[narby]

Hooo, boy. I got in here early!

[RightWingNilla]

The whole world is going nuts ping.

[narby]

It just amazes me that Creationists get away with using the normal conflicts in science to poke holes in Evolution. But they want to replace it with what? 6000 year history? Or is it Evolution with a designer? Which designer? Where is he? Where is evidence of a designer except by poking holes in Evolution?

Creationists have no leg to stand on to criticize Science, because they can't get their story straight on exactly what it is they believe.

My personal belief is that God used Evolution as His preferred toolbox. I see no conflicts. But I do see damage done to the conservative movement by Creationists. And I also see damage done to some faithful people who participate in this Evolution argument and decide that there is no God.

Religious Creationists and IDers are being stupid to disbelieve Evolution in the first place because there is a huge amount of evidence to support it. And they're being stupid because it harms their stated goal of bringing people to God. They're Double stupid.

[Hunble]

1) There can be a big "poof" and a new creature is suddenly created on Earth. In the last 2,000 years, this should be very well documented.

2) Every creature was suddenly created at one moment. Since nothing has ever changed over time, this should be very easy to document.

3) Mental energy is able to influence cell division and development. This should be easily demonstrated in a laboratory petri-dish.

I have absolutly no problem with these theories being taught in school!

[John Locke]

Schools should teach the biblical creation story alongside evolutionary theory, Family First chairman Peter Harris said yesterday.

Schools should teach the biblical creation story in the religious study classes. They should teach evolution in the science classes. And in the philosophy classes, they can then teach why the two accounts are mutually compatible.

[worldclass]

One thing this thread has proven is that many of you are products of your education. Schools teach evolution, so you believe it. And since universities teach that only uneducated people believe in creation, many choose to not even consider the possibility of creation for fear of being labeled crazy. As for myself, I have no such concerns. I think creation best explains the world and have read much on the matter.

Just one historical footnote. Before the Scopes, trial creation was the only version of "in the beginning" taught in schools. Then Darrow, an atheist and early founder of humanism, sued to get schools to accept Darwinism as a possibility. Now, 80 years later, ONLY evolution is being taught in schools. All many of us would like is to return to the post-Darrow ruling that both should be taught.

But evolutionist faith won't allow opposition. The humanist now have their own inquisition to stop alternative thought.

[Dimensio]

So, er, what is this creation "theory"? What does it predict, how can it be tested and what potential observation would falsify it?

And why is it that any time I ask for such a definition, I am met with silence?

[Junior]

The "theory" didn't get a boost. Forcing it into the curriculum got a boost.