Just because Humanists, Atheists and Communists depend on Darwin's Theory does not mean that the schools are pushing these particular religions on the students.
Why do we teach a science, that is based on the scientific principle of observed reality, by banning the teaching of scientific principles that are also observed, and repeatable.
What scientific principles are banned that you believe should be taught in school?
So we are suppose to just believe this belief structure with no questions, and that enforced by a court of law because it is the only politically correct dogma?
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature)
Looks like it leaves doors open for scrutiny to me. The schools don't teach that this is an absolute and that questioning his theory is against a great book or against the word of a great being.
Opening doors for schools to teach ID would hold cause for teaching different ID beliefs. teaching these different beliefs would directly conflict with each other because each belief in ID holds that the word is absolute and the direct word from their particular Designer.
Isaih 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
To repost your definition of Dogma-belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts.
Yet beneficial mutation is not an observed fact, in fact using radiation to cause unusual mutation rates always kills the organism. By the very tenants of natural selection, organisms would tend to try to not mutate to the best of their genetic ability. But, the idea of positive mutation is held by faith, though observed science disproves it.
Just how did a bombardier beetle discover liquid explosives, build a firing mechanism and a trigger mechanism without destroying himself. You need to keep part A of the Chemical separate from part B and at the same time create a firing chamber. Do you have any idea how complex of a genetic change even on of these beetle modifications would have to be, and then have all of the thousands of mutations happen at the same time to the same bug, so it does not blow itself up? What one day, it lays a grenade bug instead of an bug after its own kind? That is not mutation it is invention and it takes intelligence.
It in punctuated equilibrium that was invented to cover the lack of transitional branches in the fossil record not only has beneficial mutation, but beneficial mutation in batches of the same type. Which is a double or nothing bet on a loosing horse.
Then the fossil record is said to demonstrate layering showing the evolutionary record, but the layering comes in random order and is better described by fluid dynamics in stream deposits in a flood event. But, because it is necessary to hold a faith in what is demonstratively false in the field, it is believed in despite scientific evidence to the contrary.
I have talked my face off on the stupidity of Radio-Metrics using radiation levels as a constant to no avail, and not once has that been addressed because with recent scientific studies from the SOPHOS satellite disproving that theory, Evl's must ignore the scientific evidence to the contrary and hold to their faith in a questionable system. How inaccurate is no longer the issue here, the inability to admit inaccuracy in the face of scientific evidence is the issue. Evl has become dogma, its practitioners the priests of the new world order that demand faith greater than any bible thumper.
Science spends hundreds of millions of dollars trying to create life in the laboratory, when all they have to do is Kill a rabbit and bring it back to life. All the correct amino acids are there, in the proper place, and all the DNA "invention" is done and in place, every organ is a proven system, in place and working and yet, life eludes us. We can even keep the heart beating and teh lungs filling with air so that the rabbit does not decay for quite a long time. But to bring it back to life? No. So why spend money trying to make simple amino acids with lighting through chemical soup when it is all at your fingertips when an ant crosses your keyboard. Zap him and bring him back already.
The moon is a positive feedback balance system, the closer it is to the earth, the more pull the earth gives it to draw it in. If it was falling away from the earth, its centrifugal throw would overcome the gravity, the more it overcomes it, the less gravity so that inherently no moon cannot remain in a stable orbit, in fact the likely hood of the moon being in a stable orbit in the first place is astronomical. It in fact is falling out of orbit, and within 100,000 years will not be there. Of course a meteor strike could correct its orbit, but as things tend to be random in a random world the likely hood of that happening over the last billion or so years is billions to one, or obvious intelligent interference.
And if the moon is a capture event, why is the orbit not elliptical? If it is not a capture event, the time frame given by Evl's would preclude the moon still being there. You can't have it both ways my friends, the moon is obviously there. But by faith you ignore it, every night. You see, to believe in evolution, you have to ignore more than you observe. The simple answer is that the earth and the other planets are way younger than you like to admit, and the moons were created along with the planets in balance.
I could go on, but in each of these chosen items, Evl's have to demonstrate Faith in the face of science defying the foundation of their own justification's of existence! You see, to me it all makes sense, and I do not have to go against what I know to be wrong. That is not faith, that is believing a lie. I do have the advantage of simply not understanding a lot of it.
Now you can flame away, and come up with all the excuses you can, but the very dynamics of the situation has been demonstrated in the thread quite well. Nothing I say makes a dent, if there is no answer it is ignored, and all is delivered with an obvious intention to insult or ridicule to assuage your internal fears of a Creator.
You all are acting like a bunch of Spanish Inquisition Priests trying to protect the "Holy Way." You ban scientific discourse in the courts of law, and teach things that are the foundations of the worst fruits of civilization and call it good because you believe in it despite science. The fact I happen to believe you are wrong does not bring you to try to show me the errors of my ways, or to respect that I may have a thesis of equal weight as another intelligent human being but causes you to try to silence and belittle me. What the heck are you so afraid of that you cannot have a pleasant conversation about this?!
You have no answers for some of these questions, that is obvious, and my guess is from the examples given here that the answers are way more foolish than the questions. Like betting on a google to one chance that two bugs build a cannon at the same time and do not blow themselves up with their first orgasm.
Give it a break, and stop being so religious about this guys!
Isaih 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
To repost your definition of Dogma-belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts.
Funny, the only posting of scriptures here is being done by the atheist's, who by definition do not understand them. I am not talking Christian Doctrine here, though you do keep bringing it up, I am talking Creation Science, which for some reason you cannot differentiate the difference. Do you somehow think radio-metric dating methodology, insect morphology, astrophysical dynamics and fluid dynamics in flood deposit conditions are all addressed in the book of something or other? I must have missed that book in there somewhere. I stand clearly against teaching religion in Schools, so why are you posting this stuff about believing in God? Are you saying that you believe in God, or that you know that you will be destroyed for not believing in God? How is that revelant to this descussion?
Somehow you are going to have to get over this God thing so you can think clearly on the issue.
Frankly Dogma, (It was not "my" definition but from googles online dictionary), is exactly what you demand, people to believe in Evolution without question. (Hello, I am questioning it, and we all see how well that is going).
Enforced by law of course. What the heck are you doing trying to get lawyers to enforce your belief system anyway, lawyers don't believe in anything...