YOUR VIEWS: Call to teach biblical creation as science

The News Letter ^ | 06 August 2008

[Soliton]

A DUP MLA has sparked controversy calling for creationism to be taught alongside evolution in science classes. Education Committee chair Mervyn Storey's demand comes amid fresh debate over the origins of mankind, in the run-up to the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's famous work On the Origin of Species

[Soliton]

The army of ignorance is on the march!

[the anti-liberal]

“Creationism” is not science, it’s theology.

[Soliton]

“Creationism” is not science, it’s theology.

According to you and the Supreme Court and every >100er

[pepsionice]

At the end of the day....how much will the average kid use from either side of this question...and the answer is “little”.

The sad fact is that kids need a heavy dose of business-related math, language skills (please, English), and and an idea how to move around in this world of ours.

I look back at the high school science I had...and the two classes I had to take in college....and it was all basically memorizing enough to pass tests. I have little that I really need to keep as important data for the rest of my life. So I’m not really putting much value in this entire argument.

[DungeonMaster]

What Christian would want a heathen public school teacher teaching his child the bible?

Homeschool!

[Soliton]

What Christian would want a heathen public school teacher teaching his child the bible?

Beats me. I figure they can't get them to go to church.

[Soliton]

I look back at the high school science I had...and the two classes I had to take in college....and it was all basically memorizing enough to pass tests.

A lot of us make a living off of science. And our interest began in school.

[the anti-liberal]

Calling it what it isn't isn't going to make it what it isn't.

But good luck anyway.

[Soliton]

Calling it what it isn't isn't going to make it what it isn't. But good luck anyway.

I was agreeing with you. ">100er" refers to an above average IQ.

[Liberty1970]

This article has the usual institutional ignorance and bigotry. Calling advocates of creation “flat-earthers” does not make evolutionism any more intellectually compelling. It just shows the bankruptcy of the evolutionary worldview.

And notice the article just speculates - it never documents that ‘biblical creation’ (as opposed to ID or anything else than dogmatic evolutionism) is just what is being proposed to be taught.

[Rick.Donaldson]

I don’t see a problem with teaching creationism in Sunday School, and evolution in school where you learn readin’, writin’ and ‘rithmitic.

I do see teaching creationism as a “science” since, technically, it isn’t BASED on science or “hard facts” (yet), but rather upon faith...

[Dutchboy88]

When you have to explain it, is he really >100?

[the anti-liberal]

I guess my IQ isn’t quite enough over 100 to recognize that... :^)

[Soliton]

When you have to explain it, is he really >100?

Be kind. I could have meant the price of oil

[Soliton]

I guess my IQ isn’t quite enough over 100 to recognize that... :^)

Don't feel bad. Maybe you'll be speaker of the house some day!

[the anti-liberal]

Or even President!

[the anti-liberal]

(Or at least nominated for the presidency by the MSM.)

[BedRock]

If something has to have a certain degree of “faith” to be believed, does that make it to a certain degree: firm belief in something for which there is not 100% proof?

[the anti-liberal]

You have to have a certain degree of 'faith' in each of your organs of perception, a certain degree of 'faith' in your mind's ability to stitch those disparate sources of perception together into a coherent image, let alone a certain degree of 'faith' that there's anything 'out there' to be perceived.

Science requires a certain degree of 'faith' in the processes that it discovers, as well as a certain degree of 'faith' in science itself as a means of understanding the world.

In fact, is there 100% proof that we are all not collectively or individually dreaming, and that science, religion, nature and all of it's laws, etc. are not simply features of that dream? When we sleep at night, are we just dreaming within a dream?

I think it's impossible to get away from a certain degree of 'faith.' Whether that 'faith' or belief is firm or or not is entirely up to the individual practicing his or her 'faith' or belief.