Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

What you are describing is a comparative religion course. It would examine all pertinent views, and would not select any one view as the TRVTH.A class like this could not be properly taught by anyone pushing one flavor of religion over another. If they do that it is not teaching, it is preaching.Comparative religion courses are often taught as Anthropology (I took such a course many years ago). That is the proper place for such a course. Religious Studies courses will most likely be very biased in favor of one religion--they don't have the "view from a distance" perspective found in Anthropology.But if you let creationists preach a course, you violate the constitution and do a disservice to the students.That's what creationists want, of course.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

YEC has been disproved. It is simply superstition, and science has shown that it is incorrect as well.By claiming it to be "proven true" and "the truth" you are preaching, and preaching a falsehood.And you want that falsehood taught as science? What a joke!(See tagline, below.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Don't you realize that science teaches all of the theories for which there is evidence?Creationism is unsupported by evidence. Until it can come up with something better than "evolution is all wet" it doesn't deserve any place in science or in classrooms.And that evidence must meet the standards of science to be considered as science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Genesis is just inappropriate for the setting. It is myth, not science.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

From Alexander Pope's, Essay on Man (1733—1734)

Lo, the poor Indian! whose untutor'd mind
Sees God in clouds, or hears him in the wind;
His soul proud Science never taught to stray
Far as the solar walk or milky way;
Yet simple nature to his hope has giv'n,
Behind the cloud-topt hill, an humbler Heav'n,
Some safer world in depth of woods embraced,
Some happier island in the wat'ry waste,
Where slaves once more their native land behold,
No fiends torment, no Christians thirst for gold.
To be, contents his natural desire;
He asks no Angel's wing, no Seraph's fire;
But thinks, admitted to that equal sky,
His faithful dog shall bear him company.

The state doesn't care if it is true or false. It cares that it is religion. That is why it is not allowed to be taught.But if it was "true" there would be scientific evidence supporting it, and then it would not be solely religion. In that case (as in the example of the Big Bang given above) it would be a legitimate subject and could be taught.So where is the empirical scientific evidence for creationism?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You have made these same claims over and over and over.You have been corrected time and again.You clearly are not reading the responses, or are just ignoring them.It seems that you are not here to debate, but to preach. And you are preaching a narrow interpretation of one particular religion in the Science Forum--where it doesn't belong.

So when scientists use evidence to reach conclusions they should check around among all the world's religions to see what conclusions they have to suppress, lest they offend someone who bases his conclusions on myth, superstition, "revelation," and other such forms of "knowledge?"You really believe that nonsense?

And, of course, he isn't listening. This shows that Heinlein was right when he said:

Belief gets in the way of learning.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What are your rules for differentiating design from non-design?Or is everything "designed?" If that is the case, you have nothing.So tell us, what rules do you use?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You realize this doesn't mean anything don't you?Your "order" is nothing more than a naturally-occurring consequence of mutation and natural selection.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

ID was presented in a courtroom. It was found to not be science by a Federal judge.Ref: Dover

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This is patently false.You are only doing science when you follow the scientific method.The subject of the study does not determine whether you are doing science, it is the method one uses that determines that.ID starts with a conclusion and cherry-picks what data it can find that might support that conclusion, while ignoring the masses of data that contradict that conclusion. It takes its case to the public rather than supporting it in the scientific journals. And given the statements in the leaked Wedge Document it is a fraud from start to finish.And you fell for it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.