Block, Upload, Automoderated users, edit
1,130
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + Line 9:
Line 10: + +
Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools (view source)
Revision as of 23:02, October 4, 2007
, 23:02, October 4, 2007no edit summary
No.
No.
who left this stub here like this?
who left this stub here like this?
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.
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.
[[Creationisim]] says there is indirect scientific proof for a Biblical begining to the universe. I think it is a main point of view because there are scientists who believe it and they observe, experiment; they have even better evidence than the evolutionists.
Of course, no science: Creation, Evolution, or otherwise, can ''prove ''%100, anything about the orign of the universe. Scientific infallability only comes with direct observation. -[[User:StevenM]]
== No, not in public schools ==
== No, not in public schools ==