Block, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
1,130
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools (view source)
Revision as of 22:48, October 4, 2007
, 22:48, October 4, 2007no edit summary
No.
No.
who left this stub here like this?
who left this stub here like this?
== Yes ==
I believe science is objective, and therefore we should have as many different view points in the scientific community as there are scientists. Obviously not every view point can be taught in schools but they ought to be theaching the main ones.
I believe science is objective, and therefore we should have as many different view points in the scientific community as there are scientists. Obviously not every view point can be taught in schools but they ought to be theaching the main ones.
So I think the main point of this question is: Is creationism a main point of view?
So I think the main point of this question is: Is creationism a main point of view?
I'll get to that, but first as to Intelligent design.
I'll get to that, but first as to Intelligent design.
ID, as its called, is just creationisim in disguise. The liberals say ID is being used as a way to sneak God into the schools. I think that, for once, they're right. Intelligent design is not explicitly religious and it has all the proof creationisim has except for the Bible. But its not really any different scientifically and a science class should display a variety of scientist's views.
== No, not in public schools ==
== No, but it should be taught as a religious alternative to evolution ==
[[category:conservapedia Debates]]
[[category:conservapedia Debates]]