Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: MamaTexan
OK, then sorry if I misread your post.

On the other hand you have to understand that what you propose is not what this conflict is about. As far as most scientists are concerned you can teach in a theology/philosophy class whatever you want as long as you don't claim it is science.
But this is not what many creationsts are satisfied with. They want to pass off their theological opposition to evolution, geology, astronomy, radiology, etc. as equally valid as mainstream science.

260 posted on 02/20/2006 11:34:36 AM PST by BMCDA (If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it,we would be so simple that we couldn't)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies ]


To: BMCDA
They want to pass off their theological opposition to evolution, geology, astronomy, radiology, etc. as equally valid as mainstream science.

Which, of course, it is not.

The fact remains, however, that while evolution should cover the gradual changes of a species, it should not try to explain the origins of life.

If science is going to operate under the assumption that only what is provable IS science, it cannot prove that life originated by 'accident'.

279 posted on 02/20/2006 11:52:09 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am NOT a ~legal entity~, nor am I a *person* as created by law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson