'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. -
(comment) 100% · Re: even science-based courses...moderated to 100%
by PopeRatzo on 2007-01-04 11:51:11Yes, science-based courses should mention Creationism, if only as a source of ridicule and an example of the "opposite of Science".
summary
title: 'Re: even science-based courses...'
text: 'Yes, science-based courses should mention Creationism, if only as a source of ridicule and an example of the "opposite of Science".'
tags: PopeRatzo,
date: 2007-01-04 11:51:11
submitter: PopeRatzo
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.