Skip to comments.Darwinists Trick Themselves in Texas
Posted on 03/30/2009 12:58:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Do you oppose the teaching of Evolution?
==Do you oppose the teaching of Evolution?
I oppose the teaching of evolution unopposed. If Darwood’s materialist creation myth is forced to contend with its main competition on the merits, it will collapse like a house of cards IMHO.
“I oppose the teaching of evolution unopposed.”
Finally, I think we almost agree on something. I think that creation and evolution should both be taught.
I’ll ignore your use of the word “unopposed” for now in the spirit of kumbaya.
global warming should also be taught with opposing views.
Do you oppose the teaching of the oblate spherical Earth unopposed? Should the spherical Earth and flat Earth both be taught?
“Should the spherical Earth and flat Earth both be taught?”
Not in science class.
The earth ‘looks’ flat. Students should understand how we reached the conclusion that is is round before the advent space travel. They shouldn’t simply parrot off science facts.
I do not claim to be a scientist...but since the advent of space travel, have we not gathered enough conclusive evidence to conclude that an oblate spherical earth is a fact rather than a theory?
Once either evolution or intelligent design achieves the same level of conclusive evidentiary support, I would support unopposed teaching of the same.
Amen to that! I know teachers who teach both sides, but they try to keep it on the down-low.
Creationism should not be taught in any class that calls itself “Science” class. Creationism is the antithesis of science.
Fixed it: Evolution should not be taught in any class that calls itself Science class. Evolution is the antithesis of science.
I’m sure your posts and comments wil go far to dispel the notion that teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution is not and in no way should be associated with “creationism and religion”.
The Temple of Darwinistic Materialism is a religion. Creation Science is based on God’s Word. It is a very specific hypothesis that explains and predicts the evidence far better than does the Evo-religion. As such, they should both be taught so students can see for themselves that Darwood’s materialistic creation myth is no match for biblical creation.
You just keep repeating that, loud and often. In no time at all you'll have people convinced you're not really a religious fanatic.
Science is based upon finding natural causes to explain natural phenomena.
Creationism is based upon discounting natural causes and attempting to explain any contradictions by supernatural agency.
Science is based upon not being married to any particular interpretation but being willing to go where the data takes you; thus no theory is ever “proven” but accepted provisionally awaiting further data to either reject or refine the theory.
Creationism is based upon blind adherence to a literal interpretation (where it serves), and attempting to fit the “round peg” of the data into the “square hole” of their adamant unchanging and inflexible assumptions of innerency in scriptural interpretation.
But it is not just Evolution you and your ilk oppose GGG. It is Astronomy, Physics and Geology.
Should those also not be taught in any class that calls itself “Science” for the identical reason that they also do not subject their data and theories to your literal interpretation?
Great--that's what science class is for; this is hardly a great victory for creationism. Note, though, that I highlighted scientific above. Any alternative explanation that is based on Genesis will not be legal. As a proud Texas Christian, I'll work to ensure that the bible stays out of science class.
Blah, blah, blah...
So I thought we were going to debate the relative merits of Creation vs. Evolution. I’m still waiting for you first argument.