Quote: There are reputable scientists who disagree with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. There are other theories of evolution than Darwin's. If an evolutionary theory passes muster as a scientific theory, I'm all for its inclusion in a cirriculum.
My focus in this thread is not to pit Darwinian Evolution against Creationism as if those two positions are the only theories of the development/relationship of species. My concern in this thread is about the scientific validity of Creationism and the teaching of Creationism as if has scientific merit.
OK, on your first comment. There are reputable scientists on both sides of the isle. Af far as passing the muster of scientific theory. When I was in High-School they taught us about Lucy, without mentioning that it had been discredited the day of it's unveiling by fellow evolutionis and I've recently learned that now, a decade later, they're still teaching it.
OK and your second statement, first your saying that Creationism is automatically invalid because it assumes there is a God, but evolution assumes that creationism is false and DOES assume that the world developed independant of God. Now since you say it has NO scientific merrit you must have exaustively studied it in order to rule out any scientific merrit, so if you would please, without using google, tell me 5 thinks you KNOW about intellegent design theory.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
