What an insightful contribution from our trusty moderator. :)

Your god wouldn't be proud of you trying to belittle another "creation" by using phrases such as "scientist wannabe." When someone doesn't take YOUR beliefs as FACT do you try to hurt them with words? You should pray, someone should pray for you, bad person you.

On a serious note, I have never ever heard of any public school teatching Evolution as "fact" as you seem to continue to go on and on about. When I was in school it was presented to me as "The Theory of Evolution." As it is in countless textbooks which are used in countless classrooms around the country. How does theory translate to fact?

And, I appreciate that evolution is honestly called a theory. My concern is that it is considered the only valid theory when it is not. So, when evolution is taught alone, with no suggestion that it could be incorrect, the implication is that it is, indeed, fact.

If parents wish to have their children learn the "theory" of Creationism, they should send them to private school. If they can't afford it, teach it to them at home. Learn it in church....etc, etc.

I apprecaite your opinion but our public school system applies the study of sciences, not religions (to an almost certain extent). If we open the door to teaching creationism, we must also open the door to other theories.

Are we willing to spend the tax dollars needed to hire more teachers, expand schools and classrooms, purchase more textbooks, all of which would be required to adapt to such a change? I just don't see the vision.

I'm not suggesting that evolution and creation be taught. Earlier in this thread, I commented that it would be useful and fair for textbooks to have just one chapter on origin theories - to include the most widely held theories, not only evolution and creation. I consider evolution to be as scientific as creation. Origin theories cannot be considered purely a matter of science.


ETA: There would be no considerable change in teaching. As for the cost of textbooks, the government already has a schedule for providing updates to textbooks. This addition would simply come at the next update.

My suggestion does not change the study of science, as I've pointed out before.

1st - I always find it interesting that people judge me more then God judges me. I am just a "rotten" sinner saved by grace.

2nd - I had no idea what your career choice was and for all I knew/know you are just a scientist wannabe. Just because people use some scientific words doesn't mean they are a scientist. I am a restaurant owner and a millionaire wannabe. So, please don't take offense to anything I might or might not say. (As I am sure you didn't) However, anyone can pray for me anytime they want, cause, I need it.

A school or program doesn't have to say "Evolution is a fact" to teach it as fact. For instance. I was watching the Discovery Channel the other day, when they stated something like - Paleozoic era - 300 million years ago amphibians and first reptiles on roamed the land. They didn't say "some scientist believe that . . . . " They just made the statement as fact. How is that OK? (scientifically speaking). I am not asking them to read Genesis to public school kids I am saying that they should "effectively" teach an unproven theory as such.

I can assure you that I'm not a scientist or a scientist wannabe. But the context you said that in sure didn't seem to come off as "maybe you are trying to be a scientist" but more like "flex your muscles you big bad scientist you." But I could truly care either way, I just wanted to poke at you.


Regarding evolution and fact, again, I have never been told by any teacher in any school that this theory is indeed being taught as fact. Im' sure it could be taught as fact, if one so believed, just as much as certain people believe creationism is "fact."

I mean, if I think Santa Claus is real, or the Tooth Fairy is real, or that Big Bird is a real, seven foot tall, bright yellow bird, that would be fact to me. In my experience, more people that believe the theory of creationism believe it as fact, while certain others may view evolution as fact, many that I have known still approach it as an "unproven theory."

We could get into deep philosophy, epistemology , or even the metaphysical but I think certain people would be lost. And I'd rather drink the beer I just bought.

Toodles!

Woah... hold on... the Discovery Channel talking about amphibians and reptiles 300 MYA would be discussing other sciences - Geology & Physics... so now those sciences in addition to Evolutionary Theory are now in question? Is all science questionable because it may contridict Bibilical scriptures? Talking about creatures living 300 MYA involves Nuclear Physics - radiological dating; Geology - the dating and age of rocks in which discoverys have been found, stratification.

Let's change focus for a minute . . .


Can anyone provide physical and scientific evidence AGAINST evolution?

The problem is that the same evidence that supports macroevolution/microevolution supports creation/adaptation. We have to remember that this line of study is fairly recent in the whole scheme of things. It's not that people before us were gullible idiots...

I find it very interesting that so many Initiated Creation stories are so similar.

I think there are many biblical stories that are very similar to other stories. For example, the story of Romulus and Remus is very similar to the story of Cain and Able.

And the story of Cain and Able is remarkably similar to the development of farming culture in the Fertile Crescent (as RACooper pointed out - which, btw, is detailed in Ishmael by Dan Quinn, read it) . . .

What ever happened to all the Greek gods living on Mt. Olympus? Weren't they created by people who wanted to explain things they didn't understand? How is this "God" of which you all speak any different?

I'm suggesting that it all points to a real truth.

then
and then
Once again, words -- and accurate use thereof -- at work. ADPiZXalum seems to be using the word "Apocrypha" in a Protestant sense, and RACooper in, perhaps, a Catholic sense.

Short version: The canon of the Hebrew Scriptures (what Chistians would call the Old Testament) was not set until around AD (CE) 200. The canon as laid down at that time did not include some books or portions of books that had customarily been placed in Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. Those books/portions of books are: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees, and certain additions to Esther and Daniel. These books/portions of books are often called "deuterocanonical" in a Catholic context. They are not included in Hebrew Bibles.

When the Latin translation of the Bible was prepared it was done from the Greek, and the deuterocanonical writings were therefore included. These writings have always been considered canonical by the Catholic Church. At the time of the Reformation, the Reformers questioned the authority of the deuterocanonical writings and affirmed only an Old Testament canon of the "protocanonical" writings: those books and writings excepted as canon by Jews. Protestants tend to refer to the Old Testament deuterocanonical writings simply as "the Apocrypha." Thus, if one buys an RSV or NRSV edition of the Bible "with Aprocrypha," one is buying a Bible that includes, in a section between the Old and New Testaments, the deuterocanonical writings accepted as canonical by the Catholic Church (and assigned greater or less "non-canonical" value by various Protestant groups.)

There are, of course, other apocryphal writings, both to the Old and New Testament. In my experience, if a Catholic speaks of the Apocrypha, he or she is referring to some or all of those additional books, which are not accepted by any branch of Chistianity as canonical. In Protestant use, on the other hand, "the Aprocrypha" is typically understood to mean the deuterocanonical writings of the Old Testament, which are accepted as canonical by the Catholic Church. Any other use would be modified, such "the apocryphal books of the New Testament" or "the apocryphal book of _____."

Did I get everyone confused (and off track) enough?