9
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 10:
Line 10: + +
Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools? (view source)
Revision as of 21:37, April 24, 2007
, 21:37, April 24, 2007→'''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy'''
To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.
To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.
They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)?
Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.
==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
==='''Teach Them Everything'''===