Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Liberals object to any ideas or concepts that are not preapproved liberal ideas and concepts.
Tell you what. You prove that creation happened like the Bible says it did. Should be a piece of cake, you being a Rethug right winger and all. You being the one that says science is a liberal ploy to undermine the youth of America.
If evolution need not be proved, creation need not be proved. Is mentioning that there is an alternative theory so harmful, so objectionable that no student should be exposed to such an idea? Surely, SURELY, if the science of evolution is so concrete and irrefutable it doesn't matter that there is exposure to creationism, any student of even below average intelligence can easily see that the theory of evolution is correct. What is the fear that libs have?
The vast, vast majority of Americans? Really? Teach creationism in philosophy class, not science class.
The vast, vast majority of Americans aren't knuckle dragging anti-science people. The vast, vast majority of Americans recognize fable when they see it.
So I understand you and SeaWytch are saying it's OK to teach creationism as long as it's not in science class.
It depends on how it is being taught. You have to be careful because there IS a constitutional aspect. You cannot teach religion, but you can teach about religion.
I believe that religion should be taught about in schools. We are woefully ignorant about religion in this country as a recent Pew survey found.
- The average respondent answered 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions correctly.
- Just 2% of those surveyed answered 29 or more questions correctly (including just eight individuals, out of 3,412 surveyed, who scored a perfect 32);
- 3% correctly answered fewer than five questions (including six respondents who answered no questions correctly).
- Only 47% of the respondents were able to accurately identify the Dalai Lama as Buddhist
- Only 54% could identify the Quaran as the Muslim holy book.
I demand that my pet theory - that people in red states evolved from a less developed species of primate - be taught side-by-side with the current theory of evolution.
Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.
I look forward to seeing them start alchemy classes too.
Not a class in it, certainly, but a discussion on it is certainly appropriate.
In fact, they do that now.
Why are you scared shitless to let young minds ask questions?
Absolutely teach about ID, too. But, in a subject other than science, because ID, by definition, is not a scientific theory.I demand that my pet theory - that people in red states evolved from a less developed species of primate - be taught side-by-side with the current theory of evolution.
Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.
Your 'demand' is an absurd red herring, shared by nobody, which attempts to stifle debate on a topic that potentially rocks your belief system to your core.
Again, why are you so afraid?
Teach about religion, too.
But, never teach religion and never teach ID. Teach about them.
Absolutely teach about ID, too. But, in a subject other than science, because ID, by definition, is not a scientific theory.Over 90% of the public understand their is validity to a discussion of an Intelligent Design for the universe.
Your 'demand' is an absurd red herring, shared by nobody, which attempts to stifle debate on a topic that potentially rocks your belief system to your core.
Again, why are you so afraid?
That is debatable. Would not the force behind an Intelligent Design be perfectly aligned to and instrumental to science?
Because the schools have enough problems without teaching something in science class that isn't science.
Intelligent Design is the ultimate science.
You may disagree.
Let the young minds discuss it and stop being such a flat-earther.
Let them discuss it in social studies. If something isn't testable, it isn't science.
I kind of have mixed feelings about this.
Of course, creationism is absolute garbage, trying to sneak in Religion under the guise of psuedo-science.
But that said, I think the schools refusing to talk about it isn't going to stop little Johny Funditard from thinking it's true. He'll just assume they are hiding "the truth", since that's what they say at church. So I have no problem if the schools spend one day addressing it, and then addressing the flaws, then moving on to real science.
So you have the discussion in a comparative religion class...
Absolutely teach about ID, too. But, in a subject other than science, because ID, by definition, is not a scientific theory.
That is debatable. Would not the force behind an Intelligent Design be perfectly aligned to and instrumental to science?
what force is that?
it isn't science and doesn't belong in a science class.
That is debatable. Would not the force behind an Intelligent Design be perfectly aligned to and instrumental to science?
what force is that?
This is an excellent topic for discussion and debate in our institutions of learning.
Actually, it's not science, by definition. It's ABOUT science, but not science.Intelligent Design is the ultimate science.
You may disagree.
Let the young minds discuss it and stop being such a flat-earther.
Let them discuss it in social studies. If something isn't testable, it isn't science.
You want all to accept the underlying validity of your untestable theories on blind faith, as fundamental tenets of scientific discussion, but deny a discussion on other possible competing theories.
Regardless of what theory ends up to be true, it is absolutely part of science.
Will the Tennessee schools include this theory in their debates?
Lakota Indian Legends - Lakota Creation Myth
Liberals want to teach children that there is no God and cannot be a God. That's what they really want. Educators have promoted themselves to a position that they must undo whatever the student has learned in the home and church. It isn't that evolution is unquestioningly scientific and that's why it must be taught. What they want to instill is that it's wrong to even make the question as to whether evolution is the only correct theory and correct in all respects.
When men believed the earth was flat, it was wrong to even pose the question of it being round. Evolutionists want to put an end to asking the questions. Evolution is much like global warming. It's wrong to even pose the question as to why the models are turning out to be wrong. It's heresy to the faith. A question as to whether evolution is the only correct answer AND is correct in all respects requires a faith equal to the faith in creation. A faith without question.
Actually, it's not science, by definition. It's ABOUT science, but not science.Let them discuss it in social studies. If something isn't testable, it isn't science.
You want all to accept the underlying validity of your untestable theories on blind faith, as fundamental tenets of scientific discussion, but deny a discussion on other possible competing theories.
Regardless of what theory ends up to be true, it is absolutely part of science.
It IS great subject matter for philosophy, critical thought, etc.
I kind of have mixed feelings about this.
Of course, creationism is absolute garbage, trying to sneak in Religion under the guise of psuedo-science.
But that said, I think the schools refusing to talk about it isn't going to stop little Johny Funditard from thinking it's true. He'll just assume they are hiding "the truth", since that's what they say at church. So I have no problem if the schools spend one day addressing it, and then addressing the flaws, then moving on to real science.
So you have the discussion in a comparative religion class...not in a science class. It's not science, it's faith.
What are you talking about? The mythology of spontaneous irreducible complexity?
what force is that?
This is an excellent topic for discussion and debate in our institutions of learning.
Not when there is zero evidence for one side of the debate.
Will the Tennessee schools include this theory in their debates?
Lakota Indian Legends - Lakota Creation Myth
An excellent idea. Beats the spontaneous irreducible complexity of a cell rising from primordial ooze mythology.
