ICR Sues Texas

Well, that would require a constitutional amendment, and I really doubt that you could get the votes.

What do atheists have to do with evolution? Evolution is a scientific theory, Atheism is a lack of belief in supernatural entities. Where is the connection? Most evolutionists aren't Atheists.{ABE this was supposed to be a response to EvC Forum: ICR Sues TexasWhich is message 88Somehow I must have hit the wrong buttonEdited by bluescat48, : error in response.Edited by bluescat48, : added line

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

First, the goal of education is not to teach the student what the student wants to know but what the student needs to know.Second, atheism has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution is a fact regardless of whether someone believes there are gods or not.Edited by jar, : figx fumbl fingrs

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I dont think you actually think about anythig before you spout off. If students needs to be taught what they need to know, then they need to be taught evolution has nothing to do with origins of things, while they are being taught it as a so-called fact.They need to be taught in the classroom that there are only two logical possibilites as to how things are here to begin with, creation (evolution notwithstanding) as one of those possibilites. While there is no need to go into depth into the theistc position, it certainly falls within the area of science, if even from only a position of the reality of natural things.If the student needs to be taught what they need to know, these things should be included in that process Right, evolution is a fact, while biological Macro evolution is a theoryDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Hiding unsupported assertions. --AdminEdited by Admin, : Add hide.

Guess what?They are taught that. Evolution has nothing to do with origins of life, only the origin of the diversity of life we seed. It is the science of Abiogenesis that studies the origin of life. Uh, no, they do not need to be taught anything about creationism. It is one possibility under Abiogenesis but so far there is NO evidence that supports Special Creation and lots of evidence that supports physics and chemistry. If and when there is any evidence related to Special Creation then perhaps it might be worth including in a curriculum.Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Students are taught the current consensus within science. All creation needs to do to get into the classroom is to become the consensus within science. It is because ICR wants to give degrees not only outside the scientific consensus but outright rejected by 99% of scientists that it cannot get accreditation in Texas.--Percy

Hi Archaeologist,Sorry that I had to suspend you. I'm hoping that you'll begin supporting your assertions when you return.

No. Macroevolution is evolution; evolution is a fact of the natural world. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.The theory is not the fact. The fact exists; the theory explains the fact.I think somebody made this distinction in other threads (but it may be the older unactive ones).

Wrong

quote:

---

A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers...
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. And, whereas a law is a postulate that forms the foundation of the scientific method, a theory is the end result of that same process.

---

Please read
Scientific Theory, Law, and Hypothesis Explained | Wilstar.comEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

xEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Is design which carries as much weight as macro evolution, taught as a science in this arena Abiogenisis Uh, yes they do need to be taught about the creation theory, since design supports it and it falls well within the only two logical explanations of the origin of life in the first placeIt is one of only two logical alternatives, supported by design, which makes it more than scientific.These divisions of abiogenisis and evo are contrived terminology, directed at avoiding very simple pointsI defy you demonstrate otherwiseDawn Bertot

Huh?There is no evidence of either design or designer. Further, even if there was it is worthless, of no value. The issue would still be "How does the designer do things" and so far the only model that has any evidence in support of it is the Theory of Evolution.Of course design is not taught and cannot be taught until there is a Theory of Design that explains what is seem better than the Theory of Evolution does.In addition, Abiogenesis has nothing to do with design, it is simply searching for the ways that life might originate. There is no theory of Creation.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

*Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box.Edited by Admin, : Delete contents of duplicate post.

I thought we were interested in what was actual demonstratble fact, the consensus could be and is wrong concerning the FACT of evolutionDawn Bertot