If creationism, or Intelligent Design can fit within the criteria of a scientific theory, then its appropriate to teach it in a science class. Since both depend on religion, as far as I can see its just another attempt by fundies to break the church state barrier.
Remember a theory in science has to be able to be disproven by contradictory evidence. Such as not happened. Where is the contradictory evidence? simply put there is none. A competing theory must also provide a better explanation of the existent data. Neither cretinism (pardon creationism) nor intelligent design meet that criteria. Moreover there is no valid data that support either creationism or intelligent design. Therefore creationism and are quite rightly dismissed. They do not explain the findings of over a century of research. They do not provide a better explanatory model, nor are they predictive as is the current models of evolution. Given their inadequacies they are quite rightly dismissed by the scientific community. larry -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com http://www.pacel.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. -- > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 10:12 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Evolution and Education > > > Why is it better to teach one kind of faith -- that life, the > universe and > everything is just the product of some random chance -- than > to provide > information on alternative theories? Why are scientists and > evolutionists > so afraid of expanding the debate? > > I always thought science was supposed to an open-minded > endeavor, but it > seems more often than not that it's a closed minded pursuit. > To some, it > seems, to even suggest that anything other than random chance > might explain > the universe is a sort of blasphemy. > > Science types want to call creation types closed minded, ignorant and > bigoted, but isn't that just the black hole calling the worm > hole black? > > H. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 8:30 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Evolution and Education > > > I do not know, and since whatever evidence there is is of a > type that is > beyond science I leave it like that. > > At some point scientific explanation ends, and faith begins. > The problem is > that creationists and the supporters of the so-called > intelligent design, > have entered the debate under the terms and conditions of > what is considered > to be a science. Therefore they need to demonstrate that > their theories must > be falsifiable, and must provide a better explanation of the > existent data > than current theories. They have miserably failed both conditions. > > larry > > -- > Larry C. Lyons > ColdFusion/Web Developer > Certified Advanced ColdFusion 5 Developer > EBStor.com > 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 > Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 > tel: (703) 393-7930 > fax: (703) 393-2659 > Web: http://www.ebstor.com > http://www.pacel.com > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. > -- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 11:20 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: RE: Evolution and Education > > > > > > If there was scientific evidence, it wouldn't be religion, it > > would be science. > > > > Religion is faith, hopes, ideals, beliefs. If not for these > > things, it > > wouldn't have the meaning it has for so many people. > > > > Science is provable fact. Keep in mind Science has still not > > proven God > > does not exist, and it probably never will. > > > > To be an Agnostic/Atheist still requires faith. You must have > > faith that > > you are right, else you will live scared of what will happen > > if you are wrong. > > > > At 11:13 AM 3/12/2002 -0500, you wrote: > > >Its still creationism. Just the wolf wearing another sheepskin. > > > > > >I repeat where is the scientific evidence for it? > > > > > >larry > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
