Conservative Leader John Tory: Evolution Must be Taught in Science Class; Creation only for Rel...

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | September 6, 2007 | John-Henry Westen and Elizabeth O'Brien

[JSDude1]

I will whenever I present evidence for creation~!

[scarface367]

There is evidence for it, whether your or my interpretations of the evidence matches is another topic..

Then by all means show us this evidence

[GunRunner]

lets start from the beginning and look at this scientific evidence objectively and EMPIRICALLY; what part of empirical don’t you understand?

You stated specifically that you would want all points of view taught, including creationism.

My question is since the underlying theory behind creationism is the existence of an all powerful supernatural creator, how could that be studied empirically? Sure you could study rocks and genes, but what about the creator; do you study him/her/it empirically?

[taxesareforever]

The theory of evolution is a branch of science

It is a branch of fiction and should be taught in literature.

[taxesareforever]

I take it you mean religiously false, rather than scientifically false?

Just false, unless of course evolution is your religion which it appears it is, and therefore is religiously false.

[Turret Gunner A20]

RE: # 3

Next thing you know, they’ll be calling for math to be taught in math class, and English in English class.

Well, they should teach it somewhere. So far they don't apper to be teaching them very well anywhere.

[A6M3]

My children were forced to listen to teachers teaching evolution. It was no problem, I just told them to pretend to believe the fairy tale and pass the tests which they did. They now teach their children to do the same, which they do, and nobody believes in evolution.

[razzle]

You and the coyote have not read (or comprehended) any of the scientific evidence against darwinism and for intelligent design. Go ahead and denigrate and make fun of “creationism”, soon the truth will come out and your phony darwinism will come crashing down on your heads (like marxism and freudism have already done).

[Coyoteman]

...soon the truth will come out and your phony darwinism will come crashing down on your heads (like marxism and freudism have already done).

Darwinism: A doomed theory since 1859!

LOL!

[razzle]

“Darwinism: A doomed theory since 1859!”

Actually, darwinism had more credibility in 1859. Darwin and others like him, thought the cell was just a glob of protoplasm, now we know it is more complex than most big cities. Many other advances also repudiate the ability of darwinism to explain away this complexity (and of course still be consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that can NEVER be violated). And I don’t even need to mention the complete lack of transitional fossils that worried darwin at the time and he stated that these fossils would eventually be found (and haven’t).

[Coyoteman]

Many other advances also repudiate the ability of darwinism to explain away this complexity (and of course still be consistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics - that can NEVER be violated).

False. See the following links from Index to Creationist Claims, edited by Mark Isaak.

• CF001. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution.
  • CF001.1. Systems left to themselves invariably tend toward disorder.
  • CF001.2. The second law of thermodynamics, and the trend to disorder, is universal.
  • CF001.3. Instructions are necessary to produce order.
  • CF001.4. The second law is about organized complexity, not entropy.

And I don’t even need to mention the complete lack of transitional fossils that worried darwin at the time and he stated that these fossils would eventually be found (and haven’t).

Sorry, the fossils have been found. Lots of them.

Creationists try to wave them away but that doesn't make them disappear! And more are found every year.

[spyone]

I have made no representations as to believing in Darwinism. I have limited knowledge in this area. I do know a fair bit about geology though, and I know the earth is older than 6,500 years old. There is no scientific debate on this point at all. Funny, the creationists believe the 6,500 number despite the bible being silent on the matter. Being a creationist is not mutually exclusive from believing the earth is millions or billions of years old.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Interesting that Canada subsidizes Catholics and no other Churches.

How do they justify that?

(Too many Catholic voters?)