Both or neither.

[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-17-2004][This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-17-2004]

Ok, first of all I didn't say every religous view in the world. I said the world's major religous views. As for putting it in a separate class, that would be like implying that 'the following views are all incorrect.' If we just mentioned them in science classes there would be no need for the begging that is taking place. There are already some states allowing it. The children deserve a more well rounded education and including a few religous theories and taking ONE or TWO days teaching it would not damage the classroom.
I believe teaching it in the classrooms would also be benificial to the students in the room who believe the 'religous theories'.
Why not?

But it is the one pursing being in public education the most.
Don't get me on technicalities - you know what I'm saying.

On Thursday, September 26, the school board of Cobb County (in suburban Atlanta, Georgia) approved a policy change which allows "alternative views about the origin of life" to be taught in its classrooms. Here is the policy, as published on CNN's web site:It is the educational philosophy of the Cobb County School District to provide a broad based curriculum; therefore, the Cobb County School District believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species. This subject remains an area of intense interest, research and discussion among scholars. As a result, the study of this subject shall be handled in accordance with this policy and with objectivity and good judgment on the part of teachers, taking into account the age and maturity level of their students.The purpose of this policy is to foster critical thinking among students, to allow academic freedom consistent with legal requirements, to promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity of opinion, and to ensure a posture of neutrality toward religion. It is the intent of the Cobb County Board of Education that this policy not be interpreted to restrict the teaching of evolution; to promote or require the teaching of creationism; or to discriminate for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, religion in general or non-religion.Cobb County school board, says the district believes "discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of species."...Forum : Education and Creation/EvolutionTopic : NEWSFLASH: Schools In Georgia (US) Are Allowed To Teach About Creation[This message has been edited by TruthDetector, 01-17-2004]

"The only thing that can be taught in a science class that doesn't infringe on the state support of religion would be the complete devestation of the young-earth, instant creation of species, global flood position. If you don't have a problem with that then fine." NosyNedWhy can't anything that eaches the young earth theory, or the global flood theory, ect ( all legit theories), be taught in science class?
Seems to me your just listing things above you do not agree with. By the way, I support 100% Georgia's school district's decision.
Please, let's not get back into which classes to teach ID/Creation.

Ok, so CAN they teach ID, Creationism, or any other theories other than evolution? Also, you called Christianity and like beliefs "faith-based theories." Evolution requires more faith than Creation. Evolution is a slow, and VERY-unlikely process, on the other hand, Jesus Christ, has NeVeR been disproven and only requires that you believe He was who He said He was. So, anyways, can teachers teach Creation in Georgia or not?

What percent of americans believe in creation? I can get technical too see? It is also not fair to rule out creation by some sort of supernatural being - that at least should be taught. Ok, then what happened in that COUNTY in georgia that they stopped teaching Creation?

How likely is evolution? How unlikely is Jesus? Give me numbers! If you can't it's just your opinion.

47% is a majority. I don't know how many people agree with me that Creation should be taught in public schools. Someone should take a poll. I'm just saying they should leave room for error on there part in saying that it WAS evolution by at least showing the Creation theory to the class. I admit this country, sadly will probably never teach Creation. I also admit that I have absolutly no idea on how to calculate the probablility of MACRO-EVOLUTION, but JohnF, it is not a fact, we do not know for sure it happened, just like with Creation. I am interested in how someone would go about 'trying' to calculate probability of MACRO-EVOLUTION. I will not hesitate to admit that micro-evolution happens daily.

There is a legit arguement for all of those. ( young earth, global flood theory, ect) How do YOU think they are rubbish. probably becauuse you don't agree with them! I agree that the bible can't be taught in the U.S. , but those legit theories CAN. again I just wish we could mention them, so that kids could know that it is a possiblity. get more specific on why they are not legit theories.

give more detail on "complete renunciation of these ideas"

ok... but since evolution is not 100% proven and in such a heated debate with creation I would suggest it being a Origin Theory Class, or something like that. That would be Grrrr8T!

Yet global flood also would help explain the seemingly old look to Earth. also: in support of young earth______ The existence of comets as an argument for a recent creation is examined. Most creationist presentations of this topic are out of date. To rectify this situation, the tremendous amount of work on the origin and evolution of comets by evolutionary astronomers over the past two decades is reviewed. While it was once thought that the Oort cloud could account for all comets, computer simulations have clearly shown that short-period comets cannot originate from the cloud, so the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain the origin of the short period comets. The alleged discovery of the Kuiper belt is discussed, while the status of the Oort cloud as a theory is questioned. It is concluded that the existence of comets is still a valid argument for a recent creation of the Solar System.

If they're is a 48%, a 30%, a 2%, and a 20% it is still a majority.

Ok, I mean't macro-evolution is not 100% proven - micro is.