Posted on 09/09/2007 8:50:09 PM PDT by monomaniac
Well of course. What's the problem with that?
The theory of evolution is a branch of science, while creationism is pure religion. And everybody knows it!
Next thing you know, they’ll be calling for math to be taught in math class, and English in English class.
Coyoteman, pulling the night shift for the voice of reason. Good on ya man. I don’t believe the world is 6,500 years old but I don’t have the energy to argue once the literalists get on this thread. You’ll be up all night. Good night!
I think everybody whose read anything on the topic “knows” evolution is a theory, not a fact. I want my children to hear all theories, not just the secular progressive’s theory.
Duuuh!
You are correct that the theory of evolution is a theory.
But you are incorrect if you think that there are other competing theories within science.
Creationism and ID are not scientific theories, as much as their proponents may claim that they are. They are just the latest attempts to try to get their religion taught in public schools. So far, these attempts have been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court (creation "science") and by a U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania (intelligent design).
KOOLAID-DRINKING INTREP
PING!
I like your tag line.
All theories? Are you serious? Do you understand what that means?
You also understand that gravity is a theory, not a fact, right? Do you also suggest teaching Aristotelian physics because you want your children to hear all theories?
I hope the private schools don’t take government money and don’t adopt government dictated curriculum. Look at what public money has done to European churches. Schools need to keep their freedom so they can fight the false doctrine of evolution.
I take it you mean religiously false, rather than scientifically false?
"The Christian-based school would have to teach the Ontario curriculum"
So would this include the Hindu creation theories as well?
Everyone also knows that the theory of evolution and science are based on the philosophy of naturalism with the following assumption that naturalism is then the ultimate arbiter of truth.
Or maybe not...
But no naturalist wants 'everyone' to know that or they wouldn't constantly pretend that the philosophical foundation of naturalism followed by the assumption that naturalism is then the ultimate arbiter of truth isn't an exercise in circular reasoning for 'science'.
They are scientific theories (whether you may want to argue on the merits is another topic; your personal preference, I would argue only on the merits, but then again it difficult to do rather than spew out adhominim fallacies..).
I would respect you more, if you were honest and just admit that you don’t believe that creation science holds up under the weight of emirical evidence (though I would argue othewise..), rather than relying on the trite and frankly old darwinist idea that creation “science” isn’t really scientificly based..
(Some of the origins of this theory are religious-supernatural in nature- yet we aren’t testing religion (God): we are testing empirical (or rather forensic) scientifically empirical evidence for/against both macro-evolution and creation theory and intelligent design theory)..So will you argue your point rather than trite adhominim attacks..! ????
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.