Sure... even if the science doesn't make sense.
The problem is not so much that religion is trying to get into the classroom, but that science has stopped investigating, theorizing and proving, and has, instead, placed it's faith in a theory that falls apart repeatedly under scrutiny.
However, if any science teacher or college professor has the temerity to discuss the failures of Darwinism, he or she will not be in the job for long. There is a whiff of totalitarianism in the rarified air of science and those who hate religion are using it to shut up any questioning person.
can you please provide a link to an experiment that supports intelligent design or creationism?
However, if any science teacher or college professor has the temerity to discuss the failures of Darwinism, he or she will not be in the job for long. There is a whiff of totalitarianism in the rarified air of science and those who hate religion are using it to shut up any questioning person.
Well said. The same whiff you speak of stinks up Freerepublic as well.
The pressures that science imposes do not weaken the validity of evolution — quite the contrary. Scientists are rewarded more for finding new things, not for supporting established principles. Thus, they tend to look more for novelties and for results that would overturn common beliefs. If a scientist found evidence that falsified evolution, he or she would be guaranteed world prestige and fame.
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320.html
The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence(http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html). When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This “seeing is believing” basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.
Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html
Far from ‘falling apart repeatedly under scrutiny’, the theory of Evolution through Natural Selection has received massive corroboration by sequencing animals genomes and finding exactly the pattern of similarity and divergence one would expect from some DNA sequences being under intense selective pressure and other DNA sequences being free from selective pressure and observed to change at the neutral mutation rate.
The majority of Scientists in the USA are people of faith such as myself, they do not “hate religion”, and there is nothing “totalitarian” about insisting that Scientific criticisms of a Scientific theory actually be Scientific.
BINGO!
The vast evidence supports the fact that Christians are involved in PRESERVING our culture, not trying to ram it down throats.
Meanwhile, it’s the godless liberals that whine and force their disbelief on others forcing public places like schools to not be allowed to put up Christmas trees during the holidays for instance.
Micheal Newdow doesn’t see things the way HE wants, so he hijacks his own daughter and fails miserably while demanding the words Under God be stricken from the pledge.
It’s just incessant liberal idiocy running wild...we must accpet this not only in schools, but we can’t have the 10 commandments in courtrooms, we must accept the homosexual agenda...Las Cruces N.M. must be renamed, etc. etc. etc.
Meanwhile, science should be FAR more concerned about the hot air cultists and the goreacle. Legitimate scientists dispute global warming on the scale (and cause) as the goreacle and his legions contend.
There is simply no way science can be separated from faith. After all it’s on faith that also disbelieves in God.
And at what point do we stop separating science from belief in God?
Since there’s no proof of love, do we expel someone if they make a statement “I love science” and scream and whine at them: “that’s not science”!??
Math isn’t so anal as science, come to think of it, neither is philosophy, english, history...
What if they ask for directions to the restroom on the first day of science class?
Is the professor obligated to explain, “that’s not science, so you’ll just have to hold it and see me after science class”?
Seems overly marxist to me.
Finally so much of science is nothing more than opinion.
A slew of doctors can express study after study explaining why theY approve of drug A as the best hyperstension medication, while an equal number and just as distinguished group of doctors swear by drug B.