What hypocrisy -- let's teach one kind of religion (Godless evolution), but not provide alternative theories.
H. ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- from: Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:12:15 -0500 >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 >> > >> > >> >> > ______________________________________________________________________ Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
