Inferno
boatwoman
Certainly the greek gods are taught in school. Should that be removed?
It is taught as myth. If god is taught as a myth then certainly that is fine. But it must be filed under myth.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Certainly the greek gods are taught in school. Should that be removed?
I don't think it's fair that an atheist idea like evolution is propagated in school
Prolly because you look at evolution as an individual surviving, while us rational people look at as a tribe, or culture, surviving. Some of the weakest links, when it comes to brawn, are the most adventatioius to human kind as a wholeI've always found it odd that people who are so in the tank for evolution are so against the strong surviving.
If evolution is the superior ideal, why have all those social safety nets if it's nature's will that the weak die off?
Looks very inconsistent to me..
Just like all liberal thought it's not about the problem it's about control and power.
Global Warming is about guilting people into buying mercury filled lightbulbs and penalizing the strong. It flies in the face of evolution.
yeah, thats why you are for killing them in the wombProlly because you look at evolution as an individual surviving, while us rational people look at as a tribe, or culture, surviving. Some of the weakest links, when it comes to brawn, are the most adventatioius to human kind as a whole
no where in my post did i say teach creationism in science class. my point was that children are being taught evolution in school, why not teach creationism as well?
I'm sorry to have to say this, but I don't think it's fair that an atheist idea like evolution is propagated in school, but if anyone teaches anything that is related to God it's look down upon.
i think it's only fair that they teach both in school. so children can be exposed to both ideas
yeah, thats why you are for killing them in the womb
'Creation science' enters the race
GOVERNOR: Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools.
By TOM KIZZIA
Anchorage Daily News
(Published: October 27, 2006)
The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.
Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
Her main opponents, Democrat Tony Knowles and Independent Andrew Halcro, said such alternatives to evolution should be kept out of science classrooms. Halcro called such lessons "religious-based" and said the place for them might be a philosophy or sociology class.
The question has divided local school boards in several places around the country and has come up in Alaska before, including once before the state Board of Education in 1993.
The teaching of creationism, which relies on the biblical account of the creation of life, has been ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court as an unconstitutional injection of religion into public education.
Last December, in a widely publicized local case, a federal judge in Pennsylvania threw out a city school board's requirement that "intelligent design" be mentioned briefly in science classes. Intelligent design proposes that biological life is so complex that some kind of intelligence must have shaped it.
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum...
I've always found it odd that people who are so in the tank for evolution are so against the strong surviving.
If evolution is the superior ideal, why have all those social safety nets if it's nature's will that the weak die off?
Looks very inconsistent to me.
Do I think we evolved from Apes? Not sure cuz if we did, why are there still Apes? but I digress...
that is what is taught(Technically all apes, including man, evolved from a common ancestor, which is no longer walking around. )
That nonsense is taught as a fact. When actually, there is more evidence that Santa Clause is real, than that man evolved from an ape ancester.(Technically all apes, including man, evolved from a common ancestor, which is no longer walking around. )
Evolution is just one mans theoryfrom the 1800's . It has no scientific proof backing it up. Creationism
has been around for thousands of years.And creationism should be taught in schools right
along with evolutionism.If we evolved from apes why are apes still around?.
yes, they teach we evolved from a common ancestor, however, there is no proof that common ancestor ever existedHey idiot.. we didnt evolve from apes... You people scare the hell out of me ... how in the hell is this nation going to compete in the world when this dark age mentality persavers...
Actually, it takes "MORE" faith to believe in evolution, than to believe in creation.yes, they teach we evolved from a common ancestor, however, there is no proof that common ancestor ever existed
thus it takes just as much faith to believe it did as it does to believe in creation
Actually, it takes "MORE" faith to believe in evolution, than to believe in creation.
It could be fear that evolution disproves a deity. It doesn't and the Catholic church accepts that one can be a Catholic and believe in evolution. It isn't hard. You only have to accept that the deity, assuming existence, actually set it up that way.
Rubbish. There's actual evidence of evolution.
Creationism requires an acceptance of unprovable elements for someone to believe in it.
They must believe in a supreme deity without evidence.
They must believe this supereme deity - btw where did the deity come from? The usual answer is that the deity was always there, nice way out but requires more blind faith - created the universe.
They must believe that the deity created life on Earth.
All of this requires blind faith.
Darwin had to provide evidence of his theory and the theory has held up since he proposed it and evidence continues to mount to support it. Scientists are continually looking for evidence to refute it because by doing so we can learn more but try as they might the evidence supporting the theory of evolution simply becomes stronger.
The closed mind is the fundamentalist religious mind that refuses to accept that evolution is a scientific fact. The Roman Catholic church has accepted evolution, after a battle. It excommunicated Teilhard de Chardin for his work and only readmitted him after his death, when Vatican II accepted evolution.
The closed mind of the fundamentalist rejects evolution and tries to argue for creationism or the warped idea of ID. Why this is so I have no idea. It could be pig ignorance.
It could be fear that evolution disproves a deity. It doesn't and the Catholic church accepts that one can be a Catholic and believe in evolution. It isn't hard. You only have to accept that the deity, assuming existence, actually set it up that way.
Some of the crap posted here about religion and evolution and science is appalling ignorance. I find it hard to believe that people from an advanced nation could actually be so ignorant as to post this rubbish. It's embarrassing to read. You're making yourselves look foolish.