Posted on 11/18/2009 5:58:48 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
New Scientist magazine is generally regarded by the secular community as one of the top-ranked science magazines in the world. However, a published opinion by a regular columnist demonstrated how “unscientific” and anti-God some of their articles have become—something we have documented before (see Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions).
Amanda Gefter wrote an article discussing multiverse theory, or the idea that our universe may be only one of many that currently exist. Such speculations attempt to explain away the appearance of design in the universe, because of, as we shall see, the spiritual implications. In an article called What’s God got to do with it she wrote: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Go ahead. Give us some evidence that evolutionists are smarter than creationists.
Show us how creationism has hurt science education over the years.
Show us how getting creation out of public schools has improved science education.
Give us the mountains of evidence the evos keep appealing to like they do for their support of the ToE.
Heck, give us ANY evidence.
Why do evos continue to advocate for something that has NO evidence to support it, like teaching evolution and keeping creation out of schools is going to help science education, or that teaching creation will harm it?
Why the hypocrisy and double standard? It wouldn’t be because there’s an agenda, now would it?
I have some land in FL to sell you. Great waterfront property.
Guaranteed.
I guess you don’t realize that the AVERAGE homeschooler
scores in the 85th (ie, “elite”) percentile on standardized tests.
With graduation rates approaching 40% in some locales, ......
Go ahead, goodusername, throw in your lot with them.
It says a lot about you that you’d put ideology above what’s demonstrated to work, or not to work.
Evolution uber alles.....
Even at the expense of a child’s education.
How sad.
Nope. You're the one who's taking a "liberal position", because you're flapping your gums about a subject you obviously don't know a **** thing about.
Thanks for the ping!
“I guess you don’t realize that the AVERAGE homeschooler
scores in the 85th (ie, “elite”) percentile on standardized tests.”
—Yes, I did. But the question was regarding home schooled students only taught Creationism, and knowledge of science.
Then your public skooled kid would get blown away. Unless the “science” test was exclusively about evolution theology.
A science test though encompasses much more than that.
If teaching only creation was such a detriment to science education, please elucidate on how so much progress was made in science in the hundreds of years before Darwin published his book, and before creation was shoved out of the public school system through litigation.
“If teaching only creation was such a detriment to science education, please elucidate on how so much progress was made in science in the hundreds of years before Darwin published his book, and before creation was shoved out of the public school system through litigation.”
—When did I ever say that teaching creation was a detriment to science?
Science did do well before Darwin’s theory was published, but that doesn’t mean that we should go back to teaching that diseases come from an imbalance of the four humors, that the four basic elements are earth, wind, water, and fire, and the phlogiston theory.
I would think that “science class” should be a class for teaching the scientific method and the leading scientific theories (otherwise, why call it “science class”?)
Um, that WAS the science of the day.
You can't blame those on creationism.
“Um, that WAS the science of the day.
You can’t blame those on creationism.”
—Exactly. Just because science did well in 1800, doesn’t mean we should go back to teaching science as if it was 1800.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.