Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why can’t Creationists teach an alternative? Are the ‘free thinkers’ - atheists scared of som

page: 34
11
<< 31  32  33   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


That video is stupid, so many false interpretation of evolution. Ben Stein, really? One of the first things he says is "why are there still monkeys if we evolved from them"...that clearly shows the man is a dummy who has no clue about science or evolution.

As for demanding for creationism to be accepted as a valid theory: That's impossible, it has ZERO credible evidence to back it up...nada, zip, nothing. So why on earth would anyone outside religious classes accept it as a valid alternative theory?

So to answer your question: Creationists shouldn't be allowed to teach creationism as a valid alternative theory to evolution outside of religious classes because it's NOT A THEORY. For that it would require evidence and facts to back it up, both of which don't exist.

You might just as well ask why followers of the flying spaghetti monster (who created the Christian and Muslim god just for fun to play a bit of stratego on earth when they fight eachother) aren't allowed to teach their theory in biology.




posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I agree with you! In fact! If you want to teach creation. Then you're going to have to teach every religions view on creation. Which means your going to get beliefs that are similar and different as well. Here's a great article discussing creation myths and their similarities.
Creation



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


Your post actually shows the dangers of mixing theology and science. During Newton's time, and before, only the religious were allowed to "do science." Copernicus was a priest. Newton's stepfather, Barnabus, was a preacher. Spinoza was an observant Jew and biblical critic. Galileo was in a monastery.And so on.
And when their scientific inquiries became difficult, the religious background would lead to them throwing the scientific toewel in, and calling on the God card. For instance, Newton worked out two body gravitation flawlessly, but when he tried three body problems, he gave up and said that the mechanics of three body problems are the realm of God. Instead, he could have invented perturbational mechanics as did Clairaut. Crediting a creator is lazy science.



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Everything is a concpet of belief and truth is merely a perspective of the story teller





new topics

top topics
 
11
<< 31  32  33   >>

log in

join