http://arstechnica.com/science/news...es-bill-putting-religion-in-science-class.ars I guess this is a response to secular studies doing such an awesome job at explaining the origins of life. Like I said before, present different theories to the students and let them decide for themselves what they want to believe. Naturalistic evolution accounting for life is hardly a closed case.
Depends on where it's taught. Creationism doesn't belong in a science curriculum but in a philosophy or comparative religious studies it does.
While I believe fully in creationism, I also believe in separation of church & state. As such, I agree with Sly (but don't tell him that) on this one.
I guess Indiana is so wealthy they don't need federal funds for their schools, or care if their children are used as political pawns for corporate religion. In order to retain teachers who will teach such nonsense they will have to settle for the worst of the worst.
Time for the flying spaghetti monster, the teaching of the buddha, the teaching of the quran, the teachings of the hindu upanishads, the sikhs, the native americans... MAN how are they going to have time for science in the science class?!
evolution explains empathetic reactions to visual stimuli just fine without god. nothing at all unreasonable about it. if anything it's what you would expect given how evolution often ends up overcompensating. that our pain centers would be on such a hair trigger that they would react when we only see someone being poked isn't surprising. i have no problem teaching kids about the existence of the belief in creationism in social or religious studies. however if they are attempting to teach it as an alternate scientific theory to evolution, dover set a legal precedent against that which would be virtually impossible to get past, and science teachers if told to do it would uniformly refuse anyway. that battle is over.
lol, sure it does! Another baseless claim about evolution that you can twist to any way for your liking. You sound like the typical evolutionist to me, there's no proof that your theory is even true yet it can account for all the tiny nuances of human nature without any supporting evidence.
whatever. IF evolution were true it would easily explain the phenomenon, so what you posted is irrelevant as evidence for anything. if you've already rejected evolution you're going to have to believe even the most commonplace things in biology are miracles, so something like reacting to visual stimuli doesn't add anything extra.
I never said they were miracles, just shows that we are made by our wonderful God : ) Although with God I'm not sure you can rule out any sort of miracles, He has the diving hand over all of His creation. Hopefully you will someday know this truth about God. "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." - Jesus Christ
In fairness that is an extremely straw man rebuttal. Just because one may not believe in evolution doesn't mean that cell division or hormones can't already be instilled in every creature. It isn't just evolution or creation. It's already not "god vs. science" anymore. It's actually "science vs. science".
the subject of this thread is evolution vs creation, and there are no other theories. if you've got one speak up.
