Why do so many americans believe in Intelligent Design?

[samiam1611]

Because the way evolution is taught in our schools does completely eliminate the idea of God, and because in our colleges, there are many who overtly teach it as atheistic. This is the reason so many atheistic scientists are so *angered *by the idea of ID or anything relating to God.

What is it about not mentioning God in science class that makes you equate it with **completely eliminating **the idea of God?
May I suggest that you use the term nontheistic from now on in explaining your position? I really think atheistic is not the right term to use. (regarding the teaching, not the scientists themselves.)

For example, if God designed the universe, one would say: bears are designed to … birds are designed to… But what do we say instead? Bears evolved to… birds evolved to…

I see. There is much I can say in response to this. Here goes.

You seem to think the only options are atheistic evolution or intelligent design/creationism. You are forgetting there is at least one other option. That is, that God could have created/designed a natural process. As I quoted in post #86:

“In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation…”

YOU are the one eliminating God from evolution but it does not have to be that way. God could have created and designed the world to operate as it does. Do you disagree with the above statement that God can use secondary, natural causes? Do you deny nature?!

Moving on,

Would you say bears are designed by God to maim and kill cute little animals for their food? Doesn’t it make more sense to say God designed a world where big animals need to eat little animals for food bc plants don’t give them enough nutrition? So the animals before bears (whatever they are called) that had the sharper claws and the stronger teeth were able to get enough food whereas the pre-bears who did not have particularly sharp claws etc went hungry and did not reproduce as much. (I don’t know anything about the evolution of bears, I just assume it went something like that.)

Another thing to consider. True we say birds evolved from…, bears evolved from…and no we don’t say designed, BUT ---- we do say select! The fittest animals are selected etc. So there is some personification going on even in scientific terminology. I could say nature “selected” and you could say God selected and either way the point is the fittest animals reproduce! And that is what they teach! That the fittest animals or plants flourish. Not Who or what did the selecting. You or I can’t scientifically prove that God did or did not get involved in the process but the fact is the fittest organisms reproduce and the features that make them fitter get passed on.

The evolutionists have all these little stories about how things evolved, and they have not one shred of evidence as to how it happens or even whether it did.

Oh come on now. Not one shred? Fossils are evidence. Bones are evidence.

And the mere idea that we went from something lower to something higher, that out of an amoba arose fish and lions and complex interacting species … is really kind of crazy.

Fish do not arise from amoeba nor lions from fish. And I bet you believe in a lot crazier things than multicellular organisms arising from unicellular organisms over billions of generations. Do you believe some of the stuff in the bible happened, i.e. Jesus turning water into wine? Why do you believe what the bible says (to whatever extent you do) but not hard evidence such as fossils?

And to say a one-celled animal in all its microscopic complexity randomly came to life out of a swirl of chemicals hit by lightning exactly reverses common sense, causing a cognitive dissonance which actually is bad for people.

Evolution explains life once it already existed.

Well, first of all, that is only change within species, not a split into a completely different species.

:banghead: What evidence do you have for that? The findings of tons of biologists, archeologists, paleontologists? You accept their evidence for that but not the bigger picture?

True, but neither can evolution be scientificallly studied. Hence my idea that evolution should not be taught in science classes, and that when it is taught, it should be taught as a conflict–all the evidence for the different ideas should be shown to students.

What evidence, pray tell, do you have that God did NOT create a world with natural secondary causes that could lead to diversity of life, hmm?

 

[edwest2]

The theory is useless? Useless to whom?
Creation by ‘magic’ seems to me much less wonderful, exciting and marvellous than ‘the theory’! It’s not entirely random either…just because an adaption doesn’t occur each time thru’ any conscious effort of the organism itself, doesn’t mean that that adaption is a ‘random mistake’ but rather the survival and reproduction of the MOST FITTING adaption, (of some part of the said organism) for it’s survival. Oh I realise I’m not finding the right words at the moment - I’m not doing it justice (it’s late!) The theory is simple in its complexity and complex in its simplicity. Beautiful.
What started everything…? That’s why I call myself agnostic…our maker/god/whatever is too big for our minds to get around, and the ‘magic wand’ idea too simplistic.

Here is why it is useless. Please note the author is a member of the National Academy of Sciences:

uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-do-we-invoke-darwin/

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

What is it about not mentioning God in science class that makes you equate it with **completely eliminating **the idea of God?
May I suggest that you use the term nontheistic from now on in explaining your position? I really think atheistic is not the right term to use. (regarding the teaching, not the scientists themselves.)

I see. There is much I can say in response to this. Here goes.

You seem to think the only options are atheistic evolution or intelligent design/creationism. You are forgetting there is at least one other option. That is, that God could have created/designed a natural process. As I quoted in post #86:

“In freely willing to create and conserve the universe, God wills to activate and to sustain in act all those secondary causes whose activity contributes to the unfolding of the natural order which he intends to produce. Through the activity of natural causes, God causes to arise those conditions required for the emergence and support of living organisms, and, furthermore, for their reproduction and differentiation…”

YOU are the one eliminating God from evolution but it does not have to be that way. God could have created and designed the world to operate as it does. Do you disagree with the above statement that God can use secondary, natural causes? Do you deny nature?!

Moving on,

Would you say bears are designed by God to maim and kill cute little animals for their food? Doesn’t it make more sense to say God designed a world where big animals need to eat little animals for food bc plants don’t give them enough nutrition? So the animals before bears (whatever they are called) that had the sharper claws and the stronger teeth were able to get enough food whereas the pre-bears who did not have particularly sharp claws etc went hungry and did not reproduce as much. (I don’t know anything about the evolution of bears, I just assume it went something like that.)

Another thing to consider. True we say birds evolved from…, bears evolved from…and no we don’t say designed, BUT ---- we do say select! The fittest animals are selected etc. So there is some personification going on even in scientific terminology. I could say nature “selected” and you could say God selected and either way the point is the fittest animals reproduce! And that is what they teach! That the fittest animals or plants flourish. Not Who or what did the selecting. You or I can’t scientifically prove that God did or did not get involved in the process but the fact is the fittest organisms reproduce and the features that make them fitter get passed on.

Oh come on now. Not one shred? Fossils are evidence. Bones are evidence.

Fish do not arise from amoeba nor lions from fish. And I bet you believe in a lot crazier things than multicellular organisms arising from unicellular organisms over billions of generations. Do you believe some of the stuff in the bible happened, i.e. Jesus turning water into wine? Why do you believe what the bible says (to whatever extent you do) but not hard evidence such as fossils?

Evolution explains life once it already existed.

:banghead: What evidence do you have for that? The findings of tons of biologists, archeologists, paleontologists? You accept their evidence for that but not the bigger picture?

What evidence, pray tell, do you have that God did NOT create a world with natural secondary causes that could lead to diversity of life, hmm?

It explains life once it already existed? It reminds me of two scientists at a chalk board with equations on it, and in one part, it reads “then a miracle happened.” The caption is the older man saying: “I think you need to be a bit more explicit here.”

Dead matter, rock, dust, whatever, just assembled itself and started crawling around? That wouldn’t even make a good science fiction story and I am a writer of science fiction. A professional writer (a term I dislike using since there are many, many names in the history of SF that are a lot better, including our head writer where I work).

Just look at the miracles of Jesus. He used zero science at all times. He commanded the storm to stop and it stopped, he raised the dead, cleansed the lepers, etc. If this is not a very clear series of examples that God, being GOD, can violate the rules and laws of physics and convert the dead to the living, then SOME PEOPLE READING THIS don’t understand God. They put Him in the same category as a lower creature - man.

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

The theory is useless? Useless to whom?
Creation by ‘magic’ seems to me much less wonderful, exciting and marvellous than ‘the theory’! It’s not entirely random either…just because an adaption doesn’t occur each time thru’ any conscious effort of the organism itself, doesn’t mean that that adaption is a ‘random mistake’ but rather the survival and reproduction of the MOST FITTING adaption, (of some part of the said organism) for it’s survival. Oh I realise I’m not finding the right words at the moment - I’m not doing it justice (it’s late!) The theory is simple in its complexity and complex in its simplicity. Beautiful.
What started everything…? That’s why I call myself agnostic…our maker/god/whatever is too big for our minds to get around, and the ‘magic wand’ idea too simplistic.

Magic?

** The Magician’s Twin - CS Lewis **

A powerful must see video:

---

**The Magician’s Twin: C.S. Lewis and the Case against Scientism **
http://idvolution.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-magicians-twin-cs-lewis.html

The Similarity Between Science and Magic

1. Science as religion
2. Science as credulity
3. Science as power

 

[St_Francis]

What is it about not mentioning God in science class that makes you equate it with **completely eliminating **the idea of God?

Apparently you did not read the quotes from biology textbooks another poster provided, I believe on page 7 of this thread. These quotes go far beyond merely not mentioning God or an Intelligent Designer.

May I suggest that you use the term nontheistic from now on in explaining your position? I really think atheistic is not the right term to use. (regarding the teaching, not the scientists themselves.)

Which is why I use a-theistic rather than atheistic.

I see. There is much I can say in response to this. Here goes.

You seem to think the only options are atheistic evolution or intelligent design/creationism. You are forgetting there is at least one other option. That is, that God could have created/designed a natural process. As I quoted in post #86:…

Here you are mentioning a third option of theistic evolution. Which the ID theory would ibviously be a branch of, no? What I was doing was explaining that what I was talking about is a-theistic evolution, because you seemed unclear as to what I was referring to.

The OP posted videos made by people who were criticizing the idea of teaching that an Intelligence might have had something to do with the creation of the universe and of living creatures on Earth. Therefore the discussion is between a-theistic evolution and a proposal which sounds remarkably like theistic evolution. I was merely trying to explain why many Americans reject a-theistic evolution.

YOU are the one eliminating God from evolution but it does not have to be that way. God could have created and designed the world to operate as it does. Do you disagree with the above statement that God can use secondary, natural causes? Do you deny nature?!

I believe God created the universe and everything in it. Whether He did so over the course of 6 “days” or whether He used evolution over the course over the course of billion of years, whether He made the species individually or whether He guided evolution to cause species to arise… all of this is something we cannot know.

What I do *not *believe in is a-theistic evolution. And I tried to make it clear that my criticisms are of a-theistic evolution.

…True we say birds evolved from…, bears evolved from…and no we don’t say designed, BUT ---- we do say select!

The only place I see the word select is in the phrase “natural selection.” And the “selection” described in textbooks is of characteristics which they claim came about as the result of *completely random *forces.

[quite]The fittest animals are selected etc.
Read a biology textbook. They do not talk about the fittest animals being selected.

Oh come on now. Not one shred? Fossils are evidence. Bones are evidence.

What are these evidence *of? *Not evolution. They are evidence only that these other animals existed, not that there is any relation between them and other species.

[quoteFish do not arise from amoeba nor lions from fish.
[/quote]
No, they don’t. Nor do they arise from amoeba through a bunch of intermediary forms, which is quite obviously what I meant, since the theory of evolution postulates that living multi-celled creatures evolved from one-celled creatures.

And I bet you believe in a lot crazier things than multicellular organisms arising from unicellular organisms over billions of generations. Do you believe some of the stuff in the bible happened, i.e. Jesus turning water into wine? Why do you believe what the bible says (to whatever extent you do) but not hard evidence such as fossils?

Because I believe that God is omnipotent, I can easily believe that He can turn water into wine. His nature is to be omnipotent and to do things like that.

However, the nature of material beings is not to do what a-theistic evolution claims for them. A-theistic evolution claims that random forces and random gentic changes just happen to cause new species to arise, and moreover, these new species just happen to have more capabilities than older species. And species evolve, randomly in tandem: two separate species just happen to randomly mutate in a complementary way which allows the other species to survive! And incredibly complex systems just happen to evolve either all at once–yeah, right–or slowly and randomly over the course of many generations despite conferring no benefit to the members in terms of survival until the trnasformation is complete.

Evolution explains life once it already existed.

But the a-theistic theory of evolution purports to explain life’s existence in the first place.

:banghead: What evidence do you have for that? The findings of tons of biologists, archeologists, paleontologists? You accept their evidence for that but not the bigger picture?

We see changes taking place within species all the time, mostly by our breeding. However, we have no evidence that members of one species are born as members of a different species. At Michigan State, scientists studied bacteria over 20 years, which works out to 40,000 generations, and at the end, there was no new species.

The speculations and stories, even those of scientists, are not evidence. Bones are not evidence.

What evidence, pray tell, do you have that God did NOT create a world with natural secondary causes that could lead to diversity of life, hmm?

God might well have done so. But that would not be a-theistic evolution, would it? One might even think of it as a form of… Intelligent Design, no?

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

I don’t think learning about Intelligent Design will ruin the pool which future scientist are drawn.

“why do the Swiss have so many guns?” /QUOTE]

I’m sorry but I thought the Swiss carried army knives not guns.

 

[samiam1611]

Here you are mentioning a third option of theistic evolution. Which the ID theory would ibviously be a branch of, no?

NO! No it is not. ID rejects common descent! Ask Buffalo. He think God created “kinds” and that all animals don’t have a common ancestor, each “kind” was created.

Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

ID: “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

Theistic evolution: God’s method of creation was to design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve.

As you can see, evolution and theistic evolution are compatible. ID and evolution are not. Theistic evolutionists do not reject the concepts of common descent and natural selection. They do not reject established scientific theories.

 

[Walcot]

Quote:
However, the nature of material beings is not to do what a-theistic evolution claims for them. A-theistic evolution claims that random forces and random gentic changes just happen to cause new species to arise, and moreover, these new species just happen to have more capabilities than older species. And species evolve, randomly in tandem: two separate species just happen to randomly mutate in a complementary way which allows the other species to survive! And incredibly complex systems just happen to evolve either all at once–yeah, right–or slowly and randomly over the course of many generations despite conferring no benefit to the members in terms of survival until the trnasformation is complete.

This shows that you have not understood the theory at all, but have been misled by the words ‘random’, ‘chance’ etc.
Incredibly complex systems do NOT ‘evolve’ (that’s not the correct word here- you mean develop) all at once.
And randomly (there’s that word again - it implies hap-hazard) over the course of many generations, EACH tiny part of that transformation must have some benefit, or at least no negative effect, on that organism, so that eventually the transformation takes place…or not! Transformation is never ‘complete’…don’t imagine that we’re living in some ‘end-time’. Species continue to adapt. Only the ‘fittest’ will survive climate change to their environments. Eg the most drought tolerant offspring of plant and animal will survive the spreading desertification of some parts of the world. If the change is gradual enough those plants and animals may be able to adapt and then evolve. For example, the swallows which have to fly over the Sahara have further to go as the desert expands. Maybe the smaller winged ones won’t make it and only the bigger winged ones will make it and therefore pass on their ‘big wing’ genes until the resulting swallow is different from it’s ancestors. Yes it’s still a bird…but we’re only talking about a tiny time-span here. Millions of years can see a lot of changes! And one species doesn’t ‘change’ into ‘another’ species. Theres no dividing LINE between two species. Thats an important point…each immediate offspring resembles it’s parent. One doesn’t suddenly give birth to an alien!
Will the polar bear survive the melting polar ice? Those changes may happen too fast and the polar bear go extinct. I wouldn’t like to think that God had planned that…but that is not for science to discuss, it is for theology/philosophy.

 

[St_Francis]

NO! No it is not. ID rejects common descent! Ask Buffalo. He think God created “kinds” and that all animals don’t have a common ancestor, each “kind” was created.

Do you have a source other than Buffalo that ID says that the Designer created kinds? Because the only things I have been able to find are the complexity of systems and the huge amount of information–nothing about “kinds.”

 

[St_Francis]

This shows that you have not understood the theory at all, but have been misled by the words ‘random’, ‘chance’ etc.
Incredibly complex systems do NOT ‘evolve’ (that’s not the correct word here- you mean develop) all at once.
And randomly (there’s that word again - it implies hap-hazard) over the course of many generations, EACH tiny part of that transformation must have some benefit, or at least no negative effect, on that organism, so that eventually the transformation takes place…or not! Transformation is never ‘complete’…don’t imagine that we’re living in some ‘end-time’. Species continue to adapt. Only the ‘fittest’ will survive climate change to their environments. Eg the most drought tolerant offspring of plant and animal will survive the spreading desertification of some parts of the world. If the offspring resembles it’s parent. One doesn’t suddenly give birth to an alien! …

How are the genetic changes *not *random and by chance in a-theistic evolution? That a particular change continues in the species because of environmental “selection” is not exactly random, true, but according to Dawkins et al, the fact that any particular genetic change occurs at all is due to chance, no?

 

[rbarcia]

If Evolution is true, death came before Sin. Which contradicts the Bible.

**Romans 5:12-15

12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. **

God created an aged earth through His spoken Word. That Word is Christ.

**John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
…
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.
**
Jesus the Master talked of creation.

Mark 13:19
For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.

Was Jesus talking of tribulation of a Big Bang?

Maybe God will Evolve the New Heaven and Earth the same way, and prophecy will be fulfilled in another billion years.

**Rev 21:1

Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.**

Maybe we were evolved in His workmanship

Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

The Father laid out His plan from the foundation of the world, and he started with a single cell?

**John 17:24
“Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

Col 1
15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.

1 Peter 1:20
He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

Revelation 13:8
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.

Hebrews 9:26
He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.**

I believe God created the world as stated in the Bible. But I have more respect for full out Atheist who follow evolution than people who try to sit in the middle and say things like, the Bible is just “spiritual truth”, not “actual truth”. Or just covers “salvation history” versus “actual history.” What on earth does that mean? It is true, but not actually true?

IOW, natural does not have to mean atheistic. Natural selection does not preclude God from being involved, though of course scientific methods cannot detect God.

Just pick a side:

**Rev 3:14

“And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans[f] write, ‘These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: 15 “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. **

 

[buffalo]

Do you have a source other than Buffalo that ID says that the Designer created kinds? Because the only things I have been able to find are the complexity of systems and the huge amount of information–nothing about “kinds.”

Right, many ID the sciencers do not reject common descent. Some do.

IDvolution the philosophy, does not support common descent. The tree of life has fallen and is now a bush. Throw in HGT and common descent is now very garbled.

 

[St_Francis]

Right, many ID the sciencers do not reject common descent. Some do.

IDvolution the philosophy, does not support common descent. The tree of life has fallen and is now a bush. Throw in HGT and common descent is now very garbled.

Ahhh, so there are two separate ideas, one called ID, and the other called IDvolution? Is that right? And the latter says God created the “kinds” of animals?

I have not seen any ID proponents who explained how the Intelligent Designer did anything; they all seem to be merely saying that there are aspects of the material world which suggest an Intelligent Designer rather than random chance.

 

[St_Francis]

An interesting quote from Anthony Flew, once the world’s foremost atheist, now a “deist.”

In the foreword to the new (and final) edition of his God and Philosophy, which Flew now describes as “an historical relic”, he acknowledges that **the argument from design “becomes progressively more powerful with every advance in humankind’s knowledge of the integrated complexity of what used to be called the ‘system of nature’.” **

In the article to which I linked is a link to a multi-page interview with Dr Flew which might interest some.

 

[buffalo]

Ahhh, so there are two separate ideas, one called ID, and the other called IDvolution? Is that right? And the latter says God created the “kinds” of animals?

I have not seen any ID proponents who explained how the Intelligent Designer did anything; they all seem to be merely saying that there are aspects of the material world which suggest an Intelligent Designer rather than random chance.

Yes - ID the science is simply looking for evidence of design. They do not have faith in the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) that the materialists have.

 

[edwest2]

NO! No it is not. ID rejects common descent! Ask Buffalo. He think God created “kinds” and that all animals don’t have a common ancestor, each “kind” was created.

Evolution: change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

ID: “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”

Theistic evolution: God’s method of creation was to design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve.

As you can see, evolution and theistic evolution are compatible. ID and evolution are not. Theistic evolutionists do not reject the concepts of common descent and natural selection. They do not reject established scientific theories.

Apparently, you didn’t poll everybody.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Darryl1958]

Yes - ID the science is simply looking for evidence of design. They do not have faith in the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) that the materialists have.

David Berlinski notes that no computer models have yet been developed that can demonstrate how life in all its complexity swcwloped through random chance alone.

Given the near infinite capacity of computers to crunch statistics, with billions of years being no obstacle to the capacity to generate statistical solutions, this would seem like something very fundamental before random chance ventures from the realm of unproven hypothesis to valid theory.
Without that kind ov evidence, blind randm chance really is a faith statement, dogmatic rather than scientific.

 

[stevekehl]

As Bill Nye indicates - ID belief is such an American phenomenon.

I agree with Bill, why is it being taught to kids and where are the future engineers and scientists going to come from.

youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

Or as Lawrence Krauss puts it, is this child abuse to validate such ignorance.

Why is this state of affairs so peculiar to America

youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo

ID doesn’t dismiss science, it uses science to prove design. I believed in God before going to nursing school, now it’s been proven beyond all doubt. Check out The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be and Atheist by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler and the video Expelled by Ben Stein if you can honestly say their is no scientific evidence for God after researching these sources, well… you won’t be able to honestly say there is no evidence for God. After all, even Richard Dawkins admitted there is overwhelming evidence for design, he just doesn’t think God was the designer.

 

[HelenRose]

It Isn’t very common in UK as far as I know, but British scientists are sufficiently concerned by creationism across the pond and creationism (and may be ID) creeping into British schools via our new ‘academy system’, that they are having a big science education push in the media. Personally, I don’t see much difference in creationism and ID. I thought Catholicism coped OK with the real science…is that changing?
Maybe the complications and uncertainties of modern life have driven people to seek simple certainties for their lives, and a literal belief in the bible can provide that; so much so that they will/need to say black is White. The bible, and life, is more complex than that! .It’s all so much more wonderful the more we find out…my Catholic father was a botanist who taught me real science starting with the fossils and rocks in our local hills. I believe it IS child abuse to deny children access to proper science. It’s wonderful - not magic!!

So you think that parents who do not teach their children the “proper” science as you define it, should be deprived of their children or punished because they are “abusing them”?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thanks to all.
Thread closed