neither. How about a class for science and a class for religious studies? That way students could learn about evolutionary science in SCIENCE class and then in RELIGIOUS class they could make up their own mind about the myriad of creation myths from around the globe. Not just the Biblical version. To me very distinct things that have no business bleeding into one another.
There are only two basic means by which life came into its existence and current form:
creation , evolution, (or some combination thereof).
Generally creationists are for discussing the scientific evidence for and against these theories. Usually, they are not trying to introduce various creation accounts into the classrooms. One can show the evidence against evolution and for the creation of an object without introducing a religious creation account. If a person wre discussing the possible origins for a specific object one can point to evidece for creation or the evolution of the object by studying the object and related issuaes surrounding it. This works for cameras as well as for photoreceptors in eyes.
Valis said: What hoobie? Gotta get the wrath of god involved instead of coming up with another solution? AND why isn't teaching religious myths and values at home not good enough? Is the faith of the average christian not able to withstand the onslaught of an hour's worth of looking at evolutionary science? Give is all a break and crawl back under the bridge from whence you trolled.
Generally creationists are not trying to censor out the evidence for evolution from the classrooms, but to provide a discussion of scientific evidence against it as well. Generall evolutionists in schools however want to censor out information against evolution. So who is trying to protect their beliefs from criticism?
Religion has no business in the scientific classroom period. How simple is that? And you notice it isn't the scientific community coming up w/the mess this thread addressed, but some wacko creationist who thought it best to remind everyone of their eternal damnation at not espousing the christian view in a public ( DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?) school room.
Valis said: so it would be possible that the Mayan or Hindu, or Buddhist version or creation plus evolutionary factors is right?
Most creationist organizations do not support the teaching of specific creation accounts in public schools (or if they do a discussion of different accounts, not just the biblical), but instead the scientific evidence for or against the creation or evolution of life itself. Most creationist organizations believe in the creation of basic animal types followed by limited micro-evolution with each basic kind. Such as the various breeds of cattle coming from a basic created cattle kind.
Creationism is unscientific because it is untestable and unfalsifiable. It should not be taught in classrooms. Trying to separate the religious component of creationism (and labeling it "intelligent design") is a joke, IMO.
Most creationist organizations do not support the teaching of specific creation accounts in public schools (or if they do a discussion of different accounts, not just the biblical),
and that would be fine...in a religious studies class where matters of faith are espoused and tossed around. NOT in a classroom where people are trying to study a sceince that grows in knowledge and DOES indeed change when new FACTS are found. To me there is a clear difference.
Valis said: Religion has no business in the scientific classroom period. How simple is that? And you notice it isn't the scientific community coming up w/the mess this thread addressed, but some wacko creationist who thought it best to remind everyone of their eternal damnation at not espousing the christian view in a public ( DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?) school room.
While religious worship may not have a place in the science classroom, the issue of origins does have a place in the scientific classroom. Actually the person whom this thread discussed sent scientific information along with the scriptural warning. I have seen no evidence that the person sending the information was asking for a "christian view" to be taught in a public school room, but the evidence for and against evolution and creation.
Creationism is unscientific because it is untestable and unfalsifiable. It should not be taught in classrooms. Trying to separate the religious component of creationism (and labeling it "intelligent design") is a joke, IMO.
Euphemism said: Creationists can try all they want to poke holes in the theory of evolution. But they have no alternative scientific theory to offer. Do you think that a science class can be developed off the first chapter of Genesis? I don't see how.
If and when there is actually a credible scientific alternative to evolution, I am entirely in favor of teaching it in the classroom. Until then, we have to stick with the best science we've got.
