It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Faith-Based Parks? Bush backs creationism in national parks.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Creationists meet the Grand Canyon


At a park called Dinosaur Adventure Land, run by creationists near Pensacola, Florida, visitors are informed that man coexisted with dinosaurs. This fantasy accommodates the creationists’ view that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that Darwin’s theory of evolution is false. Among the park exhibits is one that illustrates another creationist article of faith. It consists of a long trough filled with sand and fitted at one end with a water spigot. Above the trough is a sign reading “That River Didn’t Make That Canyon.” When visitors open the spigot, the water quickly cuts a gully through the sand, supposedly demonstrating how the Grand Canyon was created, practically overnight, by Noah’s flood. That’s nonsense, of course, but what else would you expect at a creationist park? Certainly, one might think, this couldn’t be acceptable at, say, a National Park, right? Think again.


Though I'm sure the less rational christian groups might see this as a truimph, the article goes on to say "It’s more than likely that the majority of scientists, environmentalists and others protesting the NPS stand are themselves intelligent, rational Christians who are convinced by overwhelming evidence that the Grand Canyon is no Johnny-Come-Lately."

It is inconceivable that our government is taking part in and spending public money on the promotion of a religious view in place of science. But the National Park Service has blocked publication of guidance for park rangers that reminds them there is no scientific basis for creationism. Also Grand Canyon National Park no longer offers an official estimate of the canyon's age. The park service has also allowed bronze plaques with bible verses to be installed at canyon overlooks. This is not proper use for public money.

--Saerlaith




posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
You know is so easy to feed lies to the willing public, you just have to see that some love to stay ignorant of facts, and I am not talking about Darwin but about the archaeological facts about dinosaurs and men.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I can't see what the problem is (except for the 6000 year old world thing). You can believe in a creator and in evolution. They are not mutually exclusive after all.
Personally I see the Bible as metaphor. A day for 'God' is millions of years to humanity. Just take the Mayfly for example, it lives only one day. Just imagine what the life of a human would appear like if Mayflies had our kind of intelligence. When considering creation/evolution, maybe we are the Mayflies.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Hearing this does upset me. to think what will happen in 20yrs if things keep going at this rate. And dinosaur land? Dude i need a link i would love to visit it. I was born in the 80s, i don't remember there being such a big deal about evolution. It was a fact, bones,genetics, carbon testing, how deep it's buried. Have i gone mad?



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I read about this a while back while researching for school. While it hurts no one, it still represents the government endorsing a particular religion, which I believe is wrong.

An interesting and related thread discusses the NPS and the UN.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

BG



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 06:26 PM
link   
If the Bush administration is actually backing this, (and I doubt they are) then this is wrong. But I can only find that NPS political appointees are the ones dragging their feet over a final decision, and some conservative groups "touting their new direct and personal access to Bush Administration officials", to use their words. Now I know that Bush is ultimately responsible for NPS officials, through the Dept. of the Interior, I suppose. However, this seems to be something that has been backed by a low and relatively unimportant brach of the government. I mean, I wonder how thorough a background review is done on a parks appointee!? I would imagine that the appointment of a park official is given about as much weight as, well, crossing guards or some such.

Take it to court, the books will be gone in a heartbeat. Don't treat it as a sinister plot to make America a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

However, I don't have much of a problem with the plaques with readings of some of the psalms at overlook points. Some of those are beautiful and inspirational, and much more soothing than a recitation of erosion facts and layers of shale. It wouldn't bother me to read them, regardless of their religious origins.




posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   
The only problem I see is with public funding of Religion. Other than that they have a right to their beliefs and even a right to sell the books at the park.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   
How did the Feds justify getting this book into the Grand Canyon giftshop to begin with? From a New York Times article from October:


Some have argued that because the store offers books about the culture and legends of the Navajo and Hopi tribes it is appropriate for it to sell books on the legends of creationists as well.

Rob Arnberger, who was superintendent of the park from 1996 to 2000, will have none of that. "At Grand Canyon it is appropriate to present the culture of the Navajo and the Hopi, tribes that live in and around the canyon," he said. "But there are no books that present the culture of the Plains Indians, for example, because their culture was not associated with the Grand Canyon. To present one view does not obligate us to present another, especially when the science is so wrong."


The rationalization that because the Navajo and Hopi legends and culture are represented that there is no conflict in also displaying creationist theory. Yea, right.
Where is the Buddhist or Levay theory of creation? Bet you won't see those anytime soon.

B.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:23 PM
link   
In my opinion, creationism is a crock, but if this book is on sale along with the other theories, I don't have a problem with it. The idea that the earth is six thousand years old has little basis in the geological record, but that doesn't mean that our interpretation of the data is accurate.

It's a small minded person who would limit God's power to fit the constraints of Genesis, but if that's what they prefer to believe then that's okay with me.

The problem with creationsm is that it's proponents fit the data to the model rather than the other way around. I think that if people are made aware of both models as well as the scientific method and how it works, most will come down on the side of science without any affect on their faith whatsoever.

Those whose faith depends on facts have little faith. True faith is founded on truth and one can be perfectly correct as to the facts and absolutely wrong as to the truth.

[edit on 04/11/23 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
The problem with creationsm is that it's proponents fit the data to the model rather than the other way around. I think that if people are made aware of both models as well as the scientific method and how it works, most will come down on the side of science without any affect on their faith whatsoever.
[edit on 04/11/23 by GradyPhilpott]


I honestly believed that "strict creationists" were a very small minority. Most of the religious people I know do not take the bible as a literal translation. But I was very surprised about a CBS poll conducted recently. So surprised I actually thought about starting a thread about it.

From the CBS poll:


Interpreting the results politically, 47 percent of John Kerry’s voters think God created humans as they are now, compared with 67 percent of Bush voters. Furthermore, more than half of Kerry voters want creationism taught alongside evolution.

Meanwhile, Bush voters are much more willing to want creationism to replace evolution altogether in a curriculum (just under half favor that), and 71 percent want it at least included.

Overall, about two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution, while only 37 percent want evolutionism replaced outright.

Sixty percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.


The first thing that struck me about this was that more than half of Kerry supporters want creationism taught alongside evolution.

The second was almost 40% of this country want evolutionism removed period.

The last was that 50% of regular church goers want evolution taught exclusively.

These are not the numbers I would have expected. I would have thought the creationism only would not have exceeded 10% for the entire US population.


B.



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   
I can't believe even George d'bya could be that dumb...

Unless there using the park as a method of covertly microchipping the "shallow end" of the gene pool...



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The real sad part is that they have the need to sell Creationism books there at all? what purpose does it serve? think about it. TO have it is school is one thing(which i don't agree with either) but to have it at a park? where will it stop, start having the same things in all public instituions like libraries, courts, Museums. again i might be taking it over board, somebody might sue or something, and get it changed but if they dont Exactly how far can it go? How far to "they" plan do go?

[Edited on 23-11-2004 by bordnlazy]



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bordnlazy
The real sad part is that they have the need to sell Creationism books there at all? what purpose does it serve? think about it. TO have it is school is one thing(which i don't agree with either) but to have it at a park? where will it stop, start having the same things in all public instituions like libraries, courts, Museums. again i might be taking it over board, somebody might sue or something, and get it changed but if they dont Exactly how far can it go? How far to "they" plan do go?

[Edited on 23-11-2004 by bordnlazy]


What bugs me the most about it, is seeing a religious theory ousting science, especially in a park that really demonstrates some of the principles of our geological history. It's just not healthy. I'd rather have left out the native people's religious stuff than have to include creationism as an explanation for the Grand Canyon. Though I do feel their stories have a place there, like christian stuff would in a display about the Salem witch trials.

I know Bush didn't personally sign the order changing this park to a religious site, but I imagine word of things like this trickle up and get a nod passed back down somehow. Most Bu#es don't care how the rest of the world views us, but I'm sure this adds greatly to our image as superstitious idiots. Oh well....lots of americans are


--Saerlaith



posted on Nov, 23 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
One word "Stupid" sums it up!

As we slip back into the dark ages, run out of oil and destroy whats left of the environment, all we will have left is to pray about it because it will be too late.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saerlaith

What bugs me the most about it, is seeing a religious theory ousting science, especially in a park that really demonstrates some of the principles of our geological history. It's just not healthy. I'd rather have left out the native people's religious stuff than have to include creationism as an explanation for the Grand Canyon. Though I do feel their stories have a place there, like christian stuff would in a display about the Salem witch trials.


OK... There is a book that shows the viewpoint of Creationists along with numerous other books, all of which probably contradict each other in some way, shape, or form. Are you saying that this book should be removed from the parks store because it contradicts someone’s theory? Why not leave the dang book there and let the American people make up their own minds? Why is a Christian viewpoint so damn scary to you people?

It isn’t like the park is saying, this is what happened, believe this or you’re an idiot. They just put a book on their shelves with pretty pictures of the Grand Canyon that happens to have a creationists view.

You know, I find it interesting that someone mentioned public libraries earlier in this thread. I am just waiting for the day all books that mention a “higher being” are banned from these public institutions.

Anyone for a book burning?!?!



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 02:14 PM
link   
This ties in to the other posting on how lies are being told about human sexuality and are being taught in schools. It is all about not allowing people to be educated properly and turned into slaves per the direction of the Skulls and Crossbones or whatever NWO entity is pulling the president's strings this week.



posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   
You ranters who seem to think that creationism is all about religion do not recognize your own basic scientific premises. Evolution is an attempt to justify through science the existance of the world without a God. Creationism can and is in many forms the attempt through science to justify the existance of God and the creation of the world by God. Both are science, use scientific reasoning and methods in their pure form. IE they begin with a premise and then seek supporting observations and repeatable experimentation to prove those premises or theories. I have read some good scientific work that suggests a much younger earth that current thinking believes. If you have never studied the science behind creationism and yet are ranting against it as ignorant religiousity you are a hypocrite for you yourself are a religious nut only your religion is based solely on your own understanding. You are your own God and that is truly pitiful.

Now if you have a genuinely scientific mind and are searching for what is true and provable you might will be interested to read opposing scientific and theory based arguments because if nothing else they will hone your own understanding. A good place to start is this website which hosts a good scientifically supported theory on how what we see came to be. I am not saying that the world is as this site purports it to be. Instead I am saying that this site is a good example of the application of science to the theory of creation. Just as there are good sites that study the theory of evolution. Never forget that evolution is only a theory and is actually one that is falling out of favor in the scientific community because of its improbability.

Creation Theory site

Have fun exploring the possibilities.

Now to apply this to the topic of this thread, I believe it perfectly appropriate to allow competing theories to be presented at a national park so long as those theories use science as their evidence. The theory can begin with any premise, including one that involves a deity, so long as it is argued in a scientific manner through observation, prediction and experimentation it is appropriate.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by Johannmon]



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
You ranters who seem to think that creationism is all about religion do not recognize your own basic scientific premises. Evolution is an attempt to justify through science the existance of the world without a God.


NO it is not!!!!!! Evolution is what scientists(many of whom were christians) pieced together to explain empirical data. It was not an attempt to impose a view point on the world. Their is no reason why Evolution and God can't coexist. I belive in both. As do most evolutionists.

While their are some fundamentalist athiests out thier who would like to use it to disprove god. It doesn't.


Originally posted by JohannmonCreationism can and is in many forms the attempt through science to justify the existance of God and the creation of the world by God. Both are science, use scientific reasoning and methods in their pure form.


No one is evalution science and creationism is theology trying to propve their views with science. See the difference?


Originally posted by Johannmon
Now if you have a genuinely scientific mind and are searching for what is true and provable you might will be interested to read opposing scientific and theory based arguments because if nothing else they will hone your own understanding.


I have read them,. they are summed up by the staement "We are to improbable to have happend with out god." If you want to believe that OK, jsut don't try to present it as somehow "scientific".


Originally posted by Johannmon Never forget that evolution is only a theory and is actually one that is falling out of favor in the scientific community because of its improbability.


Evalution isn't falling out of favor within the scientific community outside of Creationalist propaganda.


Originally posted by JohannmonNow to apply this to the topic of this thread, I believe it perfectly appropriate to allow competing theories to be presented at a national park so long as those theories use science as their evidence. The theory can begin with any premise, including one that involves a deity, so long as it is argued in a scientific manner through observation, prediction and experimentation it is appropriate.


Except that the falls weren't created by "evolution" but by erosion. They don't have text books spouting how it evolved from an earlier creature. The books that are being talked about state that it was created a few thousand years ago by the great flood in the bible. How is this a scientific premise?



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM

NO it is not!!!!!! Evolution is what scientists(many of whom were christians) pieced together to explain empirical data. It was not an attempt to impose a view point on the world.

Here you seem to be ignorant of the well documented intentions of the founder of the theory, Charles Darwin. He was avidly antichristian and sought how to explain what existed without God. It was an overt attempt of his to explain the world with out God.


Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Their is no reason why Evolution and God can't coexist. I belive in both. As do most evolutionists.


I would agree here that evolution can be studied in the context of a creator but that discipline is separate from the evolution put forth by Charles Darwin.


Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AMCreationism is theology trying to propve their views with science. See the difference?


the difference you suppose is incorrect in scientific circles. To parrot your argument; while there are some who use creationism to try to push a theology there are also those who attempt to explain the world and the things in it in the context of the Biblical account of creation and the flood. The method of this explanation is what determines whether the explanation is scientific or theological not the the theory itself. I could postulate a theory that Aliens created the world and everything in it. I could then go out and try to prove through empirical evidence that aliens did indeed create everything. This would not mean that I was trying to convert everyone into UFO hunters but rather that I am trying to prove or disprove a theory. Hence it could be deemed science. Theology takes over when you staunchly hold to your theory when observation, prediction and experimentation have proven it grossly improbable. THen you are believing through blind faith. This is a point at which non-deific, random chance evolutionist have come to in that their theory of random mutation natural selection has been shown to be improbable to the point of impossiblility. Yet they hold to their theory anyway rather than seeking one that better explains the world we live in. They therefore have crossed the line from science to theology and made a religion out of their understanding.


Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AMI have read them,. they are summed up by the staement "We are to improbable to have happend with out god." If you want to believe that OK, jsut don't try to present it as somehow "scientific".


what is unscientific about recognizing intelligent design? Recognizing patterns and designs is fundamental to the process of discovery. You recognize that every time you let go of a stone when standing at sea level it falls at a predictable rate. This is a pattern recognition that led to first the theory and then the laws of gravity. So it is perfect science to recognize the complexity and balance of creation and point to a creating intelligence. It is pure science to recognize intelligence when it stares you in the face. If you did not recognize intelligent design when you saw it you could spend your whole life trying to figure out why the great pyramid at Giza rose naturally and randomly from the desert floor. What a waste of time and intelligence that would be since it is obviously a product of intelligent design not random chance.



Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AMEvalution isn't falling out of favor within the scientific community outside of Creationalist propaganda.


I will make a prediction here. I predict that in 100 years scientists will be laughing at those who purported random mutation, natural selection, evolution in the same way that we laugh at those who thought the earth was flat. We now know more about the complexity of life as we know it than we ever have and the more we learn about its intracacies the more even the most stuborn athiest has to say that we are not here by accident but by design. To even suggest that a single cell bateria formed by random chance from a soup of perfect elements is like saying the wind could blow through a beach and leave behind a cray supercomputer. Its just plain dumb.


Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
Except that the falls weren't created by "evolution" but by erosion. They don't have text books spouting how it evolved from an earlier creature. The books that are being talked about state that it was created a few thousand years ago by the great flood in the bible. How is this a scientific premise?


To ask the above question show a lack of knowedge as to what a scientic premise is. A scientific premise is a statement one makes that seems to explain existing circumstances and evidences. It can be anything from the sky is blue because there is a blueberry belt in the upper atmosphere to the Einstiens theory of relativity(which by the way is still a theory and not a fact though I beleive it will be proven fact) The scientific theory is then tested according to the evidence available. If it passes that test you then can make predictions based upon your theory and experiment to see if the prediction come true. You see the theory or premise is only the beginning point of science. The science is in the method by which you prove or disprove your theory. Let me address the case in point. A theory that the grand canyon was created during or shortly after a global flood can be examined scientifically. First there should be pretty universal folklore about such a flood in most every culture whose history dates back to within a few thousand years of such a flood for it certainly would have been remembered by those who survived it as a unique event. Second you should be able to show by experimentation how the forces of a receding flood could for a great canyon on the scale of the grand canyon. This can be modelled on a small scale as was done in the museum or you can use computer modelling. You can also look at other, smaller scale floods and see if the drainage patterns are similar. The point is that whether the study is scientific or not depends on the arguments and methods used not on the premise itself. Going back to the blueberry sky. I could write a scientifically accurate paper on the theory, how I tested it and what evidence I found to support or disprove it, though it would admittedly be short for it would become obvious early on that it was not true. Now I have read read very convincing and scientific argument concerning how the grand canyon could have been formed during the flood. In fact if you will go to the link above it has one of the more cojent explainations of this. The study of this theory poses no threat to other theories if it is studied scientifically. In fact the study of one theory often leads to the proving of another for the scientific method if used properly should produce data applicable in a wide field of endeavor. Hence the study of an opposing even if ultimatley incorrect theory should be encouraged and allowed.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johannmon
Here you seem to be ignorant of the well documented intentions of the founder of the theory, Charles Darwin. He was avidly antichristian and sought how to explain what existed without God. It was an overt attempt of his to explain the world with out God.


No, he was not attempting to "explain a world without GOD" he was attempting to make sense of the empirical data in such a way s to explain how the things he saw came to be. To explain a world without god implies was trying to prove a negative. He didn't believe in GOD why so would he bother trying disprove him?
The evidence didn't support God sudenly coming out of nowhere and saying Bang! You all suddenly exist! ehwas seen as opposing Christians because his beliefs didn't match up with theirs. And he had to oppose people who just happened to be christians because they didn't want his theories to be believed.



I would agree here that evolution can be studied in the context of a creator but that discipline is separate from the evolution put forth by Charles Darwin.


No, it's not. Evoluton is a theory that talks about how we came to be, it in no way says "their is no GOD" that' just a myth that Creationist put forth to try and support their theory being taught in schools.


the difference you suppose is incorrect in scientific circles. To parrot your argument; while there are some who use creationism to try to push a theology there are also those who attempt to explain the world and the things in it in the context of the Biblical account of creation and the flood.

No that's not what I said.


The method of this explanation is what determines whether the explanation is scientific or theological not the the theory itself. I could postulate a theory that Aliens created the world and everything in it. I could then go out and try to prove through empirical evidence that aliens did indeed create everything. This would not mean that I was trying to convert everyone into UFO hunters but rather that I am trying to prove or disprove a theory. Hence it could be deemed science.


Or you could go around and demand that it be taught to children before you ahd succeeded by quoting the odds that it happened that it happened that way. That's what creationist are doing.


Theology takes over when you staunchly hold to your theory when observation, prediction and experimentation have proven it grossly improbable. THen you are believing through blind faith.


Which is exactly what creationist do, that's why it's not science.


This is a point at which non-deific, random chance evolutionist have come to in that their theory of random mutation natural selection has been shown to be improbable to the point of impossiblility.


Sorry but those claims that your calling proofs are highly doubtful. Comsidering the number of planets and the numbers of galgxies ans so forth, live is not only probably but no life would be so implrobable at to be impossible.


Yet they hold to their theory anyway rather than seeking one that better explains the world we live in. They therefore have crossed the line from science to theology and made a religion out of their understanding.


They have yet to see any proof that contradicts their theory. The only "numbers" I've seen don't take into account the sheer size fo the universe.


what is unscientific about recognizing intelligent design?


The theory itself? Everything about it?
Its religion dressed up as science.
If you want to believe in a higher being because you cant' take into account he sheer sizwe of the universeans so want to belive that life si to improbable to exist without direct intervention form him(even though hes' alknowing and all poerful and yet can't seemingly make life capable of evalving on it's own) that is fine. That doesn't make it science.


I will make a prediction here. I predict that in 100 years scientists will be laughing at those who purported random mutation, natural selection, evolution in the same way that we laugh at those who thought the earth was flat.


You'll be wrong.


We now know more about the complexity of life as we know it than we ever have and the more we learn about its intracacies the more even the most stuborn athiest has to say that we are not here by accident but by design.


As the catholic church didnt' decide to belive that the earth was flat until the 1990's I highly doubt that.


To even suggest that a single cell bateria formed by random chance from a soup of perfect elements is like saying the wind could blow through a beach and leave behind a cray supercomputer. Its just plain dumb.


No, as that's not what they say. This shows your ignorance of this matter.
If you actually knew anything about evolution you'd know that. They have shown that primordial slime(not bacteria) can indeed form as this planet was cooling. That it slowly evolved from that to the bacteria. Your analogy is completely false.



To ask the above question show a lack of knowedge as to what a scientic premise is. A scientific premise is a statement one makes that seems to explain existing circumstances and evidences. It can be anything from the sky is blue because there is a blueberry belt in the upper atmosphere to the


I know what a scientific premise is. Unfortunately for you, it's not "the grand Canyon must have been formed by the flood becasue erosion takes to linger that 6000 years and we don't want to accept that the universe has been proven to be older than that."


Einstiens theory of relativity(which by the way is still a theory and not a fact though I beleive it will be proven fact)


This shows your complete lack of knowing what a 'theory' is. A theory doesn't mean someting isn't a fact. A theory is something which is used to explain what current emperical data means. Einstiens theory is relativity is proven. Theory doens't mean unproven.


First there should be pretty universal folklore about such a flood in most every culture whose history dates back to within a few thousand years of such a flood for it certainly would have been remembered by those who survived it as a unique event.


No, first you need to explain why you believe this story. WITh oput resorting to But it's in my religions books!

And of course you'll need to just ignore all those other cultures that don't have flood stories since their obviously lying or some how unimportant right?
Of course you will.


Second you should be able to show by experimentation how the forces of a receding flood could for a great canyon on the scale of the grand canyon.


No, after ingoring other cultures and getting around the "but it's in the boble excuse" then you need to explailn why allthe vegetation doesn't seem to have died off suddenly around a few thousand years ago.


This can be modelled on a small scale as was done in the museum or you can use computer modelling. You can also look at other, smaller scale floods and see if the drainage patterns are similar. The point is that whether the study is scientific or not depends on the arguments and methods used not on the premise itself.


The premise matters very much. Without it you don't have theory do you?



Going back to the blueberry sky. I could write a scientifically accurate paper on the theory,


NO you couldn't.
go ahead.
Try it.
I'll point out how unscientific it is.


Now I have read read very convincing and scientific argument concerning how the grand canyon could have been formed during the flood.


Ah, the flood. What flood? oh right the one in the bible. ANd if I dont' belive in the bible?



In fact if you will go to the link above it has one of the more cojent explainations of this.


I've rea through those "explanations" that all show a deep lacking of actually scientific knowledge.


The study of this theory poses no threat to other theories if it is studied scientifically.


Except that this "theory" which isn't, requires one to belive in the bible.


Hence the study of an opposing even if ultimatley incorrect theory should be encouraged and allowed.


Yes the study, not the selling of it as scientific fact. Nor the use of federal dollars to propagate a religious belief as scientific fact.


[edit on 26-12-2004 by I_AM_that_I_AM]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join