how would you feel if a creationist taught your kids science?

"13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"

13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.


Do you like it that public school teachers do not teach children about the flaws with the theory of evolution and where it falls apart? Or that none of them teach children that Darwin said the only evidence that could possibly support his theory would be found in the fossil record which he said, IF his theory were true, the majority of fossils would be "in between" specimens, neither fully one species or another but ones showing that one species was in the process of turning into another one? Yet the FACT is that even though the fossil record has been quadrupled since Darwin, there are ZERO "in between" fossils at all and that every single fossil ever found is a KNOWN species and not an "in between" of one species turning into another? Not only are the majority of fossils NOT the "in betweens" Darwin predicted would exist in the fossil record -there isn't even ONE! Were your kids taught THAT in public school? Of course not -but let's pretend teaching our kids crap you approve of isn't a detriment to human knowledge!

I don't want religion taught as science -but I also don't want science treated as if it were a religion and scientists were gods either. The theory of evolution is seriously flawed and if Darwin were alive today, he would be the first to admit it. The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be one either. But science is not a religion and it NEVER requires my FAITH. I don't ever bear ANY burden to explain why I refuse to believe in a THEORY. I only accept proven FACTS -theories can be interesting, suggestive or even ridiculous -but they are ALWAYS unproven and NEVER facts. Which is why they are called THEORIES and not FACTS. Scientific THEORIES are NEVER something that requires MY explanation as to why I don't fall down and worship at that altar. I do not EVER challenge scientific FACTS -they are what they are! And there are NO scientific facts that can ever have ANY impact on my religious beliefs! I do not fear gains in scientific knowledge -at all. Wish I could say the same for those on the left.

The theory of evolution really is the primary religion of the left. And they have ONLY so firmly glommed onto it because they think it neatly cuts out any role for a Supreme Being -and they will cling to that no matter what problems and flaws are found with the theory. And they will because they fear the next scientific advancement in knowledge will not so easily dismiss the role of God in the equation. That is the ONLY reason they are so off the wall whacko on the subject when anyone tells the truth about the theory and says it is seriously and evenly fatally FLAWED -which it is. Not realizing that even if the theory were true, it would have ZERO impact on anyone's religious beliefs! I don't care if it true or not -only the left CARES about that. I only care about what is scientifically PROVEN -but the left only cares about what theory will best eliminate a role for God in their OPINION. An opinion that isn't shared by those with religious beliefs anyway since there are no scientific facts that can prove or disprove RELIGIOUS FAITH! "Faith" is that which is believed with NO PROOF at all! And it has NO ROLE whatsoever in SCIENCE!

The left will not tolerate ANY challenge to their theory they love only because they think it cuts out any role for a Supreme Being -and they are AFRAID the next theory grounded in better scientific facts MIGHT NOT! TOUGH SHIT -that is NOT how scientific truth is determined. What you WISH were true does not and cannot ever MAKE it true! Clinging to a theory in spite of its flaws can ONLY delay any advances in scientific knowledge. Those who cling to the theory of evolution in spite of more than 40 known MAJOR flaws with the theory and at least 2 dozen scientific facts that outright contradict major portions of it -are the new flat earthers. They FEAR any further scientific challenge to their "religion", will not tolerate any scientific challenge to it -and I mean ANY SCIENTIFIC challenge to it, not a religious one. And they won't and can't because they are politically invested into THIS ONE. And that means any further advancement in scientific knowledge about the origins of life on this planet have been set back for at least two centuries and maybe longer. Only the left becomes politically invested in a scientific theory because those with no religious beliefs will still search for SOMETHING to believe in. So scientists become their gods and their theories becomes their bibles. And it is provably BAD for the benefit of man, is a known detriment to the advancement of scientific knowledge and the advancement of our species.

Scientific FACTS are what they are. They NEVER require anyone's faith, they NEVER require my BELIEF -as if it were my BELIEF that makes them TRUE! They must FIRST be proven TRUE before I ACCEPT it as proven FACT. Notice in that sentence there is no role for my BELIEF! Only my ACCEPTANCE in proven FACT. But the left actually demands the opposite. The theory of evolution requires FAITH just like creationism does. And FAITH is "belief in something without proof it is true". They are both RELIGIOUS beliefs and not scientific FACTS at all -but the theory of evolution actually requires the greater leap of faith. (an issue for another thread) I don't EVER mind if a science teacher shows respect for the religious beliefs of their students -because it is ALWAYS possible to teach SCIENCE without denigrating anyone's religious beliefs. The left seems to think that is somehow IMPOSSIBLE but it is not.

I object FAR MORE to public school teachers refusing to teach the TRUTH about Darwinism -warts and all -and instead try to foist off the LIE that it is somehow "proven fact" when it not is NOT, but it is actually a badly flawed theory that attempted to explain EVERYTHING with an overly simplistic postulation and ended up explaining NOTHING. It will NEVER, NEVER, EVER be "fact" because of these KNOWN, FATAL flaws with the theory. Were your kids taught THAT?

Even if you are one of the fruitcakes who worship at the altar of Darwinism -you still can't get around the scientific FACT that there is absolutely nothing "natural" about the notion that inanimate, unconscious, nonliving materials will somehow "naturally" produce a conscious, self aware, living organism. The person who can prove THAT will be THE biggest name in science, a name that will live forever in the annals of man's history -not just science. But in fact man has spent nearly his entire existence trying to prove that is not only possible but "natural" -meaning "seen to occur in nature". For something to be "natural", it must actually occur in nature. And what man has REALLY proven is that IF the origin of life is that nonliving, unconscious, inanimate materials gave rise to a living organism -there is absolutely NOTHING "natural" about it whatsoever because it has never once been seen to occur in nature EVER. There is more evidence that the origin of life was the result of alien life seeding our planet than the ridiculous notion that nonliving materials somehow "naturally" produced a living organism. A magical property that promptly disappeared again and was never again seen to occur in nature! Seriously, they do NOT teach rational and critical thinking in public schools anymore -they INDOCTRINATE instead. The reason that allowing government control of what your kids are taught in school is always a really bad idea. What your kids will REALLY be taught is determined by who has political control of the educational process AND their political agenda. And nothing else. What the "I worship at the evolution altar" whacko crowd cannot accept is the fact I am not the one who fears further scientific advancements and knowledge -because science can neither prove NOR disprove ANY of my religious beliefs. But further scientific gains sure as hell can disprove the "religion" of the left and THAT is something they will NOT tolerate at all. For NO other reason than the FACT they so greatly fear that further scientific gains will not let them so easily insist there is no role for a Supreme Being. They won't let go of this fatally flawed theory until like the Vatican-FACT can no longer be denied. It took CENTURIES before science advanced enough that the Vatican could no longer deny the earth was not flat. The left who are so politically invested in this theory they demand people's FAITH in it -have actually set back human knowledge and scientific advancement as well. And THEY control our public schools.

Crap is CRAP. Religion is not science and people like you can really get that one. You can wrap your head around that one. But you cannot get that science is not a religion because for you it is. And it is a religion that people like you demand the BLIND FAITH of everyone else to pretend it is somehow "proven fact" when in fact it is a scientifically KNOWN fatally flawed theory. But since most people do NOT go on the advanced sciences -politically indoctrinating them to this "religion" only benefits the political agenda of one side. The only side that thinks keeping people IGNORANT somehow benefits them.
 
"13 percent of biology teachers back creationism"

13 percent of biology teachers back creationism - Technology & science - Science - LiveScience - msnbc.com

Personally, if it was shown that they refused to teach actual science in the classroom I would work to have them removed and their teaching license revoked. If they separated their beliefs and their teaching then its all good.


Do you like it that public school teachers do not teach children about the flaws with the theory of evolution and where it falls apart? Or that none of them teach children that Darwin said the only evidence that could possibly support his theory would be found in the fossil record which he said, IF his theory were true, the majority of fossils would be "in between" specimens, neither fully one species or another but ones showing that one species was in the process of turning into another one? Yet the FACT is that even though the fossil record has been quadrupled since Darwin, there are ZERO "in between" fossils at all and that every single fossil ever found is a KNOWN species and not an "in between" of one species turning into another? Not only are the majority of fossils NOT the "in betweens" Darwin predicted would exist in the fossil record -there isn't even ONE! Were your kids taught THAT in public school? Of course not -but let's pretend teaching our kids crap you approve of isn't a detriment to human knowledge!

I don't want religion taught as science -but I also don't want science treated as if it were a religion and scientists were gods either. The theory of evolution is seriously flawed and if Darwin were alive today, he would be the first to admit it. The Bible is not a science book and was never intended to be one either. But science is not a religion and it NEVER requires my FAITH. I don't ever bear ANY burden to explain why I refuse to believe in a THEORY. I only accept proven FACTS -theories can be interesting, suggestive or even ridiculous -but they are ALWAYS unproven and NEVER facts. Which is why they are called THEORIES and not FACTS. Scientific THEORIES are NEVER something that requires MY explanation as to why I don't fall down and worship at that altar. I do not EVER challenge scientific FACTS -they are what they are! And there are NO scientific facts that can ever have ANY impact on my religious beliefs! I do not fear gains in scientific knowledge -at all. Wish I could say the same for those on the left.

The theory of evolution really is the primary religion of the left. And they have ONLY so firmly glommed onto it because they think it neatly cuts out any role for a Supreme Being -and they will cling to that no matter what problems and flaws are found with the theory. And they will because they fear the next scientific advancement in knowledge will not so easily dismiss the role of God in the equation. That is the ONLY reason they are so off the wall whacko on the subject when anyone tells the truth about the theory and says it is seriously and evenly fatally FLAWED -which it is. Not realizing that even if the theory were true, it would have ZERO impact on anyone's religious beliefs! I don't care if it true or not -only the left CARES about that. I only care about what is scientifically PROVEN -but the left only cares about what theory will best eliminate a role for God in their OPINION. An opinion that isn't shared by those with religious beliefs anyway since there are no scientific facts that can prove or disprove RELIGIOUS FAITH! "Faith" is that which is believed with NO PROOF at all! And it has NO ROLE whatsoever in SCIENCE!

The left will not tolerate ANY challenge to their theory they love only because they think it cuts out any role for a Supreme Being -and they are AFRAID the next theory grounded in better scientific facts MIGHT NOT! TOUGH SHIT -that is NOT how scientific truth is determined. What you WISH were true does not and cannot ever MAKE it true! Clinging to a theory in spite of its flaws can ONLY delay any advances in scientific knowledge. Those who cling to the theory of evolution in spite of more than 40 known MAJOR flaws with the theory and at least 2 dozen scientific facts that outright contradict major portions of it -are the new flat earthers. They FEAR any further scientific challenge to their "religion", will not tolerate any scientific challenge to it -and I mean ANY SCIENTIFIC challenge to it, not a religious one. And they won't and can't because they are politically invested into THIS ONE. And that means any further advancement in scientific knowledge about the origins of life on this planet have been set back for at least two centuries and maybe longer. Only the left becomes politically invested in a scientific theory because those with no religious beliefs will still search for SOMETHING to believe in. So scientists become their gods and their theories becomes their bibles. And it is provably BAD for the benefit of man, is a known detriment to the advancement of scientific knowledge and the advancement of our species.

Scientific FACTS are what they are. They NEVER require anyone's faith, they NEVER require my BELIEF -as if it were my BELIEF that makes them TRUE! They must FIRST be proven TRUE before I ACCEPT it as proven FACT. Notice in that sentence there is no role for my BELIEF! Only my ACCEPTANCE in proven FACT. But the left actually demands the opposite. The theory of evolution requires FAITH just like creationism does. And FAITH is "belief in something without proof it is true". They are both RELIGIOUS beliefs and not scientific FACTS at all -but the theory of evolution actually requires the greater leap of faith. (an issue for another thread) I don't EVER mind if a science teacher shows respect for the religious beliefs of their students -because it is ALWAYS possible to teach SCIENCE without denigrating anyone's religious beliefs. The left seems to think that is somehow IMPOSSIBLE but it is not.

I object FAR MORE to public school teachers refusing to teach the TRUTH about Darwinism -warts and all -and instead try to foist off the LIE that it is somehow "proven fact" when it not is NOT, but it is actually a badly flawed theory that attempted to explain EVERYTHING with an overly simplistic postulation and ended up explaining NOTHING. It will NEVER, NEVER, EVER be "fact" because of these KNOWN, FATAL flaws with the theory. Were your kids taught THAT?

Even if you are one of the fruitcakes who worship at the altar of Darwinism -you still can't get around the scientific FACT that there is absolutely nothing "natural" about the notion that inanimate, unconscious, nonliving materials will somehow "naturally" produce a conscious, self aware, living organism. The person who can prove THAT will be THE biggest name in science, a name that will live forever in the annals of man's history -not just science. But in fact man has spent nearly his entire existence trying to prove that is not only possible but "natural" -meaning "seen to occur in nature". For something to be "natural", it must actually occur in nature. And what man has REALLY proven is that IF the origin of life is that nonliving, unconscious, inanimate materials gave rise to a living organism -there is absolutely NOTHING "natural" about it whatsoever because it has never once been seen to occur in nature EVER. There is more evidence that the origin of life was the result of alien life seeding our planet than the ridiculous notion that nonliving materials somehow "naturally" produced a living organism. A magical property that promptly disappeared again and was never again seen to occur in nature! Seriously, they do NOT teach rational and critical thinking in public schools anymore -they INDOCTRINATE instead. The reason that allowing government control of what your kids are taught in school is always a really bad idea. What your kids will REALLY be taught is determined by who has political control of the educational process AND their political agenda. And nothing else. What the "I worship at the evolution altar" whacko crowd cannot accept is the fact I am not the one who fears further scientific advancements and knowledge -because science can neither prove NOR disprove ANY of my religious beliefs. But further scientific gains sure as hell can disprove the "religion" of the left and THAT is something they will NOT tolerate at all. For NO other reason than the FACT they so greatly fear that further scientific gains will not let them so easily insist there is no role for a Supreme Being. They won't let go of this fatally flawed theory until like the Vatican-FACT can no longer be denied. It took CENTURIES before science advanced enough that the Vatican could no longer deny the earth was not flat. The left who are so politically invested in this theory they demand people's FAITH in it -have actually set back human knowledge and scientific advancement as well. And THEY control our public schools.

Crap is CRAP. Religion is not science and people like you can really get that one. You can wrap your head around that one. But you cannot get that science is not a religion because for you it is. And it is a religion that people like you demand the BLIND FAITH of everyone else to pretend it is somehow "proven fact" when in fact it is a scientifically KNOWN fatally flawed theory. But since most people do NOT go on the advanced sciences -politically indoctrinating them to this "religion" only benefits the political agenda of one side. The only side that thinks keeping people IGNORANT somehow benefits them.

I am certainly not as passionate about this subject as you but I think you made quite a few strong points. I like that you are an independant thinker who considers the evidence and makes his own conclusions in spite of the prevailing opinion. I agree that the emperor (evolution) is not fully dressed.
 
I am fine with frazzledgear's concern about teaching evolution in public schools as long as the issues are taught in a liberal arts classroom, in a course such as Philosophy of Science and or Comparative Religions.
 
I am fine with frazzledgear's concern about teaching evolution in public schools as long as the issues are taught in a liberal arts classroom, in a course such as Philosophy of Science and or Comparative Religions.

I dont know fraz's position on what should be taught, other than he wants evolution to be shown for the useful but incomplete tool that it is.

and I dont know anyone that couldnt get something out of comparative religion class. even an atheist like me.
 
If he taught creationism, I would demand my children be allowed to switch classes, or schools. If he taught evolution, i do not care what he believes, as long as he teaches my kids science, not religion. Creationism is a religious belief, evolution is a scientific fact.
 
I am fine with frazzledgear's concern about teaching evolution in public schools as long as the issues are taught in a liberal arts classroom, in a course such as Philosophy of Science and or Comparative Religions.

I dont know fraz's position on what should be taught, other than he wants evolution to be shown for the useful but incomplete tool that it is.

and I dont know anyone that couldnt get something out of comparative religion class. even an atheist like me.

:) Thank you. You are a perfect illustration of a scientific thinker like Einstein who, unlike some, kept an open mind about all things. While he might not embrace or endorse the thoughts and perceptions of others, he never ridiculed or disrespected them. And he himself knew that Evolution could explain only so much and no more. He understood the gaps in understanding of our origins, development, existence, and possibilities that "Darwinism" simply cannot answer.

He did not make science his religion because he knew that it could answer only a tiny fraction of questions that there are to be answered.

And he was intelligent and open minded enough to see a harmony, unity, and system to the universe that he could not come to believe was by pure coincidence. Therefore he rejected the title of "Atheist" though he did not believe in a personal "God" or supernatural deity.

But he did accept the possibility of some kind of eternal cosmic intelligence out there guiding the process.

And that has always been what I expect of a science teacher in regard to Creationism or I.D. I don't want him to teach it or even necessarily to bring it up. But neither do I want him to deny it to his students. If he does, he is teaching them to be closed minded and that makes him a terrible science teacher.

Hats off to frazzledgear too. I may not agree with every single point, but I admire somebody who is thinking about this stuff rationally, without prejudice, and leaving room for yet unknown possibilities.
 
Last edited:
Until science can come up with a plausible theory for how the substance of the universe came to be in the first place, the theory of a Creator or Intelligent Designer is just as plausible as any other theory.

They just aren't plausible scientific theories. Again, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural force. Therefore, you can't fit ID into the scientific method.

I haven't tried to fit it into a scientific method. I have consistently stated that a Creator, Creationism, I.D. are not science and have no place in science curriculum.

But when a member makes a flat out statement that energy has always existed as it cannot be created nor destroyed, I submit he cannot falsify that statement any more than one can falsify a religious belief.

We don't know where the substance of the universe came from, whether it has always existed, or whether it will always exist.

So again, until science can come up with a plausible theory for the origin of the substance of the universe, I still say that a theory of a spirit Creator or I.D. is just as plausible as any other theory of origins of the universe that cannot be examined or tested.

As a personal opinion/theory, sure.

As a "scientific theory", no.

This is where the semantics behind the word "theory" do become important.
 
Do you like it that public school teachers do not teach children about the flaws with the theory of evolution and where it falls apart? Or that none of them teach children that Darwin said the only evidence that could possibly support his theory would be found in the fossil record which he said, IF his theory were true, the majority of fossils would be "in between" specimens, neither fully one species or another but ones showing that one species was in the process of turning into another one? Yet the FACT is that even though the fossil record has been quadrupled since Darwin, there are ZERO "in between" fossils at all and that every single fossil ever found is a KNOWN species and not an "in between" of one species turning into another?

This is simply not true:

NOVA | Fossil Evidence

If you are holding out for an "in between" fossil that is some sort of phenotypic mesh between two species; that's absurd and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

Gradual change over millions of years.

I snipped the rest of your post. No offense, but with the way you started, I didn't expect it to get much better.
 
They just aren't plausible scientific theories. Again, you can't falsify the existence of a supernatural force. Therefore, you can't fit ID into the scientific method.

I haven't tried to fit it into a scientific method. I have consistently stated that a Creator, Creationism, I.D. are not science and have no place in science curriculum.

But when a member makes a flat out statement that energy has always existed as it cannot be created nor destroyed, I submit he cannot falsify that statement any more than one can falsify a religious belief.

We don't know where the substance of the universe came from, whether it has always existed, or whether it will always exist.

So again, until science can come up with a plausible theory for the origin of the substance of the universe, I still say that a theory of a spirit Creator or I.D. is just as plausible as any other theory of origins of the universe that cannot be examined or tested.

As a personal opinion/theory, sure.

As a "scientific theory", no.

This is where the semantics behind the word "theory" do become important.

A theory is a theory is a theory.

A theory about I.D. is not science and is therefore not a scientific theory. It can, however, be just a valid as a valid scientific theory. What we are arguing here is not to make science so much a religion that nothing outside of it can be recognized or appreciated.
 
A theory is a theory is a theory.

That is not correct. As has been pointed out, the term "theory" in biology has significant more weight behind it then the common usage on the street. In biology, a notion can't be elevated beyond a "theory".

A theory about I.D. is not science and is therefore not a scientific theory. It can, however, be just a valid as a valid scientific theory. What we are arguing here is not to make science so much a religion that nothing outside of it can be recognized or appreciated.

I agree. I don't care what people choose to believe. That is their business as long as they don't try and claim theories are scientific theories when they can't fit into the parameters set by the scientific method.

Science is not a religion. It's a man made construct to observe, study, and explain the natural world. If people want to follow it with the same zeal that some people follow religion, that is their prerogative, but it doesn't change the nature of the venture. The only people who claim science is a theory are people who are trying to disparage evolution (or another theory) and are desperate to paint people who understand scientific methodology and the claims is makes as a bunch of zealots who believe what they believe only out of blind faith.

That also is incorrect.
 
"Science is ... a religion. It's a man made construct to observe, study, and explain the natural world."

Funny how that works both ways.
 
"Science is ... a religion. It's a man made construct to observe, study, and explain the natural world."

Funny how that works both ways.

I said: "Science is not a religion."

Was that a deliberate or mistaken omission?

Either way, science is testable. Religion, not so much.

The two are not the same, no matter how much people want to pretend otherwise.
 
I haven't tried to fit it into a scientific method. I have consistently stated that a Creator, Creationism, I.D. are not science and have no place in science curriculum.

But when a member makes a flat out statement that energy has always existed as it cannot be created nor destroyed, I submit he cannot falsify that statement any more than one can falsify a religious belief.

We don't know where the substance of the universe came from, whether it has always existed, or whether it will always exist.

So again, until science can come up with a plausible theory for the origin of the substance of the universe, I still say that a theory of a spirit Creator or I.D. is just as plausible as any other theory of origins of the universe that cannot be examined or tested.

As a personal opinion/theory, sure.

As a "scientific theory", no.

This is where the semantics behind the word "theory" do become important.

A theory is a theory is a theory.

A theory about I.D. is not science and is therefore not a scientific theory. It can, however, be just a valid as a valid scientific theory. What we are arguing here is not to make science so much a religion that nothing outside of it can be recognized or appreciated.

I do disagree with your explanation but not your common sense or good spirit. A science teacher should not dismiss creationism or ID out of hand; that is not their role. In my opinion, a teacher should direct such questions to parents or the appropriate liberal arts classroom instructor.
 
You'll notice the "...". That means something has been left out.

Hence my comment that it works either way.

Get it yet?
 
You'll notice the "...". That means something has been left out.

Hence my comment that it works either way.

Get it yet?

I got it the first time, I just thought it was poor form.

Again, Science follows a methodology. Religion does not. People can argue that religion is "observable in the wonders of God's creation" or whatever. However, that is not the same type of observation that science requires.

They are not the same thing. They aren't even the same proverbial sport.
 
These responses by uneducated religious zealots are perfect examples of how that camp can only seem to use underhanded, deceitful, misleading, and incorrect information to further their goals. Truth is something that escapes them in both "theory" and usage.

Do you like it that public school teachers do not teach children about the flaws with the theory of evolution and where it falls apart?
And what are those flaws? Where does evolution fall apart? Because the scientific community doesn't see it as falling apart whatsoever. Stop making vague references to ghosts or misinformation.

But you cannot get that science is not a religion because for you it is. And it is a religion that people like you demand the BLIND FAITH of everyone else to pretend it is somehow "proven fact" when in fact it is a scientifically KNOWN fatally flawed theory.
This is still false. Science demands reproducible evidence, not blind faith.

:) Thank you. You are a perfect illustration of a scientific thinker like Einstein who, unlike some, kept an open mind about all things. While he might not embrace or endorse the thoughts and perceptions of others, he never ridiculed or disrespected them. And he himself knew that Evolution could explain only so much and no more. He understood the gaps in understanding of our origins, development, existence, and possibilities that "Darwinism" simply cannot answer.
It's amazing that you know so much about what Einstein believed, despite no documentation whatsoever that suggests you to be correct. I ESPECIALLY like how you know what Einstein would have thought if he were hypothetically alive today.

This once again goes to show: religious zealots use unsupported imagination and put it forth as factual.

Hats off to frazzledgear too. I may not agree with every single point, but I admire somebody who is thinking about this stuff rationally, without prejudice, and leaving room for yet unknown possibilities.
Too bad the only way you seem to be able to "think" about this is by blatantly ignoring everyone who proves you to be incompetent. I'm thinking you're pushed your fingers so deep into your ears for so long to blot out everything else you don't want to hear, that you've started drilling through brain.

A theory is a theory is a theory.
This is still completely false, as shown by the supporting links I provided and you ignored. You clearly have no scientific training or education.
 
"Science is ... a religion. It's a man made construct to observe, study, and explain the natural world."

Funny how that works both ways.

No. no it doesn't. How sad that you need to pull things out of context and completely mangle his point in the exact opposite meaning to state your ridiculous idea.
 
For the Record If what was Posted is not in a Quote Box or Attributed to being stated by a specific member or post, there is no foul. What was stated above could be interpreted as the Posters own view. Had it been an official Quote, it would have been Rightly Edited.
 
Creation mythology, in which Intelligent Design is grouped, belongs in the a liberal arts class, never in science class. And, no, science is not religion.
 

Forum List

Back
Top