Changes

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever.  All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning.  There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally:  much of it can be interpreted in many ways.  For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever.  Go with the theory proven time and time again:  evolution.  There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it.  What is this reason?  BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever.  All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning.  There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally:  much of it can be interpreted in many ways.  For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever.  Go with the theory proven time and time again:  evolution.  There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it.  What is this reason?  BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

: We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.  

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.  

Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.  

Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.  

Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.

Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.-