waitasec
Veteran Member
jbug, what developed country teaches creationism other than the US?
sources?
evolution is supported by evidence
creationism isn't supported by evidence
creationism is not supported by evidence
evolution is
what are you talking about?
faith is not and cannot be objective
creationism isn't science...because it is not supported by evidence
evolution is supported by evidence
i see a pattern here...
here's some quotes:
The Supreme Court, Epperson v. Arkansas (1968):
...the First Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma...the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.
please pay attention to this one...
McLean v. Arkansas case (1982), the judge wrote that creation scientists:
...cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.
The Supreme Court, Edwards v. Aguillard (1987):
...Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.
In Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated:
If a teacher in a public school uses religion and teaches religious beliefs or espouses theories clearly based on religious underpinnings, the principles of the separation of church and state are violated as clearly as if a statute ordered the teacher to teach religious theories such as the statutes in Edwards did.
The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court wrote in a California case (Peloza v. Capistrano School District, 1994):
The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones is not.
United States District Court Judge John E. Jones III stated thus in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005:
"We have concluded that Intelligent Design is not science, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents."
"Over the past few years, there have been several attempts to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools. Tactics include claims that evolution is "merely a theory", which exploits the difference between the general use of the word theory and the scientific usage, and thus insinuates that evolution does not have widespread acceptance amongst scientists; promoting the teaching of alternative pseudosciences such as intelligent design; and completely ignoring evolution in biology classes. In general, these controversies, at the local school district level, have resulted in Federal and State court actions (usually by parents who are opposed to teaching of religion in school). There have been a number of consequences of these activities:"
Creation and evolution in public education - Wikipedia
sources?
evolution is supported by evidence
creationism isn't supported by evidence
creationism is not supported by evidence
evolution is
what are you talking about?
faith is not and cannot be objective
creationism isn't science...because it is not supported by evidence
evolution is supported by evidence
i see a pattern here...
here's some quotes:
The Supreme Court, Epperson v. Arkansas (1968):
...the First Amendment does not permit the state to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma...the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.
please pay attention to this one...
McLean v. Arkansas case (1982), the judge wrote that creation scientists:
...cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific, if they start with a conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.
The Supreme Court, Edwards v. Aguillard (1987):
...Because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to advance a particular religious belief, the Act endorses religion in violation of the First Amendment.
In Webster v. New Lenox School District (1990), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals stated:
If a teacher in a public school uses religion and teaches religious beliefs or espouses theories clearly based on religious underpinnings, the principles of the separation of church and state are violated as clearly as if a statute ordered the teacher to teach religious theories such as the statutes in Edwards did.
The 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court wrote in a California case (Peloza v. Capistrano School District, 1994):
The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while belief in a Divine Creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower ones is not.
United States District Court Judge John E. Jones III stated thus in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005:
"We have concluded that Intelligent Design is not science, and moreover that I.D. cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious antecedents."
"Over the past few years, there have been several attempts to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools. Tactics include claims that evolution is "merely a theory", which exploits the difference between the general use of the word theory and the scientific usage, and thus insinuates that evolution does not have widespread acceptance amongst scientists; promoting the teaching of alternative pseudosciences such as intelligent design; and completely ignoring evolution in biology classes. In general, these controversies, at the local school district level, have resulted in Federal and State court actions (usually by parents who are opposed to teaching of religion in school). There have been a number of consequences of these activities:"
Creation and evolution in public education - Wikipedia
