Replies to post #137862 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[mlsoft]

"the following post by SoxFan -- #msg-8536238 -- states why I have persisted in this argument -- facts and theories are the province of science -- beliefs are the province of religion -- there can be no compromise with the effort to insert beliefs into science classes"
===============================================================

hap...

Once again. I do not want religious beliefs, dogma, or doctrine to be taught in public schools but neither do I want the beliefs of my religion to be taught against and relegated to the status of myths or human philosophy. If evolution is to be taught in schools as the only viable theory on the origen of life and the species (it cannot even address the former), then the only competing theory (creationism) should also be taught as a possible alternative. At least creationism gives the answer to how life itself began and supplies the identity of the "original mover" that scientists are so often forced to admit.

It is not like we are talking about the theory of gravity vs the jolly green giant -- the theory of evolution has more holes in it than a sieve, and even a number of scientists who believe in it admit that it defies all logic, probability, and sound thinking -- at least one of the leading proponents of evolution admits that the scientific support in favor of evolution is zero, but since the only alternative leads directly to a belief in God, he will continue to accept evolution.

If I drop the proverbial apple, it will fall to the ground every time. The theory of gravity is demonstrable, verifiable, and repeatable. On the other hand, not one single instance of verifiable evolution by one species into another has ever been found -- not one. Evolution is not demonstrable, not verifiable, and not repeatable. Neither evolution nor creationism can be proven and neither theory can be disproved. So why the lofty status for evolution while creationism is the subject of scientific scorn?? The only answer is that by definition, creationism involves God. That, by itself, makes the theory untenable to the "scientific" community.

mlsoft