If God created human directly but you attributed his creation to monkeys, how would he feel?
What’s with the “supposed Catholics” comment? I’m not a “supposed Catholic” but a cradle to my grave Catholic and I absolutely cheer this decision. Having been educated in Catholic schools where I was taught the Theory of Evolution and having listened to what my Church has to say about it, I’m completely comfortable in cheering on this decision.
Are you unfamiliar with the Catholic Church’s view on the Theory of Evolution?
What’s that shock when we believe what the Bible says is true? Did Church ever tell anyone God never created humans directly?
very simple. depends on private Catholics. I believe TE is wrong, you believe ID is wrong. you won’t be label as a heretic for believing in TE, neither do I for believing in ID.
I believe that ID is creationism masquerading as science; it’s not a matter of it being wrong but rather a matter of it not being science. The Church has come down pretty harshly on ID and its proponents, but that it not to say that the Church only supports Evolution. Such is hardly the case. It has simply said that it’s not an either or proposition.
Well at least you are admitting that ID is not science but creationism. That’s exactly what the judge in Pennsylvania ruled; that the School Board members were saying it was science when they were really promoting creationism. He also said that they had lied about their motivations.
The Catholic Church teaches us to not reject science as it has been rejected in the past.
You can say ID is masquerading as science and I say TE is falsefulness masquerading as truth. anything irrefutably takes the form of science doesn’t necessarily makes it right. e.g phrenology
That’s an empty claim. I need to see examples.
Anything wrong in science should be rejected. Do you accept or reject phrenology? how about lobotomy? they certainly took the form of science.
* "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People' is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. the school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards based assessments." *Read my previous posts. evidences that supports TE generally support ID. faced with ID, TE needs to prove all specifies come out RANDOMLY not by the design of a superior being. so far no TE supporter has come with any argument on that.
You confused two concepts here: Atheism and religion independant. and I don’t wish to go any further down this path which is obviously off topic
Be it secular or religious
What on earth can this possibly mean? It was a district court. Should you follow other rules than the rest of the country?
After pointing out an instance where you asserted a demonstrably false assertion about the decision, your statement is a complete mystery. Of course many here have read the disclaimer. There are those of us who have read the full ruling, in which the disclaimer is carefully dissected. I have read the disclaimer. What of it?
Again, no. Please read the ruling. The proposal (ostensibly) was to teach ID as a valid scientific alternative to evolution, while also teaching evolution.
But you can do better. Instead of merely considering the merits, you can take classes, do your own research, ask questions, and come to understand the science at such a level that you can make an informed decision. Thousands of scientists who spend their professional lives in this study have rejected ID as a scientific theory. It makes no predictions, and its only claim to legitimacy is to raise false controversies regarding evolutionary theory. Not only do these “problems” with evolution not exist, but the entire strategy is a logical fallacy. One does not strengthen ones theory merely by complaining about another.
Sure. Scientists are working on the problem even now. I agree that it is a wonderful thing. I cheer that ID cannot be mentioned in a science class. It is manifestly not science.
Nice strategy.
do you think phrenology and lobotomy should gain their place in science class? or communism ideology which communists always claim to be scientifically proved?
Challenge the judge. Please read the ruling. The entire story of what is wrong with the statement is clearly spelled out there. He did a marvelous job of pre-emptively taking your challenge.
I don’t know what “mainstream media” you’re talking about, but I easily found the statement and the ruling on the websites of ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, Google, MSNBC. There is no conspiracy to hide elements of the case. Here it is, in case you’re somehow having trouble finding it:
OK, you have challenged my assertions. You have told me to take it up with the judge. I have posted the ENTIRE statement. If the judge read into the statement, that it his problem.
Theories are systems of explanations which are strongly supported by factual observations and which explain whole sets of facts and experimental results.