Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JJRousseau
firtherton, I'm not sure if you actually read my post, but I specifically removed any reference to Christianity or any denomination. Creationism is a theory (defined as speculation, ideal, belief, hypothetical set of facts, conjecture, unproved assumption) that we exist thru an act of will. I make no judgement as to who's (or what's) will that is or how that will came to create us.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JJRousseau
This always seems to degrade to a religious vs non-religious argument. But if you can put aside for the moment... Why censure one theory over another. I realize that the Biblical account of Creation is difficult to accept, but the current theory of Evolution has many holes as well. Until it can be proven that the universe did not begin as an Act of Will, why not offer it as a possibility. To do otherwise, is to deny children the right to think for themselves.
<flame away>
|
I'm not sure if you read your post. You specifically mentioned the biblical account of creation. Furthermore, i highly doubt that most creationists are fighting for the right to teach hindu creation stories in their public schools. I would wager that most of them would abhor the idea of teaching curriculum that seemed to imply that other religions are just as valid as christianity.
Evolution is a theory, that means it is supported by experiment and observation. Creationism is not a theory, it is not supported by anything, it belongs in an anthro class, not a hard science class. There are holes in evolution just as there are holes in newtonian physics, but overall they seem like a pretty damn good explanation. Unlike any creationism story, which is completely untestable.
Anyone who insists that creationism belongs in the same group as evolution in terms of tested validity please e-mail me because i have some magic beans to sell you.