DieToDeath

This goes against what I personally believe, but I think it needs to be argued anyway.

Why not both creationism and evolution? They're not mutually exclusive, if you take the creationism bit down a few notches. It is a VIABLE solution that a "God" may have created the Earth, and its first life, which then evolved into the species of today by Darwin's theories. Now, I don't really believe this myself, seeing as how I don't believe in god, but the creationists might want to at least take it into consideration.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Let them get their foot in the door, and watch what they will try and sell you. I find that never opening the door in the first place works very well at preventing their blather.

DieToDeath

You might be right, but perhaps they can be compromised with. That's what I'm hoping here. This blind certainty they have in their beliefs is not a good thing, and I'm giving them another option besides pure evolution.

*looks around shifty-eyed. Edits out "ism". Runs.*

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: DieToDeath ]</p>

gallo

But why should I allow my children's education to be compromised by presenting mythology and pseudoscience as valid alternatives to science?

By the way, what is evolutionism?

Coragyps

Many of the "young earth" crowd such as Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research view this approach as possibly worse than belief in strictly naturalistic causes. They take the Atheistic Evilutionist Conspiracy as just a bunch of benighted individuals that can perhaps be convinced of The Truth (TM), where they seem to think of the theistic evolutionist crowd as backsliders, traitors, and maybe even Catholics (gasp!). It's a strange psychology you're dealing with there. Very strange.

DieToDeath

gallo: if you're that dim that you need it explained, it is the set of beliefs that all animals evolved by natural selection and survival of the fittest from the earliest living things, namely bacteria.

Godless Dave

If I were a theist, this is the position I would take. The investigation of science would seem to me to be learning about the wonders of creation. The consistent, subtle, and elegant workings of nature would strike me as being evidence for the glory of god. Only a simplistic, pissant god would create the world in six days, create all living things at once, and create starlight in midstream to make the universe look older than it is.

Yes, I used to read Madeline L'Engle a lot.

But you still wouldn't want to teach the god part in science class, because god, being the creator of nature, does not lend himself to scientific investigation.

theyeti

I think gallo knows what evolution is. It's "evolutionism" that he was asking about. This is a term invented by the creationist lobby to make evolution seem like some sort of religion or ideology. No real scientist would ever use the term.

theyeti

Abacus

Assuming creationism was taught in schools, which religion's creation story would we teach alongside evolution?

DieToDeath

Very true. I withdraw my insult and apologize.

I don't believe I used "ism" though.

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: DieToDeath ]</p>