This is of particular note if you're a US resident, but should be interesting for everyone.
http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/txwaronscience/
Without bringing any sort of religious debate to the forums, that's just a big no-no, I think most people can agree on that.
for those of you outside the US (or just don't know) the Texas SBOE has a huge influence over the rest of the country because it serves a HUGE amount of students
This I found to be uneducated rubbish, but I've read and heard about it before:
physical and written testimony that the Earth is only 6,000 years old
That article is only slightly liberally biased.
And no, it doesn't sound like we agree on anything.
I think it's really sad that people like this are even given the time of day.
I think it's really sad that people like this are even given the time of day.
Ditto for those who are against creationism. Do you all think we and this entire universe just popped up out of nowhere by some unexplained act of science? That takes more faith than believing in a higher power! I'm not saying I think the world is 6,000 years old....there are scientific facts that prove otherwise, but I do think we and all that there is was created by God.
What's wrong with having both points of view in textbooks? Why is one point of view ok but not the other when NEITHER can be concretely proven?
Not my personal belief, but I did find a quote elsewhere that relates:
"I believe the Bible tells us who created the Earth and why," he states simply on his campaign Web site. "I believe science tells us when the Earth was created and how. Neither is designed to tell the other story, therefore we shouldn't ask them to try."
Another significant point as to why creationism might be left out of textbooks is because a lot of those go to public schools, and it's a religious belief.
Separation of church/state and all of that fun stuff, you know?
Also I re-read my original post, I meant the religious debate was a no-no, not the exclusion of the creationism! >.< Very unclear of me, and I apologize for the misunderstanding if there was one.
Scientists gave us the hockey stick of Global Warming, the evil nature of DDT, etc. But these aren't scientists, they're Trust Fund babies. All grown up now, 'friending' on Facebook and tweeting. They're waaay above the likes of us mere mortals.
Many times it seems like creationism and science are deemed to be mutually exclusive. I'm not too sure why. The more I learn about the intricacies and science of our world (and indeed our universe), the more I wonder and marvel over the works of my Creator who made it all.
What's wrong with having both points of view in textbooks?
I think TeeJay's point is a good one.
Here's a good test...
Look at a complex 3D fractal zoom. If you don't say "Oh my God!", you're an atheist.
Deleted by the original poster before this gets locked. No offence meant.
I have to say I have very strong opinions and feelings about religion, and I'm although I'm tempted, I'll keep them to myself as we all know where religious debates usually end up.
So lets cut away from who believes what and why, and maybe call it a day with this one.
z=0-1/y=0+1-c. Look it up.
Give 3 examples.
j/k but my belief goes way beyond the Creationists point of view. 6000 years seems technologically ludicrous but that's about the time God stopped f'ing with the space/time continuum. (ie. Magic.) There's plenty of stuff (Egyptian Sphinx) that's at least 10,000 years old. Which begs a look into really old stuff. Not dinosaur bones, but into what's buried in anything above magma.
(Dennis, I posted this just while you posted yours.)
........The nominees to the science curriculum review team are absolutely ridiculous: They don't believe in evolution -- and some of them admit that they don't even believe in science at all!.......
Oh "god", or oh geezzzz or whatever. Just shows you there are idiots in every state, every country on earth.
You can't even reason or comment on that.
You can't even reason or comment on that.
Oh yes I can, but I can already tell you're not someone worth arguing with. It only took 13 posts for someone like yourself to resort to name calling, so I agree with Dennis about letting this topic rest.
No name calling, no religious debates.
Keep focused on the original topic or it's the end of the world for this thread
No name calling, no religious debates.
Because of the nature of the topic, I don't see how religion could not be debated. Creationism versus non-creationism is inherently a religious topic. That's why I think this particular topic is asking for trouble in any forum, even a very civil forum such as this one.
It was up to members how they replied to the original post, you said what you thought, as did others.
When the direction changes that's when things can get out of hand.
Thread closed.