Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem with "Creation Science" is that its cherrypicking and reinterpreting scientific evidence to back up a 6000 year old earth model, of which is very limited. And the "scientists" who are behind that evidence already have their minds made up anyways, so they are going to make the data say what they want it to say. If that isn't pseudo-science, I don't know what is. If its going to be taught in schools, it should NOT be taught in the science classes. I have no problem with it being taught in civics, philosophy, world religions, etc.
The problem with "Creation Science" is that its cherrypicking and reinterpreting scientific evidence to back up a 6000 year old earth model, of which is very limited. And the "scientists" who are behind that evidence already have their minds made up anyways, so they are going to make the data say what they want it to say. If that isn't pseudo-science, I don't know what is. If its going to be taught in schools, it should NOT be taught in the science classes. I have no problem with it being taught in civics, philosophy, world religions, etc.
The problem with evolution is that its cherrypicking and reinterpreting scientific evidence to back up a theory that things weren't created whole, that everything evolved from cellular life. And the "scientists" who are behind that evidence already have their minds made up anyways, so they are going to make the data say what they want it to say. If that isn't pseudo-science, I don't know what is. If its going to be taught in schools, it should NOT be taught in the science classes. I have no problem with it being taught in civics, philosophy, world religions, etc.
It's a hot topic for me, a Bible-believing Christian that does believe in creationism, because I believe I understand creationism very well and I get tired of the same old song and dance that creationism is pseudo-science and not supported by empirical science. I get tired of hearing how all creationists want it taught in schools -- which isn't true. I'm tired of creationsim being misrepresented by non-believers who don't understand our position and refuse to even consider our arguments against evolution.
Also, I'm tired to evolution being touted as unquestionable, and to even question the validity of it somehow means you flat-out don't accept science. I'm tired of everyone saying to understand and perform "real" science you must accept evolution. I'm tired of people calling evolution science in the first place. I'm tired of valid arguments against evolution being ignored, swept under the rug or flat out dismissed. I'm tired of the frauds of evolution still being taught in schools as fact.
As a biblical creationist I'm tired of hearing how evolution and the bible can actually go together when, IMHO, that is a fallacy. I'm tired of hearing how evolution does not negate God when, it's my belief, evolution was devised as an answer to exclude God. I'm tired of being called all sorts of names and berated for my beliefs because those who accept evolution refuse to see evolution for what I believe it really is -- a religion (naturalistic/materialistic humanism).
Is Park Twain for real!!!
He doesn't understand the difference between evolution and abortion
I do not believe that post suggests ParkTwain does not understand the difference between an abortion and evolution. The point was that both are issues that raise the ire of fundamentalists and get them out in droves to try to change the way the government runs. If you were jesting, I'm sorry but I think ParkTwain's point was valid and answered the OP well.
Thank you to GSCTroop and MReidl for wonderful, reasonable posts!
This will be a hot topic for me until I can be sure that my daughters are taught science in science classes and religion in comparative religion/philosophy classes.
The problem with evolution is that its cherrypicking and reinterpreting scientific evidence to back up a theory that things weren't created whole, that everything evolved from cellular life. And the "scientists" who are behind that evidence already have their minds made up anyways, so they are going to make the data say what they want it to say. If that isn't pseudo-science, I don't know what is. If its going to be taught in schools, it should NOT be taught in the science classes. I have no problem with it being taught in civics, philosophy, world religions, etc.
Find me genuine scientific research to back up a 6,000 year old earth model. Kent Hovind or AiG don't count.
Its a hot topic because it forms a direct contradiction to the book of Genesis. Bear in mind that it is only a 'hot topic' within the religious community.
If people accept Evolution to be true, and scientific explanations for our existence, the universe, space, time, etc etc develop and grow, then we naturally feel less of a need for religious explanation or reasoning. This is threatening to the religious community because there is no need for the belief in a deity, or the 'rules' by which they may choose to live.
Evolution is taught in science classes because it is a scientific subject and scientific explanation of our origins. As children are taught evolution in public schools (as they are in Europe) they may feel less of a need to believe in scripture, or less likely to accept scripture as truth.
Some people within the religious community will feel that this may lead to an ultimately immoral, unjust, or evil society. In reality, our growth and development as human beings, our natural thirst for progression, and our passion for new technologies means that we must shed the mind shackles that is religious belief and teaching.
Some people within the religious community will feel that this may lead to an ultimately immoral, unjust, or evil society. In reality, our growth and development as human beings, our natural thirst for progression, and our passion for new technologies means that we must shed the mind shackles that is religious belief and teaching.
In my opinion the way that some people regard new technology as the answer to all our problems could be seen as religious.
I mean lets for argument sake say that we humans have a gay gene and that it could be eliminated.
I then would not be surprised if the leaders of the religious community insist that this gene would be eliminated on a global scale.
It's a hot topic for me as well, even though I'm an atheist. That's because the suppression of knowledge and the distortion and misrepresentation of science undermines our educational system. This seems to be mostly an American phenomenon and is the result of our religious culture in this country. People have a right to believe whatever they want but a science class is for teaching science.
Its a hot topic because it forms a direct contradiction to the book of Genesis. Bear in mind that it is only a 'hot topic' within the religious community.
If people accept Evolution to be true, and scientific explanations for our existence, the universe, space, time, etc etc develop and grow, then we naturally feel less of a need for religious explanation or reasoning. This is threatening to the religious community because there is no need for the belief in a deity, or the 'rules' by which they may choose to live.
Evolution is taught in science classes because it is a scientific subject and scientific explanation of our origins. As children are taught evolution in public schools (as they are in Europe) they may feel less of a need to believe in scripture, or less likely to accept scripture as truth.
Some people within the religious community will feel that this may lead to an ultimately immoral, unjust, or evil society. In reality, our growth and development as human beings, our natural thirst for progression, and our passion for new technologies means that we must shed the mind shackles that is religious belief and teaching.
Finally, an honest answer from an evolutionist!! While I may disagree with the fears you list for the religious community, at least you're honest enough to admit that evolution and the bible don't go together. Thanks for your post.
The #1 problem with a literal interpretation of Genesis is that it locks world history into 6,000 years, which goes totally against all scientific evidence we have. I mean, even if you discount scientific methods of dating, we have direct evidence of civilizations that date back to longer than 6,000 years ago. Fast forward 2,000 years to a global flood, and you have only 4,000 years to populate the earth, form all the variations within species you see today, somehow populate far away continents with animal life and humans such as the Americas, Australia, and Antarctica. What about stars that are more than 6,000 light years away? The math just doesn't work.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my opinion the way that some people regard new technology as the answer to all our problems could be seen as religious.
