1 edit
Originally posted by DasaWhat do you think of Barton's claim - mentioned in the OP - that "the entire debate on creation and evolution" in the U.S. happened back in the 18th century?
Its an absolute joke that for over 50years the great debate of whether to teach the kids creationism or evolution in the class room is still going on.
The joke is that we have false evolution in one corner and false religion in the other corner trying to to convince the other of their origin of life theories.
When we speak of creationism ......why is Chri understood Vedic knowledge coming about by speculation and fabrication by unqualified persons.
Originally posted by DasaPutting your theory about Christianity being a "false religion" to one side for a moment, do you think that the U.S. is a “Christian nation” as the man cited in the OP claims?
The joke is that we have false evolution in one corner and false religion in the other corner trying to to convince the other of their origin of life theories.
Originally posted by DasaThe effort is not to teach Christianity or any false religion in our public
Its an absolute joke that for over 50years the great debate of whether to teach the kids creationism or evolution in the class room is still going on.
The joke is that we have false evolution in one corner and false religion in the other corner trying to to convince the other of their origin of life theories.
When we speak of creationism ......why is Chri ...[text shortened]... understood Vedic knowledge coming about by speculation and fabrication by unqualified persons.
schools. It is to allow the teachers to present to the students the
problems with the theory of evolution and to present an alternate
theory of intelligent design for how things came about without even
telling the students who or what the designer might be. There would
be no religious teaching at all.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsintelligent design is not a valid alternate theory since intelligent design is not science. it can't be falsified.
The effort is not to teach Christianity or any false religion in our public
schools. It is to allow the teachers to present to the students the
problems with the theory of evolution and to present an alternate
theory of intelligent design for how things came about without even
telling the students who or what the designer might be. There would
be no religious teaching at all.
if you can come up with a valid alternative theory that explains more of the observed phenomenon than the theory of evolution, you may be able to either influence modifications to the theory of evolution or influence replacing it with a whole new theory.
good luck in your travels. of course, it would require some reading of (gasp!) science books.
Originally posted by FMFIt is your prejudices that make you bear that in mind. A child not
Bearing in mind the cultural and religious significance of "intelligent design", it should certainly be in the curriculum for religious studies or theology.
trained in the Holy Bible and the Genesis account would not see it
that way.
Originally posted by RJHindsRecognizing the cultural and religious significance of "intelligent design", and my belief that it should certainly be in the school curriculum, is - you think - a sign of my "prejudices"? How so?
It is your prejudices that make you bear that in mind. A child not
trained in the Holy Bible and the Genesis account would not see it
that way.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsThere are no problems with evolution, apart from creationists not liking it,
The effort is not to teach Christianity or any false religion in our public
schools. It is to allow the teachers to present to the students the
problems with the theory of evolution and to present an alternate
theory of intelligent design for how things came about without even
telling the students who or what the designer might be. There would
be no religious teaching at all.
but creationists (especially young earth creationists including you) are
anti-science as a whole.
And there is no theory of intelligent design.
You can't teach creationism in science because creationism isn't science.
Even if it was right it still wouldn't be science.
And you can't teach creationism without 'mentioning religion' because you
have to put a god in as the designer or otherwise you have to allow evolution
to happen somewhere else to develop the advanced aliens who then come and
design us.
I.D. is creationism with a few sciency buzzwords thrown in, it's religion, it's unfalsifiable,
it makes no predictions, it can't be tested, it isn't a theory, and it isn't science, it can't
be taught as science, thus has no place in any science curriculum.
And as I say, there are no problems with evolution, no controversy to teach.
There is no scientific alternative to evolution and no need for one.
Originally posted by FMFOkay, in that case I am with you. I thought you meant you did not want it there. 😏
Recognizing the cultural and religious significance of "intelligent design", and my belief that it should certainly be in the school curriculum, is - you think - a sign of my "prejudices"? How so?
Originally posted by FMFOne major point: I consider the founding fathers to be people like Jefferson, Washington, Ben Franklin. There is a big problem therein. Darwin's theories came out in the mid 18th century, while the three I mentioned were long dead by that time so there could never have been a discussion about evolution theory by the 'founding fathers'.
Perhaps one of the best-known advocates of the “Christian nation” theory in the U.S. is Texan author and evangelist David Barton. Among his recent claims are that the Founding Fathers had the entire debate over creation and evolution and that the they explicitly rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
http://www.economist.com/node/21541718
Any thoughts on Barton's arguments?
Originally posted by RJHindsJust exactly who were these founding fathers to discuss Darwin? Don't you understand the phrase 'founding fathers'? They came about in the late 1700's not the mid 18's.
I see him as a man interested in uncovering the true history of this
great nation, which has been rewritten by the naturalists and liberals.
Our founding fathers were very knowledgeable men and not the
backwood farmers as liberals like to make out. I believe it is possible
that they had already had the entire debate on creation and evolution
based on t ...[text shortened]... t. However, we should allow him to answer that question himself
rather than speculate on it.
Originally posted by googlefudgeTheory of Intelligent Design
There are no problems with evolution, apart from creationists not liking it,
but creationists (especially young earth creationists including you) are
anti-science as a whole.
And there is no theory of intelligent design.
You can't teach creationism in science because creationism isn't science.
Even if it was right it still wouldn't be science. ...[text shortened]... ersy to teach.
There is no scientific alternative to evolution and no need for one.
http://www.crystalinks.com/intelligentdesign.html
Science of Intelligent Design
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832
Top Questions on Intelligent Design
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
Originally posted by sonhouseI have already pointed out the ideas were there long before Darwin
One major point: I consider the founding fathers to be people like Jefferson, Washington, Ben Franklin. There is a big problem therein. Darwin's theories came out in the mid 18th century, while the three I mentioned were long dead by that time so there could never have been a discussion about evolution theory by the 'founding fathers'.
came along and wrote his book.