Evolution and the seven Christian hypothesis on Creation ought all be taught

Actually I didn't think you were. I just saw the linguistic opportunity I could not miss Welcome aboard anyway. Fortunately I do speak English.

You don't have to be sorry for that. We're a pretty open minded group.Welcome in, Fin.

Seven plus One eh? Clever. Not biting on that troll bait. You are going to have to work a little harder to generate traffic to your web page.

No probs. For what it's worth, I'm a big fan of Saabs .

What are your thoughts on the present policies wherein teachers and textbooks usually mention Alchemy and discuss that subject, teach the history of the early roots of Chemistry in that now rather discredited field of inquiry, and applaud and credit those alchemist with the invention and manufacture of almost all our present chemistry glassware.The test tube, beckers, evaoprating vessels, and comolex tubings and coper and glass apparati were all created long before John Dalton:

You make a good point that these others missed, here, in that Social Science Class of Behavioral Science Classes do not have the excuse for ignoring the Bible creation tale the way Chemistry or Physics teachers might.But the Biology teacher seems sort of trapped between the hard place of pretending the kids don't KNOW their is an issue with his science and that "rock of the Ages," scripture, which he must either condemn or apply these ideas of Theistic Evolution which ameliorates the controversy with a compromise.

Since I'm not aware of exactly what is taught, I have no opinion on it. In the abstract, I'd have no problem teaching it as a part of the history of chemistry. Moreover, I'd have no problem teaching the history of the development of the ToE, including the fact that before Darwin, most naturalists were creationists of some sort.Generally, I'm not opposed in principal to teaching anything that's accurate. Of course, there isn't time to teach it all, so priorities need to be set. But as long as what is taught is accurate, I'm good with it.

The only problem with biology is religious nitwits who insist on lying to children about science to protect their goofy ideas. Eliminate that and you eliminate the problem.

That makes sense in my book.A curriculum designed to describe the history of the science related to cosmic evolution needs to be fair enough to emphasis that Genesis was the lone and sole claimant for a Big Bang in days when men puzzled over the possibility of a Static Universe that had always existed.And genesis does observe that the Plant kingdom preceded the appearance of the Animal kingdom.It also should be emphasized that Gen 1:9 noted correctly that once "all the waters under the heavens were gathered together into one place" called the Panthalassic Ocean, "and the dry land appeared," which was called Pangea.It also is scientifically true that no visible light was present at the moment of the big bang beginning, but there was a delay of 400 million years, until the universe cooled down.
Then the First Cause said let there be light.Whatever criticism the course might raise against the speculatins of the Bible writers, in all fairness, these few correct "hypothesis" did turn out to be true.The only problem with biology is religious nitwits who insist on lying to children about science to protect their goofy ideas. Eliminate that and you eliminate the problem.Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.

That didn't make much sense.

Actually, that kind of garbage is exactly what needs to be kept out. Nobody ever interpreted the bible to be describing the Big Bang theory until science developed it. The same is true for the rest of the codswallop you posted.Pre-Darwin naturalists were actually men of science who tried to use a systematic method to find support for biblical creation in the natural world. Creationism fell by the wayside because there is no evidence for it and all the evidence points instead to the ToE.

That paragraph addressed the fact that people complaining that Creationism ought not be a subject discussed in science classes forget that Social Science and Human Behavioral Science (Psychology) are also fields within science.The assumption has been that the issue concerns biology only.

What I observe is that we ARE discussing it on every religious site and in the media, like we do here.
Bill Maher is ridiculing Americans very week, and the comedians are having a Field Day getting easy laughs from a one-side audience.But no one is defending the sex prudence once recommended by the churches that were previously attended by everyone.
What I see is that the Family in America has been under attack simply because the Institution of Religion has been undermined.RThe consequences have been that in the vacuum where education does not even discuss sexual morals and the impact on Welfare and poverty, our birth rate has become 50% bastards every year, and the development of a two tiered cultural institution that is seeing America "Coming Apart."And though the destruction of Black America is the real issue, the effect has also divided white America.COMING APART
The State of White America, 1960-2010
By Charles Murray

Well, that's a nice list of non sequitors.

quote:

---

A curriculum designed to describe the history of the science related to cosmic evolution needs to be fair enough to emphasis that Genesis was the lone and sole claimant for a Big Bang in days when men puzzled over the possibility of a Static Universe that had always existed.

---

You have an odd idea of fairness. Perhaps we should rather mention the fact that Genesis starts with the primordial ocean, typical of Middle Eastern creation myths.

quote:

---

And genesis does observe that the Plant kingdom preceded the appearance of the Animal kingdom.

---

Which is hardly surprising.

quote:

---

It also should be emphasized that Gen 1:9 noted correctly that once "all the waters under the heavens were gathered together into one place" called the Panthalassic Ocean, "and the dry land appeared," which was called Pangea.

---

You mean INcorrectly. There was dry land before there were large bodies of water.

quote:

---

It also is scientifically true that no visible light was present at the moment of the big bang beginning, but there was a delay of 400 million years, until the universe cooled down.
Then the First Cause said let there be light.

---

Science says nothing about a First Cause acting AFTER the beginning of our universe to create light, in fact it says that there was no need for that at all. Never mind that your interpretation starts with the accretion disk that became the Earth already existing, which is much later!

quote:

---

Whatever criticism the course might raise against the speculatins of the Bible writers, in all fairness, these few correct "hypothesis" did turn out to be true.

---

Honesty compels me to point out that three out of four have NOT turned out to be true.

quote:

---

The only problem with biology is religious nitwits who insist on lying to children about science to protect their goofy ideas. Eliminate that and you eliminate the problem.

---

Then we're agreed that you're part of the problem.