Replies

This particular debate hinges upon the religious beliefs of the community in Georgia.

This is true. And this is why the argument should have stopped before it even got out of the gate. Religious beliefs are not appropriate for a science class in ANY school.

If I understand, the parents of the particular kids are tired of government teachers teaching whatever they, the government, chooses, without regard to the parent's beliefs.

Science can be damn inconsiderate of other people's religious beliefs. Cobb County (my home, BTW) has some of the best schools in Georgia. Of course, thanks in part to the efforts of our beloved "Education Govenor," Georgia has the 58th best school system in these-here United States. (Yes, I went to public school, why do you aks?)

Creationism is hardly cutting-edge science. We might as well teach school kids that angels are still pushing the planets around the sun. No good can come of this.

The Christian Creation myth is just that: a metaphor, a parable, an allegory, call it what you will it cannot be taken literally. As such, it is perfectly compatible with the scientific theory of evolution. Regardless, creation ain't science, and doesn't belong in the classroom.

I don't want to offend anyone with using terminology that demeans or insults. I think all who post here should do likewise, and refrain from terms which are, by nature, inflammatory.

That being said, let me say that I am not a scientist. But I would reference what other scientists have said about this subject.

G.A. Kerkut, the eminent British evolutionist, wrote a book entitled, "The Implications of Evolution." He listed seven nonprovable assumptions upon which evolution is based. At the very top of his list (note: his list; not mine), was this statement: "the first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred." (1960, p.6)

These are assumptions that the evolutionist must make before he can hold to the theory of evolution. It is an assumption that has no basis in scientific fact. It cannot be proven scientifically. That means it is, equally, unscientific. That makes it, in my mind (a layman), almost as much a matter of faith as Creationism.

In fact, Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, 21 years later wrote: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears, at the moment, to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

It appears to me, (again, a layman) that there is as much faith required for evolution as Creationism. It's dismissive to label Creationism as "myth." It's also inconsistent to examine Creationism under the microscope of absolute truth without subjecting evolution to the same criteria.

But, once again, let's stay focused. This is about a group of parents who are fighting to take back their schools, in their community, paid for with their tax dollars. In that endeavor, we must all be united.

I am surprised, however, that evolution vs. Creation generates this much controversy. One would think this to be as volatile an issue as gun control or immigration. Let us not become ungentlemanly in the quest for truth.

Now, I've got to get back to my Data Based Management Systems homework. By the way, can anybody explain "equiJOIN" for me?