[[Can you point to one advancement made in western science and medicine that was made possible by replacing science with religious instruction?]]
Can you point out where we’re tryign to ‘replace science with religious isntruction”? Cripes- it appears you’re incapable of intellectualy honest discussions.
[[If children are taught that a religious belief or superstition has as much scientific value as an actual scientific theory, they will be less prepared for work in that particular field.]]
Again- anopther ignorant statement- perhaps you missed my links above showing where religion is NOT in any way shape or form a part of ID science- but keep pretendign it is- it just shows the desperation Macroevolutionists feel by tryign ot malign and falsely accuse the opposition- Yep- that’s the scientific process evidently, intiidate the opposition by lying about htem and tryign to shape public opinion about htme by spreading and perpetrating lies about hteir purpose-
[[If students who will go on to become scientists are taught that the religious belief that the earth and all the life upon it was created wholly formed six thousand years ago is just as scientifically valid as the theory of evolution, modern cosmology, and modern geology, we will all suffer for it.]]
What’s hte matter Flimshaw? Afraid hte truth might destroy the hypothesis of macroevolution? Is that how science works to you? Repress any counterevidences for fear of being exposed?
[[Please do not, however, ask the rest of us to teach your religious ideas to our own children under the guise of “science.”]]
Calm down- NOONE is askign you to teach the parables of Christ, or the virtues of the ten commandments- We are however askign that objective science be taught- ALL of it- instead of hiding hte serious flaws and impossibilities of Macroevolution- Apparently htough, only your particular religious beleif is allowed in schools? Lol- Yep- must be nervewracking htinking your hypothesis faces serious exposure- But do please keep spreading lies about ID- again- apparently that’s hte only defense you folks have- which exposes just how weak your hypothesis really is!
You are aware, aren't you, that in the last ten years or so evolution has become an experimental laboratory science, and the arguments against multi-step evolution are being whittled away? Behe's Edge of Evolution was obsolete within weeks of its publication. Actually the specific claims he made were obsolete before he published, but he failed to do a simple literature search.
Since publication, two laboratory experiments have been published demonstrating adaptations that required multiple mutations before becoming adaptive.
Yes I can. If someone is seeking to teach creationism/ID in a science class, they are seeking to replace science with religious instruction.
Creationism/ID is not science, and the recent attempts to pretend that it is merely another scientific theory is nothing more than window dressing.
Is that how science works to you? Repress any counterevidences for fear of being exposed?
Absolutely not. If there are criticisms of a scientific theory that themselves adhere to the scientific method, those criticisms are invaluable. The theory of evolution has been greatly strenghthened, from over a century of scientific observation, testing, and refinement. The more this particular theory is "exposed" to actual scientific scrutiny, the stronger it has become.
If you can either disprove, modify, or refine the theory of evolution using another scientific theory, then science would welcome your contribution. If you merely seek to tear down science that conflicts with your own particular religious belief, as is the case for creationism/ID, then keep it in your own house of worship, thank you very much.