Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 23:39:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5022 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> First off, John R's not saying Creationism isn't "valid;" he's saying that
> it's not a "valid scientific theory,"
Yep, thank you for clarifying that for the audience. I suppose I could
have emphasized the term "scientific" rather than "valid", but it seems
perfectly clear to me the way I originally wrote it.
I don't oppose the teaching of creationism, I simply oppose it being
taught in the science classroom. Creationism is a valid theory in that
it is no more or less valid than any other theory that is incapable of
being tested. In it's present form however it is not a valid SCIENTIFIC
theory. The purported scientific, mathematical, and statistic evidence
behind "Intelligent Design" theories is mediocre at best. Our future
young people deserve better than the equivalent of being required by law
to learn 2+2=5.
--
J. Spencer Rezkalla
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Creationism
|
| (...) Well, you're making several different points here, so let's take them one by one; First off, John R's not saying Creationism isn't "valid;" he's saying that it's not a "valid scientific theory," and he's 100% correct. Creationism is not (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
