1,237
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: − +
Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools (view source)
Revision as of 22:57, October 4, 2007
, 22:57, October 4, 2007no edit summary
== No, not in public schools ==
== No, not in public schools ==
*I think it's fine to teach that C/ID are views some people hold. However, they should not be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution because they are not science. Science is falsifiable. Evolution would be thrown out the window if a dog gave birth to a cat, or if a dog turned into a cat. As far as I know (and, I admit, I'm not an expert) C/ID aren't falsifiable. I would gladly accept that they are scientific if some hypothetical result or occurrence that would prove them wrong were suggested and agreed upon by most of the major people in the fields of ID and evolution (Proving the nonexistence of God doesn't count). [[User:Masterbratac|Masterbratac]] 18:57, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
== No, but it should be taught as a religious alternative to evolution ==
== No, but it should be taught as a religious alternative to evolution ==