Christian Group: Teaching science violates religious freedom

[Tatooene]

As a Christian, I don't mind that evolution is taught in schools, especially since it is such a prevalent belief in the US.My only point is that it is still a theory, and should be treated as a theory, not a fact. And there should be at least a brief, non-condescending discussion of creationism, since a fairly large minority still believe in it. Even if they don't believe in creationism, it would still be beneficial to students to learn what a good number of others believe.

1. Learn the definition of scientific theory, please.
2. Evolution is a fact. It happens. You can't stop it from happening.
3. I don't care what the minority believes. The minority is wrong.

1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

[Regnum Dominae]

As a Christian, I don't mind that evolution is taught in schools, especially since it is such a prevalent belief in the US. My only point is that it is still a theory, and should be treated as a theory, not a fact. And there should be at least a brief, non-condescending discussion of creationism, since a fairly large minority still believe in it. Even if they don't believe in creationism, it would still be beneficial to students to learn what a good number of others believe.

"Teach the Controversy"? Well, what about all those other controversial debates that students need to receive an unbiased perspective on?

Shouldn't students be taught phlogiston theory alongside combustion as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught the classical elemental theory of earth, water, fire, air, and aether alongside modern atomic theory as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught the theory of the four humours alongside germ theory as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught the ancient alien hypothesis alongside proven history as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught the Theory of Intelligent Falling alonside gravity as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught alchemy alongside modern chemistry as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught geocentrism alongside modern astronomy as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught Flat Earth theory alongside modern knowledge of the Earth's shape as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught both sides of the Holocaust debate? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught Time Cube as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught magic alongside physics as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught phrenology alongside neurobiology as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught the demon theory of disease alongside modern biology as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught turtle cosmology alongside the big bang as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught perpetual motion alongside the laws of thermodynamics as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Shouldn't students be taught quantum homeopathy alongside evidence-based medicine as a competing theory? Teach the Controversy!

Do you have any idea how fucking stupid that idea is?

[Regnum Dominae]

1. Learn the definition of scientific theory, please.
2. Evolution is a fact. It happens. You can't stop it from happening.
3. I don't care what the minority believes. The minority is wrong.

1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

Macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution on a larger scale. Species is a continuum, not discrete.
And abiogenesis is not at all like creationists tend to think it is.

[The Parkus Empire]

1. Learn the definition of scientific theory, please.
2. Evolution is a fact. It happens. You can't stop it from happening.
3. I don't care what the minority believes. The minority is wrong.

1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

The Bible should be part of comparative religion and literature, perhaps philosophy. Science, no.

[Blasveck]

1. Learn the definition of scientific theory, please.
2. Evolution is a fact. It happens. You can't stop it from happening.
3. I don't care what the minority believes. The minority is wrong.

1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

1. Theory in the contemporary sense or the scientific sense? There is a difference.
2. Macro evolution is micro evolution over a long damn time. Do you want proof of micro evolution?
3. Then alchemy and magic deserve a glance over as well, yes?

[Novus Niciae]

This is from the country were some bright spark in Indiana wanted to make pi equal exactly three to bring it in line with the bible. (1 Kings 7:23 (KJV), And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.)

[Dakini]

1. Learn the definition of scientific theory, please.
2. Evolution is a fact. It happens. You can't stop it from happening.
3. I don't care what the minority believes. The minority is wrong.

1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

1. You clearly do not understand what theory means in science. It is very obvious from your post that you are confusing the layman's "theory" (which can just mean a hunch) for what scientists call theories. Further, if you acknowledge that creationism is not scientific, why do you think it should be taught in science classes?
2. No, micro and macro evolution are both well-established (indeed macro evolution is just micro evolution on a longer time scale). Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, it is its own thing.
3. Not in a science class. In science classes, we talk about science, not bronze age myths.

[Aurelio (Ancient)]

If you don't want your children taught scientific facts that are backed up by evidence, and want to teach them things that are only backed up by faith and a 3,000 year old book, there is something called homeschooling or a private Christian school.

[Pacifornia]

California Dept. of Education is seriously effed up, but at least I go to sleep soundly knowing they wouldn't accept this kind of fruitloopery. I have to wonder what the hell these people in Kansas are smoking!

[Aurelio (Ancient)]

California Dept. of Education is seriously effed up, but at least I go to sleep soundly knowing they wouldn't accept this kind of fruitloopery. I have to wonder what the hell these people in Kansas are smoking!

They are smoking Jesus. Obviously.

[Pacifornia]

California Dept. of Education is seriously effed up, but at least I go to sleep soundly knowing they wouldn't accept this kind of fruitloopery. I have to wonder what the hell these people in Kansas are smoking!

They are smoking Jesus. Obviously.

And incense. Oh wait, they're Protestant lol.

[Seitonjin]

California Dept. of Education is seriously effed up, but at least I go to sleep soundly knowing they wouldn't accept this kind of fruitloopery. I have to wonder what the hell these people in Kansas are smoking!

They are smoking Jesus. Obviously.

I chuckled.

[Regnum Dominae]

1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

1. You clearly do not understand what theory means in science. It is very obvious from your post that you are confusing the layman's "theory" (which can just mean a hunch) for what scientists call theories. Further, if you acknowledge that creationism is not scientific, why do you think it should be taught in science classes?
2. No, micro and macro evolution are both well-established (indeed macro evolution is just micro evolution on a longer time scale). Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, it is its own thing.
3. Not in a science class. In science classes, we talk about science, not bronze age myths.

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people just say "abiogenesis is a separate thing" because it allows creationists to continue believing their delusional misconceptions of abiogenesis in which "evolutionists" believe that random chemicals somehow randomly spontaneously assembled into a fully functioning bacteria, when in fact that does not even remotely resemble what abiogenesis actually is.

Creationists often calculate ridiculously low probabilities of abiogenesis successfully taking place. However, these probabilities are based on serious fundamental misunderstandings of abiogenesis. Creationists often understand abiogenesis as being a hypothetical process by which a fully functional life-form arises by random chance out of basic chemicals. However, this could not be farther from the truth.

For example, take note of the popular creationist claim that the probability of life forming through abiogenesis is only 1 in 2.04 * 10³⁹⁰. This is based on the probability of a 300-molecule protein forming purely out of random chance. This makes it seem like abiogenesis is a ridiculous idea; by comparison, there are only roughly 10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe. However, there are several things wrong with this claim.

Abiogenesis is not an event by which a complete, fully functional life form arises out of simple chemicals. Instead, abiogenesis is a process much like evolution itself; a long, complex process by which natural selection caused self-replicating chemical compounds to arise out of the metaphorical primordial ooze, after which the chemicals very gradually became increasingly more complex until they possessed all the features that are considered essential to life. Natural selection does not apply only to fully-formed lifeforms, but also to simpler chemical structures.

The smallest known theorized self-replicating structure is a peptide made up of only 32 amino acids. It has been calculated that the probability of this peptide spontaneously forming is roughly 1 in 10⁴⁰. Yes, that is still a very low probability, but it is much more realistic when the conditions of primordial Earth are taken into account. At every moment, many billions of amino acid reactions were taking place, leading to many of these peptides arising very quickly in geological time:

EvolutionFAQ wrote:
[If] we assume the volume of the oceans were 10²⁴ liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10^-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10³¹ self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10⁴⁰, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

With these self-replicating peptides established and existing in massive quantities, natural selection caused the peptides to grow more and more complex, eventually reaching what we would consider to be life.

The difference between the creationist perception of abiogenesis and the actual process of abiogenesis is represented in this diagram: (the process of abiogenesis shown here is greatly simplified, but it still gets the point across)

[Genivaria]

1. Learn the definition of scientific theory, please.
2. Evolution is a fact. It happens. You can't stop it from happening.
3. I don't care what the minority believes. The minority is wrong.

1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

Popularity of belief has no bearing on whether or not something is true.
Evolution is accepted science, Creationism is not.
If you want to change that then present some hard evidence of Creation and get it peer-reviewed.
Otherwise, get over it.

[Regnum Dominae]

1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

Popularity of belief has no bearing on whether or not something is true.
Evolution is accepted science, Creationism is not.
If you want to change that then present some hard evidence of Creation and get it peer-reviewed.
Otherwise, get over it.

In the meantime, they can refute every single one of these links: (thanks Divair)
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

[Menassa]

Popularity of belief has no bearing on whether or not something is true.
Evolution is accepted science, Creationism is not.
If you want to change that then present some hard evidence of Creation and get it peer-reviewed.
Otherwise, get over it.

In the meantime, they can refute every single one of these links:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... tents.html
http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolu ... /live.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0/lines_01
http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... _tiktaalik
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... /devitt_01
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_23
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... history_16
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/evidenc ... lution.htm
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html
http://www.imls.uzh.ch/research/noll/pu ... 73_785.pdf
http://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/ ... 0703003253
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/scien ... .html?_r=1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/91/3/221
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1006000526
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5746/287
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/molb.ws.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 331a0.html
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 050603.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 071801.php
http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20060327/evo.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... =pmcentrez
http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/a ... maritimus/
http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~pgore/geology/ ... vation.pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... l#atavisms

Holy Messianic prophecy batman.

[Dakini]

1. You clearly do not understand what theory means in science. It is very obvious from your post that you are confusing the layman's "theory" (which can just mean a hunch) for what scientists call theories. Further, if you acknowledge that creationism is not scientific, why do you think it should be taught in science classes?
2. No, micro and macro evolution are both well-established (indeed macro evolution is just micro evolution on a longer time scale). Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, it is its own thing.
3. Not in a science class. In science classes, we talk about science, not bronze age myths.

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people just say "abiogenesis is a separate thing" because it allows creationists to continue believing their delusional misconceptions of abiogenesis in which "evolutionists" believe that random chemicals somehow randomly spontaneously assembled into a fully functioning bacteria, when in fact that does not even remotely resemble what abiogenesis actually is.

Creationists often calculate ridiculously low probabilities of abiogenesis successfully taking place. However, these probabilities are based on serious fundamental misunderstandings of abiogenesis. Creationists often understand abiogenesis as being a hypothetical process by which a fully functional life-form arises by random chance out of basic chemicals. However, this could not be farther from the truth.

For example, take note of the popular creationist claim that the probability of life forming through abiogenesis is only 1 in 2.04 * 10³⁹⁰. This is based on the probability of a 300-molecule protein forming purely out of random chance. This makes it seem like abiogenesis is a ridiculous idea; by comparison, there are only roughly 10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe. However, there are several things wrong with this claim.

Abiogenesis is not an event by which a complete, fully functional life form arises out of simple chemicals. Instead, abiogenesis is a process much like evolution itself; a long, complex process by which natural selection caused self-replicating chemical compounds to arise out of the metaphorical primordial ooze, after which the chemicals very gradually became increasingly more complex until they possessed all the features that are considered essential to life. Natural selection does not apply only to fully-formed lifeforms, but also to simpler chemical structures.

The smallest known theorized self-replicating structure is a peptide made up of only 32 amino acids. It has been calculated that the probability of this peptide spontaneously forming is roughly 1 in 10⁴⁰. Yes, that is still a very low probability, but it is much more realistic when the conditions of primordial Earth are taken into account. At every moment, many billions of amino acid reactions were taking place, leading to many of these peptides arising very quickly in geological time:

EvolutionFAQ wrote:
[If] we assume the volume of the oceans were 10²⁴ liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10^-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10³¹ self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10⁴⁰, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

With these self-replicating peptides established and existing in massive quantities, natural selection caused the peptides to grow more and more complex, eventually reaching what we would consider to be life.

The difference between the creationist perception of abiogenesis and the actual process of abiogenesis is represented in this diagram: (the process of abiogenesis shown here is greatly simplified, but it still gets the point across)

I'm not sure how "abiogenesis is its own thing" means "abiogenesis is a singular event that happened in a flash". While it's nice that you want to explain abiogenesis (and it was a nice explanation), I don't want to do this in a response that was only briefly mentioning abiogenesis.

[Regnum Dominae]

This is a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people just say "abiogenesis is a separate thing" because it allows creationists to continue believing their delusional misconceptions of abiogenesis in which "evolutionists" believe that random chemicals somehow randomly spontaneously assembled into a fully functioning bacteria, when in fact that does not even remotely resemble what abiogenesis actually is.

Creationists often calculate ridiculously low probabilities of abiogenesis successfully taking place. However, these probabilities are based on serious fundamental misunderstandings of abiogenesis. Creationists often understand abiogenesis as being a hypothetical process by which a fully functional life-form arises by random chance out of basic chemicals. However, this could not be farther from the truth.

For example, take note of the popular creationist claim that the probability of life forming through abiogenesis is only 1 in 2.04 * 10³⁹⁰. This is based on the probability of a 300-molecule protein forming purely out of random chance. This makes it seem like abiogenesis is a ridiculous idea; by comparison, there are only roughly 10⁸⁰ atoms in the universe. However, there are several things wrong with this claim.

Abiogenesis is not an event by which a complete, fully functional life form arises out of simple chemicals. Instead, abiogenesis is a process much like evolution itself; a long, complex process by which natural selection caused self-replicating chemical compounds to arise out of the metaphorical primordial ooze, after which the chemicals very gradually became increasingly more complex until they possessed all the features that are considered essential to life. Natural selection does not apply only to fully-formed lifeforms, but also to simpler chemical structures.

The smallest known theorized self-replicating structure is a peptide made up of only 32 amino acids. It has been calculated that the probability of this peptide spontaneously forming is roughly 1 in 10⁴⁰. Yes, that is still a very low probability, but it is much more realistic when the conditions of primordial Earth are taken into account. At every moment, many billions of amino acid reactions were taking place, leading to many of these peptides arising very quickly in geological time:

EvolutionFAQ wrote:
[If] we assume the volume of the oceans were 10²⁴ liters, and the amino acid concentration was 10^-6M (which is actually very dilute), then almost 10³¹ self-replicating peptides would form in under a year, let alone millions of years. So, even given the difficult chances of 1 in 10⁴⁰, the first stages of abiogenesis could have started very quickly indeed.

With these self-replicating peptides established and existing in massive quantities, natural selection caused the peptides to grow more and more complex, eventually reaching what we would consider to be life.

The difference between the creationist perception of abiogenesis and the actual process of abiogenesis is represented in this diagram: (the process of abiogenesis shown here is greatly simplified, but it still gets the point across)

(Image)

I'm not sure how "abiogenesis is its own thing" means "abiogenesis is a singular event that happened in a flash". While it's nice that you want to explain abiogenesis (and it was a nice explanation), I don't want to do this in a response that was only briefly mentioning abiogenesis.

I wasn't directing the explanation at you. The first paragraph was directed at you (and people who accept evolution in general). The explanation was directed at the various creationists reading this thread - It's my opinion that ignorance should be combated thoroughly on all fronts.

Probably should have made that a bit more clear, I knew that you are aware of what abiogenesis actually is and is not actually the creationist strawman of it.

[Forsher]

What the hell does global warming have to do with religious freedom or creationism?

I believe they're assuming that science is another form of religion.

However, even if that were the case the childrens' freedom of religion is more important article's parents' freedom.

To be fair, "how life arises continues to be a scientific mystery and there are competing ideas about it" is a correct statement.

But who wants to be fair?

I say let the 18 parents and their 15 children start their own religious school, let them religion to their hearts desire...

This is not a solution. This is shoving the problem under the rug and hoping it will go away. If the US and education and religion has taught us anything, this doesn't work. What these incidents represent are symptoms of a wider problem and it's pretty clear that court-cases aren't solving anything.

The solution would be, quite simply, to step in and take-over completely. It'll be rough now but later on there will be less of a problem. The brilliant thing is, this really should happen for other reasons as well.

[Germany in Pajamas]

1. Learn the definition of scientific theory, please.
2. Evolution is a fact. It happens. You can't stop it from happening.
3. I don't care what the minority believes. The minority is wrong.

1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

Learn what the word theory means. It's not synonymous with hypothesis. Not a guess. Not a really good guess with scientific method. It's how something works. So "just a theory" becomes "just how something works." That's a nonsensical statement.

[Imsogone]

1. I'm not sure what your problem is. I never called creationism a theory, I called evolution a theory.
2. So-called micro-evolution happens, yes. That is not proof of macro-evolution, or a biogenesis, or whatever it is evolutionists believe in.
3. I don't really care who you believe is wrong. There are still millions of people who believe in creationism and it deserves a brief glance-over at the least.

Learn what the word theory means. It's not synonymous with hypothesis. Not a guess. Not a really good guess with scientific method. It's how something works. So "just a theory" becomes "just how something works." That's a nonsensical statement.

Just because millions believe a lie doesn't mean it merits attention from those who don't believe. It's Benny stated before, evolution is science, creationism is theology. If you want to teach creationism in publicly funded schools fine, just don't call it science and don't waste time on it in a science class. Teach it comparative religions or something.

[Srboslavija]

If they want to implement such programs in private Christian schools then they are more than welcome to - freedom of religion and all that. But trying to influence public school curriculum? No chance in heck.

[Benuty]

As a Christian, I don't mind that evolution is taught in schools, especially since it is such a prevalent belief in the US. My only point is that it is still a theory, and should be treated as a theory, not a fact. And there should be at least a brief, non-condescending discussion of creationism, since a fairly large minority still believe in it. Even if they don't believe in creationism, it would still be beneficial to students to learn what a good number of others believe.

This is some creative satire. I am loving the raging hard ons by some of you on this thread.

[Vitaphone Racing]

Religious group says stupid shit. Next topic.

[Atlatonha]

I'd just like to point out that the discussion about the scientific meaning of 'theory' is really kind of irrelevant as the -theory- of evolution is NOT the same thing as the phenomenon of evolution.

Evolution as a thing that happens is -completely separate- from the compiled information, observations, and extrapolations that are called the 'theory of evolution'. It's more like the difference between a computer and a computer manual: one explains how the other works, they are not the same thing.

So no matter WHAT 'theory' means, evolution is NOT called 'the theory of evolution'. It is NOT called a theory, and your argument based on that is not only dumb, it is wrong.