ping!
Isn’t that interesting that it is the position that Sarah Palin advocates and has taken so much heat on from fellow politicians and the MSM.
“but also the scientific evidence against it.”
As worded that means NOT teaching ID.
None of these excerpted questions are controversial. Any scientific issue should cover evidence both for and against.
But evidence against evolution, whatever that may be, does not equate to creationism.
Saying you think both sides of the issue should be discussed and weighed objectively is one thing. Actually doing it proves to be quite another matter.
The word ‘Universal’ means all-encompassing...hence the schools of learning are called ‘Universities’. Any knowledge that is suppressed is pure censorship. If the theory of Evolution proponents are so secure in their ‘science’ then why should the concepts of ‘creationism’ be such a threat?
In our home school I teach my kids what evolution is, often using the evolution scientist’s own writings, so that they have an antithesis to our thesis that creation science is correct.
Having been raised to believe in evolution I have no qualms discussing its main teachings as well as contrasting it to the creationist view.
Evolutionists, in general, do not seem to share the same confidence and refuse to even mention the main creation science teachings, even if only critically.
The United Church of Darwin does not allow any disagreement.
NO WHERE in your link did it propose teaching 'another side of the Evolution debate'.
I’m of the opinion that kids would get a lot more out of science classes if they didn’t waste any time on origins. The subject of origins isn’t required for teaching applicable facts of science, including biology. The most brilliant cell biologist on earth could be completely void of opinions on origins, and it wouldn’t make a diddly-squat bit of difference. The same goes for any of the various fields of botany or zoology. I’m not trying to get anyone riled up here, just stating my opinion. Parents can teach their kids creationism or evolution, whichever one represents their faith.
The title of this thread is somewhat misleading. By inserting “Overwhelming support for teaching both sides of Evolution debate”, one may assume that the “sides” in question are those that are generally debated here: evolution vs. creation. However, the survey instead questions whether scientific evidence should be presented in support of and in oppostiion to evolution. Of course it should—that’s good science. As creation has no scientific foundation, it is really not the counterbalance to evolution that the title implies.
I guess I don’t understand why creationism and evolution have to necessarily be at odds with each other, could it be that evolution is the way God worked.
Interesting that the people retain a much healthier dose of common sense than the scientific community and “evolution” proponents.
Most people aren’t ready to completely surrendet to naturalism and the nihilism that follows.
Of course, many are content to hold completely contradictory positions within themselves, believing “evolution,” but also trying to make-up some meaning or purpose for themselves and humanity in their completely impersonal, chemical, mechanical universe.
From a major scientific publication:
It begins like this.
“You shouldn’t be here. Not just reading this blog, but anywhere.
You shouldn’t exist. Period.
Moments after the big bang, equal amounts of matter and antimatter floated through the universe and when particles of each collided, they annihilated each other, leaving nothing but free floating energy in their paths.
Suddenly something changed, allowing for more matter than antimatter. The little extra bit that escaped annihilation clumped together and over time planets… and eventually you formed.
But billions of years later no one knows exactly how that happened.”
I support teaching Biblical young-earth Creationism only if the class points out that YEC supports an earth-centered universe, a 4-cornered flat earth, and a 6000ish year old planet, all of which have been definitively, scientifically disproven.
I would replace all science and social studies programs in the curriculum with a class on logic, rhetoric, and critical thinking.
In the suddenly emptied administrative offices, I would install liraries of contentious opinionated books for the students to dissect.
The only way out of the forest is through the trees.
How big of a ship would it take, to have room for all known species of animals on board? Two each.
Creation science should answer the questions of how many species, and how big a boat (ship).
Did the technology exist at the time, to build a vessel of whatever size the scientists calculate?
Name the species.
I think my question is very legitimate, from a logical standpoint.