Battle Against Teaching Evolution in Texas Begins: Should creationism win out, textbooks throughout

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Hmmm, come to think of it, that wouldn't make sense at all in context with my post... OK, Lucid, you've got me.

I stand corrected.

TheRedneck

Hope I didn't come off wrong or too argumentative, wasn't my intent

[edit on 123030p://16u37 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Not at all, I think you made a good point. And anyway, the words used in a description are really secondary to the concepts used.

Ummm, you get my bill yet? I could really use that cash right now.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by monkey_descendant

 

Very funny, thanks for YOUR definition of Evolution.
Most scientist have always called what you discribe. Mendelian inheritance, which was never confussed with Evolution. Untill recently. That is becuase
it is all they got left to call evolution.

Actually I was describing natural selection and mendelian inheritance both of which are apart of evolution.

Only I thought I had to give the simplest example of evolution because only individuals who don't understand it wouldn't believe in it

A really good video i watched on this subject the other day is Bones in stones. Its about an hour long but makes some really good points.

They should talk about Intelligent Design at school. They should talk about creationism home or church.

Originally posted by anti us gov
They should talk about Intelligent Design at school. They should talk about creationism home or church.

I completely agree!!
Intelligent design satisfies a lot of points from both camps and thats rare.

-Kids are not segregated based on religion, I think this is extremely important and it cannot be under stated how religious segregation could misguide the impressionable mind of a young person - this applies to both sides of the fence.

-Micro-evolution is clearly taking place, satisfying the evolutionists

-Though it's not specified as any one particular "God" figure, there is ultimately a creator or designer if you will. Satisfying those that require belief in a higher being greater than one's self.

-The question is left open-ended as to who created the designer, theres no reason why everything needs a correct answer what happened to being creative?

-Its not dependent on the child being either strictly atheist or Christian, IMO this is right up there with knocking out segregation. I mean we have to remember, more than two belief systems do exist! Though yes, it does appear as though Christianity and atheism are eternally locked in 1 on 1 combat to the death. The numbers say Christianity will eventually (one day calm down, not today) be over taken by Islam, what then? 3 curriculums? Ugh.

We need a middle ground like Intelligent Design now and for the future especially, 3+ curriculums would not only be a disaster to teach but the kids would be more lost than a Florida ballot box on election day.

PS try to steer back on topic guys, I know its easy to fall into religious debate but this isn't about who's right and the way people here can't see that is a fine example of why the problem we're discussing exists and why its not likely to be solved anytime soon.

This thread is a good example of the crop being reaped from decades of underinvestment in your public schools.


[edit on 2-5-2008 by kegs]

Originally posted by anti us gov
They should talk about Intelligent Design at school. They should talk about creationism home or church.

Creationism and intelligent design are the same thing. "Intelligent designer" [in the context of the current ID religious movement esp. wedge document] is just another word for god so how can you say they should teach this at school?

[edit on 3-5-2008 by riley]