'teach evolution instead of creationism'
[ support:54% : certainty:51 ] · [31 replies] ·
[0 comment]
-
support 100% · unconstitutionalmoderated to 100%; argued down by 0%
by metric on 2005-01-14 11:40:28Creationism fails the Lemon test established by the Supreme Court in Lemov vs. Kurtzman: Under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose, (2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. -
oppose 0% · even science-based courses...moderated to 50%; argued down by 50%
by me on 2005-04-20 10:02:20should mention creationism. It's a longstanding belief which should be addressed on the grounds of scientific verifiability, not on emotional grounds of constitutionality or religious tolerance. -
support -120% · Re: even science-based courses...moderated to 0%; argued down by 120%
by anonymous on 2005-09-28 01:29:55Creationism is in no way provable and provides very few plausible, verifiable arguments for its validity. Moreover, it is a longstanding belief that the moon is made of green cheese but we don't teach that. I believe in God. I do not believe in the church's interpretation of Creation. I do not believe that Moses' words translated from language to language to language and manipulated several times by the church should be taken to be the literal truth. -
oppose 100% · Re: even science-based courses...moderated to 100%; argued down by 0%
by anonymous on 2005-11-10 15:33:36Moses's words were recorded by scribes who made thousands of copies of one chapter jut so that the manuscript would be perfect. Also the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the correctness of the "manipulated" words. -
oppose -120% · Re: even science-based courses...moderated to 0%; argued down by 120%
by anonymous on 2005-12-21 15:57:13JK Rowling wrote Harry Potter, that does not make it true. You must look at and prove the claims, not spout unverified dogma that could very well be fiction. This is what seperates the men from the boys. Evolution has plenty of evidence backing it up. Creationism has some books with questionable accuracy, with no evidence to back up its claims. -
oppose 100% · Re: even science-based courses...moderated to 100%; argued down by 0%
by JoeCool on 2006-02-24 20:31:44If I am not mistaken, Rowling has made a point to say that her books are not true. I can't recall hearing of a single book of the bible ment to be fictional.
summary
title: 'Re: even science-based courses...'
text: 'If I am not mistaken, Rowling has made a point to say that her books are not true. I can't recall hearing of a single book of the bible ment to be fictional.'
tags: JoeCool,
date: 2006-02-24 20:31:44
submitter: JoeCool
effective: 1
support: 0
oppose: 0
stancePos: 1
stanceNeg: 0
stanceEffective:
repliesSupport: 0
repliesOppose: 0
repliesTotal: 0
comments: 0
Powered by Debatepoint.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.