Biology teachers teaching creationism

The Dover School Board was correct in teaching the truth.

THE BIGGER PICTURE IN THE DEBATE ON DARWINISM IS NOT INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

The reason is elementary: the Discovery Institute and other ID proponents leave out the Triune God, Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Hence, Richard Dawkins can make the case for “aliens” seeding the earth.

There is a better way.

The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, represents the ultimate marriage between an in-depth knowledge of biblical phenomena and natural and physical sciences. The several volumes have accomplished that which, heretofore, was deemed impossible: to level the playing field between those who desire a return to physical science in the classroom and those who embrace the theory of evolution. The Quest for Right turns the tide by providing an authoritative and enlightening scientific explanation of natural phenomena which will ultimately dethrone the unprofitable Darwinian view.

A review:

"I am amazed at the breadth of the investigation - scientific history, biblical studies, geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and so forth - and find the style of writing to be quite lucid and aimed clearly at a general, lay audience." ― Mark Roberts, former Editor of Biblical Reference Books, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Continue your education by reading The Quest for Right. http://questforright.com

Reply

I don't care how eloquently or insightfuly the argument is presented, our schools should not be teaching religion.

I find it funny/sad how Christians and the "moral right" are always harping on about activist and revisionist judges and a strict interpretation of the Constitution and yet at every oppertunity they just love to flaunt the seperation of church and state.

Reply

I am a science teacher at a Catholic school. I choose to teach there because I can teach that God created the Earth and the Heavens.

Even Stephen Hawking, as brilliant as a scientist as he is, doesn't deny the existance of a God. He actual says that the more he knows the more he believes that we could not have been created by accident. There must have been a devine hand involved.

As a trained scientist (I worked in research for 15 years before become a s teacher) I teach that the two "theories" can coexist. No one I know believes that the Earth and Heavens were created in 7 days that lasted only 24 hrs. Maybe we did evolve from Apes? Could that not have been just one step to reach the final finished product... humans. One step that lasted millions of years.

We obviously develop from a single cell through a miriad of steps to reach a fully developed baby. A baby that still isn't completely developed and spend years outside of the womb developing.

I will never understand why these two have to be separated. Science and religion can exist together.

Reply

The question isn't whether science and religion can co-exist. No one is saying you have to choose a secular life or a religious/spiritual life.

It's simple, public schools should not teach religion, unless we're talking about in a social studies context and the students are there to learn specifically about religions, but schools should not be in the church business.

Again, a seperation of church and state. Or do you think it equally fair, that if your community is predominantly Indian, that Hinduism be taught to your kids?

Reply

Yes, ethics and morals should be taught in schools, but a science class should not be teaching myths as a way to do this. It's a complete fallacy to say that ethics and morality are the sole purview of religion(s). I also find it so slimy and subversive that the arguement goes that the constitution and the law should be broken, abused or circumvented in order to teach morality and ethics.

Religion is fundamentally antithetical to science and teaching our kids to consider these two wrold view to be analogous only undermines their ability to engage in critical thinking.

I am not opposed to religious studies in schools, as long as it is comprehensive and not designed to promote one religion over another. But to teach creationism, under any name, and promote it as a valid alternative to evolution... well, I wonder how christians can justify this. It is inherently dishonest and relies on euphamisms and deception in order to sneak in Christianity.

I can only imagine that for proponents of Intelligent Design, that their god, is so small and so pitiful that they need to lie and circumvent the law of the land in order to evangelize.

Reply

In response to tgc 112470

I was under the understanding that Science was supposed to be teaching science. Such as the scientific method and how the scientific method if done correctly can be a very thorough way of proving or disproving a theory.

If ID's could present a theory and how they test that theory with a good scientific method, and show that their theory has merit then there wouldn't be an issue. However until that is done and they continue to attempt subvert REAL science with no evidence based theory's, then the science community will continue to ignore and separate truth from fiction.

I am have never set foot in a church for the purposes of worshiping anything in my entire life, and I believe I have very upstanding moral values. And I don't believe I received any of those values from school either, I gained my sense of love and morality from my parents.

Your parents should be the main source from where you receive your values, they nourish you with whatever you may need in life including your sense of values.

"Mother is the name of God on the lips of all Children." Brandon Lee

If you want to have your values taught to you by someone else other than your parents join a cult. If your parents fail at teaching you any values then your parents are liable for what you may or may not do.

Reply