It is only the fundamentalist religious right who profess literal interpretation of the Bible, who cares what Atheists think about it, they don't believe in what the Bible says..
Evolution classes optional under proposed Alberta law
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
It is only the fundamentalist religious right who profess literal interpretation of the Bible, who cares what Atheists think about it, they don't believe in what the Bible says..
Oh yes...very shamefull....no longer will the non believers be able to force those that disagree with them, and that is what we are talking about. Athiests forcing their beliefs on others.
There is a conflict between religion and science. Science only leaves room for an impersonal god. Here is an excerpt, if you are interested, follow the link.
Ludicrous.
If I measure the speed of light to be about 3*10^8 m/s and I tell this to someone is it forcing a belief? You need to learn the difference between objective and subjective.
Evolution isn't a belief system. Observations are irrefutable.
I'm not sure how they kept creationism out of public schools, but for the time being it is out. Some private schools do teach both.
From what I read, the judges were cognizant enough to recognize religion in the mantle of intelligent design and ruled that it infringed freedom of religion. Currently, the ID people are trying to convince the schools to "Teach The Controversy." Hopefully, your judges will keep that out too.
Really....yet believers that have stated that they have seen and heard..... are discounted..... I have not "observed" this "evolution"....all I can go by is what "scientists say" they know. It's all faith when it comes down to the average man.... including your example of the speed of light.
Gee, maybe I'm mistaken. I read kids (or their controlling parents) could opt out of classes that explained why man has a tailbone.
Only if they don't learn in school. It's not a difficult concept, if you're in class that day.
Even then.....it's taking the word of your teacher and the book in front of you. The average person can NOT "see" how fast light travels.
jeeez...... for people that are supposedly soooooooooooo fricken smart..... most of ya's are dense like brick.
Tired old creationist lies. Surprised people still drag them out.
If you don't believe in evolution fine. Just don't try and lower it to the realm of religion. It is science.
p.s - You can believe in a deity and in evolution.
It is a public school system. Homeschool them or send them to private school.
There is no such thing as a biology class without evolution. Any teaching of geology is almost out of the question as well. How about the dinosaurs? Can they be taught that the dinosaurs died out millions of years before humans inhabited this planet?
Just wait until the Muslims start making their own religious demans regarding public schools. Can't teach that women are equal to men!
Well contrary to popular belief of both christians and muslims. women are not equal to men, they are superior. Long before the a fore mentioned groups invented their patriarchal psychopath, the Goddess ruled the world. Women are smarter and spiritually stronger than men. The day is coming soon when women will take back their power and men will be regulated to nothing more than transient breeding stock. I'm personally looking forward to that roll, unfortunately, it probably won't happen in this life time. :-(
Niflmir, I don’t think what Alberta government is doing is unconstitutional. It is up to the government to decide what should be taught to the children. Now, if they try to impose religious education on the kids (like forcing them to learn Creationism), then courts will get involved.
However, if the government omits to teach something (like evolution), I seriously doubt that courts will get involved. Omitting to teach evolution may be stupid thing to do, it will do incalculable harm to the kids, but I don’t think it is unconstitutional.
My opinion is that government may decide to omit any subject, courts won’t get involved. Thus, suppose government decides not to teach students any math. There will be plenty of outrage; perhaps government may even lose the next election. However, I don’t see how that would violate the constitution in any way.
I assume the same thing would apply in USA. If a Bible Belt state decides not to teach evolution, I doubt that courts will get involved. However, it is such an extreme measure, that none of the Bible Belt state sin USA have decided to omit evolution form their curriculum (or to make it optional).
But if Alabama or Mississippi decides to omit evolution from its curriculum, I am not sure that courts will get involved.
:lol: You're pathetic. I was going to explain how even you could figure it out, but you'll just have to remain an ignorant regular joe, instead of an informed regular joe.
Wrong again. If you claim someone's belief is false or erroneous it is incumbent on you to prove your position. If you can't then you need to shut the hell up and let them alone.
Wulfie, this statement of your is astounding. It really shows that you don’t understand the scientific method.
So let me get this straight. Let me repeat the claim in my previous post. Suppose I say that on the dark side of moon there is a detached house, with floor made form Swiss cheese and the swimming pool filled with maple syrup.
Now, if you challenge my assertion, then you have to prove that I am wrong? That is crazy. Then one could postulate all kinds of crazy hypothesize, they must be regarded as valid or must be proved wrong.
By your argument, even Creationism must be regarded as scientific hypothesis. Those who oppose Creationism must prove that creationism is wrong. If I say Easter Bunny exists, it must be accepted as a valid assertion; otherwise somebody must prove that Easter bunny doesn’t exist.
So if we cannot prove Creationism wrong, then we must accept Creationism as a scientific hypothesis? Incredible.
Scientifically that doesn’t make sense. If somebody proposes a theory, a hypothesis, it is up to him to prove the hypothesis; it is not up to others to disprove it. Thus, if somebody says that earth was created 5000 years ago in six days, nobody in scientific world will try to disprove it; they will demand that Creationists prove their hypothesis.
In science, burden of proof is only on one side. Thus, proponents of String Theory are trying to think of ways to validate the string Theory, opponents ate not trying to think of ways to disprove it (it cannot be disproved any way).
Your post suggests that you don’t have a proper appreciation of scientific method.
Wulfie, this statement of your is astounding. It really shows that you don’t understand the scientific method.
So let me get this straight. Let me repeat the claim in my previous post. Suppose I say that on the dark side of moon there is a detached house, with floor made form Swiss cheese and the swimming pool filled with maple syrup.
Now, if you challenge my assertion, then you have to prove that I am wrong? That is crazy. Then one could postulate all kinds of crazy hypothesize, they must be regarded as valid or must be proved wrong.
By your argument, even Creationism must be regarded as scientific hypothesis. Those who oppose Creationism must prove that creationism is wrong. If I say Easter Bunny exists, it must be accepted as a valid assertion; otherwise somebody must prove that Easter bunny doesn’t exist.
So if we cannot prove Creationism wrong, then we must accept Creationism as a scientific hypothesis? Incredible.
Scientifically that doesn’t make sense. If somebody proposes a theory, a hypothesis, it is up to him to prove the hypothesis; it is not up to others to disprove it. Thus, if somebody says that earth was created 5000 years ago in six days, nobody in scientific world will try to disprove it; they will demand that Creationists prove their hypothesis.
In science, burden of proof is only on one side. Thus, proponents of String Theory are trying to think of ways to validate the string Theory, opponents ate not trying to think of ways to disprove it (it cannot be disproved any way).
Your post suggests that you don’t have a proper appreciation of scientific method.