Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

ID is not science and the Dover trial truly showed that. Calling something a theory doesn't make it one. There is no science behind it. The founding fathers had a lot of 18th century ideas that no longer apply today. BTW one of the founders sought wisdom in the Qu'ran as well. Should we teach that in schools?

 

I say let them speak to creationism before going on to evolution.

Creation class~ 10 minutes of a Monday should pretty much cover all the information pertinent to the subject.

Evolution class~ The rest of the school year at a minimum to cover the accumulated materials.

 

evolution is scientific fact, just like gravity

also like gravity there is a theory of how we evolved, that is the theory part

- - - Updated - - -

as long as they include all the ID myths including FSM (not just the Muslim, Christians and Jewish version)

the more appropriate place to teach these myths is in Sunday school, don't cha think?

.

 

Science isn't about "perspective". Creationism isn't science and doesn't belong in the science class room.

As for you idiotic question, how does a student independently verify atomic theory? Does that mean we shouldn't teach the structure of atoms in science class?

 

An entire post predicated on ignorance of what a scientific theory is.

 

I agree.

Mythology class should be an elective, and teaching of this mysterious intelligent design theory should be taught along with myths about Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

Intelligent design is nonsense, a made up theory to combat science as science demonstrates how utterly silly the ancient creationists myths are. There exists not s single shred of evidence some floating man in the sky created the pieces for evolution.

 

Intelligent design is science? Really?

Tell me, what science backs the claim that some invisible deity created everything? What science explains how some supreme being placed on this earth the building blocks of flora and fauna?

 

Creationism is not a theory. It isn't even a testable hypothesis.

 

It is not a theory. It is made up nonsense.

There is tangible and verifiable evidence for the theory of evolution. There is no evidence that the made up Abrahamic god somehow billions of years ago laid the foundation for the development of life.

 

Intelligent design is not science because it is not falsifiable.

Also ID and Creationism are one and the same.

 

No. ID science is not myth. It's just an alternate theory. As previously stated, it is different from Creationism. Try again.

Former Oxford professor, Antony Flew, would disagree with you. He was a staunch atheist until 2004 when ID theory convinced him to shift his perspective to become a deist in keeping with his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads.

You're still confusing ID with Creationism. As were the people in your trial, from what I'm reading. Which doesn't surprise me. Postmodern people have been conditioned to believe that God and science are on opposing sides despite the fact that this was not the case for most of history. The modern west is filled with materialists who can no longer reconcile the two as being compatible. And as such, they've developed a hive-mind blind spot.

Can you find quotes of the Founding Fathers recommending teaching the Quran in schools? There's your answer.

 

Do you realize that even hardened, anti-religious cynic Richard Dawkins concedes the possibility of intelligent design? He just limits it to aliens from outer space. Which only moves the origin of life elsewhere. It doesn't explain it.

 

Creationism is a form of ID. But not all ID is Creationism. Learn the difference.

 

Turning to a religious philosopher who found God late in life but not the God of Christians for defining science is like going to a medical librarian for open heart surgery. Show me science in I'D anything that is science. By the way the people on trial in Dover included the guy who literally wrote the book on ID. As for reading it in schools I never made that claim. I said founders found wisdom in it.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no science in intelligent design.

 

Your statement was that intelligent design was science.

That statement is patently false. There is not a shred of evidence that woudl suggest that the Christian mythological being created anything, up to and including the building blocks that became life on earth.

If people want their children to be unintelligent morons that think that the Harry Potter of the sky waved his wand and started everything, then they should teach them as much at home, but for the sheer and utter foolishness that is intelligent design to be taught as legitimate theory and science in school is a laughable joke.

 

"Blah blah blah blah blah blah..... I completely ignored the point about Dawkins because I'm not actually interested in understanding what's most true but only in promoting what is cynical and anti-God because I think it makes me cooler than other people...... blah blah blah blah blah....."

Did I get that about right?

Wow, are you calling Dawkins a liar?

 

No, that does not sound right.

Your statement was that intelligent design is science. That statement is patently false. Intelligent design is mythology. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that supports the claim that an invisible, supernatural being in the sky created life as we know it.

If you have a shred of evidence to support this claim that Christian cult dogma is science, then post a link to it. By all means demonstrate that your statement, that intelligent design is science, is correct.

 

There is no difference. All of the Intelligent Design textbooks were created by taking Creationism textbooks and just replacing "Creationist" with "Intelligent Design Proponents".

It's so blatantly obvious that one of the major texts included a typo of "CreationIntelligent Design Proponentsists"

 

If he said it is science yes he is a liar.

 

I'll be honest, I'm sceptical of anything coming out of Mother Jones. It makes FOX, even MSNBC look totally reliable.

This *can* be a bit of an iffy one. No, kids certainly shouldn't be told in school that the Bible provides "scientific proof that the earth is 6,000 years old" (<--- from the article), but kids should also know what creationism is. There's a difference between indoctrinating children and teaching them something. I had a course that largely focused on the pre-1865 South, particularly since 1776. I learned about the Old South, I wasn't indoctrinated. Just the same, kids should know wtf creationism is. It's sort of a fine line - they should be taught creationism like they would be taught classic physics, but they also shouldn't be taught creationism like they're taught Norse or Greek mythology.

This is obviously a 'hot' subject, but they shouldn't be taught evolution like they're taught classic physics, either. Many people are just as dogmatic about evolution (and the big bang theory) as some are about creationism. Evolution is, without a doubt, the most well-evidenced and the best theory on the origin of man in existence, but it has flaws and gaps and so should be taught as the best theory on the origin of man, not like someone is taught classic physics, or geometry.

 

Please post something from mother Jones that was proven false or retract your slander

 

true.. FSM is a form of ID

 

I did not read the article yet but I will. I have no problem with creationism being taught in schools as long as it is taught as a philosophy like all others. Give the students the freedom to choose.

 

Are they public schools? Their funding ought to be cut for teaching fairy tales.

 

If that article is accurate, I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around it. Perhaps the school should be fined for teaching is as fact.