Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zz0011
Evolution and creation as theories of the beginnings of all things are both theories which have to be embraced by faith.
|
not true. evolution doesn't talk about the beginning of life. it describes how life changed over time from the first microorganism. and since change has been observed in living things, it doesn't require faith.
Quote:
|
Evolution can not be observed. Microevolution, which can be argued for, is not macroevolution.
|
evolution has been observed. you might want to start at
http://www.talkorigins.org and learn a bit about it before you try to state a falsity.
Quote:
|
Unless they've changed the scientific method's reliance on observation, then it would be far better to present the cases for both theories and teach the children how to think critically.
|
again, not so. there is observation in evolution, none for creationism. one is science, the other is religion. why would ask a 14 year old to try to critically think and compare apples to oranges?
Quote:
|
Why be so afraid of allowing the theofy of [at least] intelligent design be presented? Everywhere we look we find evidence which seems to support ID. And a growing number of scientists are now on the record of being...how did they put it?..."We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
|
there is no theory of intelligent design. saying "we see problems with evolution and are going to try to poke holes in it to bring creationism back into schools" isn't a theory. it' s a mixed political/religious strategy. yes, i know technically they say that ID is "the theory that life is too complex to have evolved naturally on its own" or soemthing to that effect. but that's a hypothesis at best, with no evidence to back it up.
also, there is no "growing number of scientists are now on the record of being...how did they put it?..."We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”" That's propaganda. I'll show you a list of clergy and a list of scientists named Steve (or some variation of that name) that's longer than your list of skeptical scientists.
Quote:
In fact, to maintain --
-- overlooks some of the very problems which recent events have given to evolution, while strengthening the case for creation, ie: Mt. St. Helens.
Just a few thoughts off the cuff in passing.
|
sorry, how is mt. st. helens a problem for evolution? pretty much anything you can find that you think makes evolution look less likely, i can find explanations as to why it's not, why those who believe it is are wrong. and anything that does cause a problem for evolution does not mean it supports creationism. they aren't flip sides of the same coin.