New Questions--moral perspective

quote:

---

To the evolutionists: Is fundamental Christianity truly a threat to your cause? And if yes, why?

---

No. People are free to believe what they want, nothing wrong with that. That is one of the greatest parts about a areligious democracy, you are free to practice any theology you want. However, this right does not extend to the state. The state is not allowed to establish a state religion, something that many fundamentalists want to do. They argue that fundamentalist christianity will bring morals and integrity back to the nation. A lofty goal, but it is the implementation that many have a problem with.

quote:

---

After all, if you believe that an open-minded education system with instruction from many various perspectives is the cornerstone of a free education, why is evolution the sole theory directed in a classroom setting (I mean, LEGALLY teachers have the right to discuss creation and its principles from an unbiased point of view at any time in a classroom)?

---

Open-mindedness in a science classroom, or science in general, deals with competing theories that are both based in observable data. Since creationism is not based on testable hypotheses, or falsified hypotheses in the case of young earth creationism, it does not qualify. One example of a theory that could be taught side by side with evolution in a science classroom is Symbiosis Theory (which has been discussed in other threads). Otherwise, young earth creationism could be taught in relation to Lamarckism, Spontaneous Generation, and other falsified theories.Plus, the science classroom shouldn't be a place to test the validity of one religious text over others, being that we are a nation of multiple religions. Also, if you really want your children taught about creationism, nothing is stopping parents from doing this at home. This is perhaps the best place for it, since parents can also teach them about their faith and instruct them on everyday life at the same time. Parents already help their children with homework, I don't see why this can't be added on as well.

quote:

---

This will be my LAST post because I feel honestly that I am not dealing with open-minded SCIENTISTS, but rather with tunnel-vision neo-darwinists who have nothing better to do than throw away any unbiased opinions and prepare for a day of "let's see how many creationists I can insult or 'shoot down' today."

---

Well, this is certainly repetitive. How many creationists have we seen lately that post a whole lot of drivel and then leave because no one will believe them? Who are the one's still around to answer any questions Servant may have? Evolutionists? Who is leaving, whining like a little baby? Servant. Who is being called closed minded? Evolutionists. I wonder what passes for open minded in his world, a person who thinks Genesis two is more accurate than Genesis one? I especially love the fact that his only evidence against evolution (none supporting creation) are outright distortions and lies. Open minded indeed.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-09-2004][This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 03-09-2004]