismiss Einstein as superstitious or unscientific. Moreover, the above quotes can't be dismissed as the product of a religious bias on Einstein's part, because, except for a brief period of "deep religiousness" when he was twelve, Einstein rejected organized religion (ibid.).

According to the April 16 2007 issue of Time magazine, in his youth Einstein "rejected at first his parents' secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world (Isaacson 2007: 44)." The magazine further reported:
Einstein's parents...were "entirely irreligious." They did not keep kosher or attend synagogue, and his father Hermann referred to Jewish rituals as "ancient superstitions," according to a relative (ibid.).

As mentioned, the 12-year-old Albert briefly embraced strict Judaism, but he later wrote: "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true" (ibid. 46).

Einstein's belief in an intelligent designer thus derived not from a pre-conceived religious bias, but from the phenomenal insights into the Universe that he possessed as the most brilliant scientist who ever lived. His recognition of a creator refutes the recent claims by atheists that belief in any sort of god is unscientific.

Einstein and Intelligent Design

Einstein also denied quantum theory because of that belief. Massive strides in science have also been discovered since Einstein’s time period. Your whole argument is an appeal to authority and rather pointless. The fact that Einstein believed in god means nothing as to whether or not that view is scientific.

And who decides that believing God created the universe is not "scientific"?

And that's the heart of the matter right there, Jack. They have decided that intelligent design is not 'scientific' because they have no way of studying it, we are not advanced enough, and maybe never will be, so it's easier to dismiss it and say it's 'just religion'. These people are arguing against straw men that they've created in their own mind. No one is denying evolution within species, no one is saying that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive of each other. Gadawig, or whatever the hell his name is, thinks he has a corner on the market by believing in both science and God, which is ridiculous. I haven't seen one person in this thread say that science is not valid. It's a ridiculous argument, that when taken to the basics, makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Jack Fate]

Einstein also denied quantum theory because of that belief. Massive strides in science have also been discovered since Einstein’s time period. Your whole argument is an appeal to authority and rather pointless. The fact that Einstein believed in god means nothing as to whether or not that view is scientific.

And who decides that believing God created the universe is not "scientific"?

And that's the heart of the matter right there, Jack. They have decided that intelligent design is not 'scientific' because they have no way of studying it, we are not advanced enough, and maybe never will be, so it's easier to dismiss it and say it's 'just religion'. These people are arguing against straw men that they've created in their own mind. No one is denying evolution within species, no one is saying that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive of each other. Gadawig, or whatever the hell his name is, thinks he has a corner on the market by believing in both science and God, which is ridiculous. I haven't seen one person in this thread say that science is not valid. It's a ridiculous argument, that when taken to the basics, makes no sense whatsoever.

Circular thinking is common in cults and among leftists. I forget who it was, but one of them in this thread said something like the theory of evolution is proof of evolution. They talk like they're high all the time.

 

[Gadawg73]

Einstein also denied quantum theory because of that belief. Massive strides in science have also been discovered since Einstein’s time period. Your whole argument is an appeal to authority and rather pointless. The fact that Einstein believed in god means nothing as to whether or not that view is scientific.

And who decides that believing God created the universe is not "scientific"?

And that's the heart of the matter right there, Jack. They have decided that intelligent design is not 'scientific' because they have no way of studying it, we are not advanced enough, and maybe never will be, so it's easier to dismiss it and say it's 'just religion'. These people are arguing against straw men that they've created in their own mind. No one is denying evolution within species, no one is saying that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive of each other. Gadawig, or whatever the hell his name is, thinks he has a corner on the market by believing in both science and God, which is ridiculous. I haven't seen one person in this thread say that science is not valid. It's a ridiculous argument, that when taken to the basics, makes no sense whatsoever.

No, let me go real slow for you:
I believe in God.
I believe in the scientific method when testing science. When tested with the scientific method I believe science can determine the validity of the science and determine if they are theories.
Evolution is a scientific theory.
ID CAN NOT be tested by the scientific method. ID is belief only.
You admit ID can not be studied. Well, NO SHIT.
NO religous belief can be studied. Religous beliefs are not science.
Religion is beliefs ONLY.
Science that conflicts with religous beliefs is DENIED all the time by those with religous beliefs.
Show us one time you did not support those here that claim we are ANTI CHRISTIAN, GOD HATERS, DENIERS OF GOD.
One time. You support that. YOU are the ones claiming we believe in evolution BECAUSE WE HATE GOD.
Get your facts straight there Moe. We do. We believe in science.

 

[Gadawg73]

Was Darwin testing with carbon dating and radioactive decay?
He found some fossils and figured out how to get 'sponsors' to send him on trips. After he worked this great scam for 'research', others joined him in his theory (similar to the scientific grants for global warming, no grants to prove it isn't happening), so they could get some of that money too. It is amazing how many people want to prove the Lord doesn't exist, and when rational in most areas of their lives will go to great expense to 'prove' they don't have to live according to His plan (they don't want to deal with His punishments).
Anyway, now 'scientists' focus on Darwin's "theory", and try to support it with scientific experiments. There is no money in showing that evolution can't work (species changing into different species). So, it goes back to a great scam that still works and the suckers that are willing to support it for very "unscientific" reasons. They are not interested in the truth.

So every Biology teacher in high schools, universities and colleges world wide teach evolution as fact "for the money"?
All a great scam to make $$$.
You have it backwards. Many on your side use RELIGION as a great scam for the $$$.
That is why facts scare the hell out them and you buy it HOOK, LINE AND SINKER.
Science is a threat to organized religion and always has been.
You are the one not interested in the truth.

Do teachers get paid? They teach what the gov't tells them to teach (the same gov't paying grants for those scientists interested in 'proving' evolution). If you want to provide facts (other than "imagine"), I will listen. If you want to declare that a species adapting is evolution, I really don't want to hear it.

You never went to college and that is your problem.
They do not teach what government tells them to there.

 

[FA_Q2]

You really are way too easy.


In the past few years numerous scientists, scientific journals, and popular authors have published a slew of articles and books ripping the concept of Intelligent Design. While not specifically denying the theory of evolution, the theory of Intelligent Design postulates that the incomprehensible vastness and complexity of the Cosmos are the result of design on the part of an inconceivably intelligent being.

Many scientists dismiss any concept of an intelligent designer as unscientific, and claim that any recognition of or belief in such a designer does harm to the scientific method. However, the greatest scientist who ever lived, Albert Einstein, did not share this outlook. His years of studying the universe not only led him to come up with the Theory of Relativity, but also led him to believe, in his own words, in a "spirit manifest in the laws of the universe," in a "God who reveals Himself in the harmony of all that exists" (Isaacson 2007: 44). He once wrote:
The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the humans in it, is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence (ibid. 46).
In a 1930 essay entitled "What I Believe," Einstein wrote:
To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man (ibid. 47).
He also made the following statement in an essay entitled "The Religiousness of Science," which appeared in a collection of his essays published in English under the title "The World As I See It":
The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation....His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an INTELLIGENCE of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection. This feeling is the guiding principle of his life and work, in so far as he succeeds in keeping himself from the shackles of selfish desire (Updike 2007: 77 [emphasis added]). These statements are highly significant, considering that no scientist of any worth would dismiss Einstein as superstitious or unscientific. Moreover, the above quotes can't be dismissed as the product of a religious bias on Einstein's part, because, except for a brief period of "deep religiousness" when he was twelve, Einstein rejected organized religion (ibid.).

According to the April 16 2007 issue of Time magazine, in his youth Einstein "rejected at first his parents' secularism and later the concepts of religious ritual and of a personal God who intercedes in the daily workings of the world (Isaacson 2007: 44)." The magazine further reported:
Einstein's parents...were "entirely irreligious." They did not keep kosher or attend synagogue, and his father Hermann referred to Jewish rituals as "ancient superstitions," according to a relative (ibid.).

As mentioned, the 12-year-old Albert briefly embraced strict Judaism, but he later wrote: "Through the reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true" (ibid. 46).

Einstein's belief in an intelligent designer thus derived not from a pre-conceived religious bias, but from the phenomenal insights into the Universe that he possessed as the most brilliant scientist who ever lived. His recognition of a creator refutes the recent claims by atheists that belief in any sort of god is unscientific.

Einstein and Intelligent Design

Einstein also denied quantum theory because of that belief. Massive strides in science have also been discovered since Einstein’s time period. Your whole argument is an appeal to authority and rather pointless. The fact that Einstein believed in god means nothing as to whether or not that view is scientific.

And who decides that believing God created the universe is not "scientific"?

The definition of science. I don’t see your reasoning here. ID is not science. I never said it was not valit. It is valid philosophy. Why do you require ID to be scientific?

Science requires study, evidence and research. ID makes a supposition and asserts that it is tru without any of those.

Let’s try this: What makes YOU believe that ID is scientific?

 

[Newby]

And who decides that believing God created the universe is not "scientific"?

And that's the heart of the matter right there, Jack. They have decided that intelligent design is not 'scientific' because they have no way of studying it, we are not advanced enough, and maybe never will be, so it's easier to dismiss it and say it's 'just religion'. These people are arguing against straw men that they've created in their own mind. No one is denying evolution within species, no one is saying that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive of each other. Gadawig, or whatever the hell his name is, thinks he has a corner on the market by believing in both science and God, which is ridiculous. I haven't seen one person in this thread say that science is not valid. It's a ridiculous argument, that when taken to the basics, makes no sense whatsoever.

No, let me go real slow for you:
I believe in God.
I believe in the scientific method when testing science. When tested with the scientific method I believe science can determine the validity of the science and determine if they are theories.
Evolution is a scientific theory.
ID CAN NOT be tested by the scientific method. ID is belief only.
You admit ID can not be studied. Well, NO SHIT.
NO religous belief can be studied. Religous beliefs are not science.Religion is beliefs ONLY.
Science that conflicts with religous beliefs is DENIED all the time by those with religous beliefs.
Show us one time you did not support those here that claim we are ANTI CHRISTIAN, GOD HATERS, DENIERS OF GOD.
One time. You support that. YOU are the ones claiming we believe in evolution BECAUSE WE HATE GOD.
Get your facts straight there Moe. We do. We believe in science.

What I bolded is false, your limited ability to see past the religion/science divide obviously precludes you from understanding why.

 

[Newby]

So every Biology teacher in high schools, universities and colleges world wide teach evolution as fact "for the money"?
All a great scam to make $$$.
You have it backwards. Many on your side use RELIGION as a great scam for the $$$.
That is why facts scare the hell out them and you buy it HOOK, LINE AND SINKER.
Science is a threat to organized religion and always has been.
You are the one not interested in the truth.

Do teachers get paid? They teach what the gov't tells them to teach (the same gov't paying grants for those scientists interested in 'proving' evolution). If you want to provide facts (other than "imagine"), I will listen. If you want to declare that a species adapting is evolution, I really don't want to hear it.

You never went to college and that is your problem.
They do not teach what government tells them to there.

How naive you are. Have you ever looked into how decisions are made as to what is or is not included in U.S. school text books? Have you seen who decides that? Have you seen how it's determined which text books are going to be bought and used in schools?
Give me a break.

 

[Jack Fate]

And who decides that believing God created the universe is not "scientific"?

And that's the heart of the matter right there, Jack. They have decided that intelligent design is not 'scientific' because they have no way of studying it, we are not advanced enough, and maybe never will be, so it's easier to dismiss it and say it's 'just religion'. These people are arguing against straw men that they've created in their own mind. No one is denying evolution within species, no one is saying that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive of each other. Gadawig, or whatever the hell his name is, thinks he has a corner on the market by believing in both science and God, which is ridiculous. I haven't seen one person in this thread say that science is not valid. It's a ridiculous argument, that when taken to the basics, makes no sense whatsoever.

No, let me go real slow for you:
I believe in God.
I believe in the scientific method when testing science. When tested with the scientific method I believe science can determine the validity of the science and determine if they are theories.
Evolution is a scientific theory.
ID CAN NOT be tested by the scientific method. ID is belief only.
You admit ID can not be studied. Well, NO SHIT.
NO religous belief can be studied. Religous beliefs are not science.
Religion is beliefs ONLY.
Science that conflicts with religous beliefs is DENIED all the time by those with religous beliefs.
Show us one time you did not support those here that claim we are ANTI CHRISTIAN, GOD HATERS, DENIERS OF GOD.
One time. You support that. YOU are the ones claiming we believe in evolution BECAUSE WE HATE GOD.
Get your facts straight there Moe. We do. We believe in science.

We believe in science also. That is where you stumble. Your definition of what is science is not the final authority. Are scientists allowed to believe in ID in your little world?

 

[konradv]

Do teachers get paid? They teach what the gov't tells them to teach (the same gov't paying grants for those scientists interested in 'proving' evolution). If you want to provide facts (other than "imagine"), I will listen. If you want to declare that a species adapting is evolution, I really don't want to hear it.

You never went to college and that is your problem.
They do not teach what government tells them to there.

How naive you are. Have you ever looked into how decisions are made as to what is or is not included in U.S. school text books? Have you seen who decides that? Have you seen how it's determined which text books are going to be bought and used in schools?Give me a break.

Sure, creationists/IDers try to get there philosophy into science texts where it doesn't belong. Give you a break?!?! I think not. Teach your kids what you want at home or church but, as my HS bio teacher said, "You don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it". A good idea because, those who oppose evolutionary theory often make themselves look foolish by misrepresenting it. A good example is the contention that one species turns into another, when the truth is slow DIVERGENCE from a common anscestor.

 

[Jack Fate]

Einstein also denied quantum theory because of that belief. Massive strides in science have also been discovered since Einstein’s time period. Your whole argument is an appeal to authority and rather pointless. The fact that Einstein believed in god means nothing as to whether or not that view is scientific.

And who decides that believing God created the universe is not "scientific"?

The definition of science. I don’t see your reasoning here. ID is not science. I never said it was not valit. It is valid philosophy. Why do you require ID to be scientific?

Science requires study, evidence and research. ID makes a supposition and asserts that it is tru without any of those.

Let’s try this: What makes YOU believe that ID is scientific?

ID doesn't have to be "scientific" according to you to be valid. That is my point. My mind isn't the one that is closed.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well then, I don’t see where I misconstrued your statements but I was under the impression from the last few pages of your posts that you thought ID was scientific. Of course, scientific has nothing to do with validity. ID is more than possible and you can believe whatever you feel like believing. I would never advocate for something different. It is aggravating though when ID’ers try and assert that belief is scientific.

 

[Newby]

Well then, I don’t see where I misconstrued your statements but I was under the impression from the last few pages of your posts that you thought ID was scientific. Of course, scientific has nothing to do with validity. ID is more than possible and you can believe whatever you feel like believing. I would never advocate for something different. It is aggravating though when ID’ers try and assert that belief is scientific.

Are you saying that intelligent design will never be able to be scienfically studied?

 

[Newby]

You never went to college and that is your problem.
They do not teach what government tells them to there.

How naive you are. Have you ever looked into how decisions are made as to what is or is not included in U.S. school text books? Have you seen who decides that? Have you seen how it's determined which text books are going to be bought and used in schools?Give me a break.

Sure, creationists/IDers try to get there philosophy into science texts where it doesn't belong. Give you a break?!?! I think not. Teach your kids what you want at home or church but, as my HS bio teacher said, "You don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it". A good idea because, those who oppose evolutionary theory often make themselves look foolish by misrepresenting it. A good example is the contention that one species turns into another, when the truth is slow DIVERGENCE from a common anscestor.

Nobody is arguing evolution within species, there is nothing to 'believe' there. The problem comes when people try to use evolution to somehow prove that the Bible is incorrect by insinuating the man 'evolved' from some other creature, or that all living things evolved from one beginning 'spark' of life. That has not been proven. Evolution as it is today does not disprove anything about intelligent design.

 

[Dr.Drock]

How naive you are. Have you ever looked into how decisions are made as to what is or is not included in U.S. school text books? Have you seen who decides that? Have you seen how it's determined which text books are going to be bought and used in schools?Give me a break.

Sure, creationists/IDers try to get there philosophy into science texts where it doesn't belong. Give you a break?!?! I think not. Teach your kids what you want at home or church but, as my HS bio teacher said, "You don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it". A good idea because, those who oppose evolutionary theory often make themselves look foolish by misrepresenting it. A good example is the contention that one species turns into another, when the truth is slow DIVERGENCE from a common anscestor.

Nobody is arguing evolution within species, there is nothing to 'believe' there. The problem comes when people try to use evolution to somehow prove that the Bible is incorrect by insinuating the man 'evolved' from some other creature, or that all living things evolved from one beginning 'spark' of life. That has not been proven. Evolution as it is today does not disprove anything about intelligent design.

Totally agree.

However not be able to disprove something doesn't make it a viable topic in a science class.

 

[Jack Fate]

Well then, I don’t see where I misconstrued your statements but I was under the impression from the last few pages of your posts that you thought ID was scientific. Of course, scientific has nothing to do with validity. ID is more than possible and you can believe whatever you feel like believing. I would never advocate for something different. It is aggravating though when ID’ers try and assert that belief is scientific.

What if it's true? If it doesn't fit your idea of what is "scientific", does that mean it would not be valid even though it would be true? Do you see how a closed mind locks you out of any further possibility? No one knows for sure how the universe was created. Man's understanding is limited at best.

 

[Jack Fate]

Sure, creationists/IDers try to get there philosophy into science texts where it doesn't belong. Give you a break?!?! I think not. Teach your kids what you want at home or church but, as my HS bio teacher said, "You don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it". A good idea because, those who oppose evolutionary theory often make themselves look foolish by misrepresenting it. A good example is the contention that one species turns into another, when the truth is slow DIVERGENCE from a common anscestor.

Nobody is arguing evolution within species, there is nothing to 'believe' there. The problem comes when people try to use evolution to somehow prove that the Bible is incorrect by insinuating the man 'evolved' from some other creature, or that all living things evolved from one beginning 'spark' of life. That has not been proven. Evolution as it is today does not disprove anything about intelligent design.

Totally agree.

However not be able to disprove something doesn't make it a viable topic in a science class.

And you cannot prove that evolution is true.

 

[Newby]

Sure, creationists/IDers try to get there philosophy into science texts where it doesn't belong. Give you a break?!?! I think not. Teach your kids what you want at home or church but, as my HS bio teacher said, "You don't have to believe it, but you do have to understand it". A good idea because, those who oppose evolutionary theory often make themselves look foolish by misrepresenting it. A good example is the contention that one species turns into another, when the truth is slow DIVERGENCE from a common anscestor.

Nobody is arguing evolution within species, there is nothing to 'believe' there. The problem comes when people try to use evolution to somehow prove that the Bible is incorrect by insinuating the man 'evolved' from some other creature, or that all living things evolved from one beginning 'spark' of life. That has not been proven. Evolution as it is today does not disprove anything about intelligent design.

Totally agree.

However not be able to disprove something doesn't make it a viable topic in a science class.

That's fine, as long as the science class doesn't say that evolution explains the origins of human life or implies that human life evolved from a completely different species therefore negating the concept of an intelligent designer.