Replies

Evolution came about because it was the best explanation to fit observed evidence. It was not invented out of thin air as a justification for a completely secular worldview. If you want to argue that evolution is wrong, then point out where the theory is in error. Lying about the very origin of the theory does not hurt anyone's credibility but your own.

Did a group of evil, atheistic scientists get together with the expressed goal of getting rid of God by developing a disabolical theory that removed God? Uhhhh, no, and I'm not suggesting that. However, for all practical purposes, the theory, idea, conjecture of evolution has been used to do exactly that, create generation after generation of unbelievers because they are easier to control. And if you think that evolution is not a tool used by the socialists to accomplish part of their goal, you're blind. I personally think this is food for thought, and this is the reason other ideas and thoughts on origins should be mentioned in the classroom (remember this thread is about the classroom, not wether evolution is correct or not). I guess one lecture or hand-out comes to close to challenging your cherished beliefs that this should not be allowed. Also if evolution is as self-evident and other ideas are mere myths, then students will be able to see, right? So why the opposition?

However, for all practical purposes, the theory, idea, conjecture of evolution has been used to do exactly that, create generation after generation of unbelievers because they are easier to control. And if you think that evolution is not a tool used by the socialists to accomplish part of their goal, you're blind.

Even if this is true (And I very seriously doubt that it is), it's irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.

I personally think this is food for thought, and this is the reason other ideas and thoughts on origins should be mentioned in the classroom (remember this thread is about the classroom, not wether evolution is correct or not).

So you want to teach non-scientific garbage in a science classroom because some people have misused the theory of evolution to justify social policy? For some reason, that does not sound like valid reasoning.

I guess one lecture or hand-out comes to close to challenging your cherished beliefs that this should not be allowed.

I don't have a problem with teaching alternative scientific theories to evolution. The problem is that, thus far, there aren't any alternative scientific theories.

Also if evolution is as self-evident and other ideas are mere myths, then students will be able to see, right? So why the opposition?

I oppose teaching Creationism in a biology class for the same reason that I oppose teaching of the Pillars of Islam in a geometry class.

And if you think that evolution is not a tool used by the socialists to accomplish part of their goal, you're blind.

So what? A tool is a tool is a tool.

Or would a statement like:

And if you think that guns are not a tool used by the socialists to accomplish part of their goal, you're blind.

... make you want to ban all guns?

It seems that you need to learn to separate cause and effect from meaningless correlation.

...this is the reason other ideas and thoughts on origins should be mentioned in the classroom ..

And then shown why they're not science, were disproven by the year 1900, how YEC-ism and the so-called Flood were disproved thirty years before Darwin, and so forth. As I've said before, it belongs in the history of science.

Then the actual techniques of creationists should be examined in rhetoric class and compared to scientific discourse.