5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 471:
Line 471: + +
Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools? (view source)
Revision as of 17:43, October 31, 2008
, 17:43, October 31, 2008→Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It...
: Yes, the theory backed by the available scientific data prevailed, as I hope will happen in the future, with creation prevailing, as it is more compatible with the available scientific data than is evolution.
: Yes, the theory backed by the available scientific data prevailed, as I hope will happen in the future, with creation prevailing, as it is more compatible with the available scientific data than is evolution.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::The parallel I was trying to make was not that Galileo and Copernicus were Darwinists, my point is that they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations. Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion. Today, scientists favoring the Theory of Evolution are coming under attack for a similar set of reasons. The distinction to be made is that we no longer say that the Earth is at the center of the universe just because the church said so. I am simply positing that we take the same stance on evolution based on a preponderance of evidence. In response to your last statement with regards to the scientific data in support of creationism, I respectfully ask that you be more specific, as I am not sure which studies/papers/research/etc. you're referring to.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 13:43, 31 October 2008 (EDT)