Do they have mirrors where you live?
Can you read?
My "Raison D'etre" on these threads is because I am pissed off that stupid Judges are decreeing things that are not logically justifiable.
Somewhere along the line, an evolutionists has to acknowledge that something came from nothing in order to support their RELIGION!
I don't care which position you take.
I do not want the Courts forbidding people from debating all of the positions.
That is what you do, and that is what you support.
You are Fascist!
They have not made any such prohibition. They are forbidding the teaching of religion in public schools as part of a science discussion.
That is what you do, and that is what you support.
Religion can and should be discussed in philosophy, history, etc. It doesn't belong in Biology class any more than it belongs in Chemistry or Math.
You are Fascist!
You are an idiot who tosses terms around you don't even understand.
Learn a little and come back when you have some real education under your belt. Your adolescent rants are getting really old.
Uh, they took their evidence from the writings of the pro-ID movement that ID was a wedge issue to get religion into the science classroom. What is illogical is that the pro-ID'rs here have as their hero, Behe, who stated underoath that he believed in evolution.
You are Fascist!
Very original. Are you a professional writer or do you just dabble in fiction.
The courts haven't issued any ruling about debating the issue of evolution or antievolution. They've only ruled on certain matters regarding how they're taught in the public school classroom, in introductory level science curricula.
And don't say that's not a difference. It's a huge difference. The scientific debate occurs in the scientific community: in the universe of those actually doing science and applying, and consequently testing, scientific theories and principles in the conduct of original and productive research.
With very rare exceptions, no such debate occurs in a high school biology classroom. That's just one of the places were the results of the debate are reported.
It's also a huge, and directly relevant, difference because if some antievolutionary view managed to find a place in public school curricula because it had first succeeded, on merit, in the scientific debate, then there could be no constitutional problem with that. Even if this view was held to have religious implications, that would be overridden by the "valid secular purpose" of teaching, in a science class, a theory that was objectively a part of science.
It's solely because you insist that a certain view be taught, in public schools, despite its failure to survive scientific debate (or even its failure to subjected thereto) that you have a problem with the courts.
You are aware that there are many 'evolutionists' that believe God produced the BB? You must also be aware that there are many 'evolutionists' who believe that God created the first life? You see that is because Evolution follows the initial tenets put forward by Darwin; as such, Evolution can only deal with life. However, even though the term evolution can be applied to a number of non-biological systems such as the Universe and stars, the acceptance of Evolution does not preclude one from believing in a God or his/her influence in the start of the Universe and life.
If you want to argue Cosmology or Abiogenesis then do so, including them as part of Evolution in order to bolster your attack is of course nothing but the creation of a strawman.
Personally I believe that the Universe did come about out of nothing in the BB simply because a cause and effect relationship did not hold at that time. There is no need for that relationship without the 'arrow of time'. Once the universe existed nothing else had to be produced 'out of nothing'.
But that's just me.