It's also been demonstrated time and again that confidence in the theory of evolution is not a rejection of God. It's insulting for you to equate the two.
Also, a tip: the more you tie teaching an alternative to evolution, to getting Christianity back in the classroom, the less success you're likely to have in court. It's a losing strategy.
That's why they invented ID. But I still can't figure out why a creationist would support ID when ID says that man came from a chemical soup and evolved over millions of years from organism to great ape to man and their primary expert even said that the great designer may be dead!
It’s been demonstrated time and again, and proably on this thread too, that the rejection of God is also based entirely on faith.
It’s also been demonstrated time and again that confidence in the theory of evolution is not a rejection of God. It’s insulting for you to equate the two.
Also, a tip: the more you tie teaching an alternative to evolution, to getting Christianity back in the classroom, the less success you’re likely to have in court. It’s a losing strategy.
It’s not about evolution THEORY it’s about the DEBATE of evolution, and alternative THEORY.
As I’ve said over and over and over...I have no problem with evolution being taught. As theory, I understand it offers some interesting explanations and I also understand it has GAPING holes. But I wouldn’t throw the baby out in the bathwater. I’ve never asked to replace evolution with ID. In fact, I believe evolution is one of God’s tools that we may never understand and may well never be MEANT to understand.
But to be fair to you, I DO understand how you’re answering all these posts and can lose track on each poster’s positions.
My problem HAS ALWAYS been evolution taught as fact or to the exclusion of everything else as hijacked by God-hating liberals.
You bring up another interesting point about being insulted:
Being insulted is what liberals are ALWAYS about!
Here’s a tip: GET OVER YOURSELVES ALREADY!
Yours remians an indefensable position.