Trouble is, the use of the term 'religion' as opposed to Creationism leaves nothing to reply to for Creationists like myself who think if Evolution is to be taught in schools then so should Creationist theories, but don't support teaching religion in schools.
But, creationism is religion, complete in all of it's glorious superstition and mythology. It certainly isn't science. So you are, in effect, claiming that you don't support the teaching of religion - just the teaching of your religion.
By the way, there is no such thing as a "creationist theory." Creationism is founded in the mythology of bronze age, nomadic herdsmen. There are no observations, hypotheses, or testing involved. Creationism arrives at conclusions first and then searches for facts to support the conclusions. Any facts that are contrary to the conclusions are rejected.
The theories Darwin replaced like Catastrophism and Core Created Species as opposed to Macroevolution remain debatable to today, as Macroevolution remains still unproven.
Actually, catastrophism was debunked without regard to any theory proposed by Darwin. Catastrophism was debunked by christian scientists who believed in creation before Darwin published his theories.
Of course, the Biblical kinds, what you replace with "Core Created Species," has no support in reality. You see, there is no evidence to support that superstition that would warrant its inclusion in any science curriculum. The idea is pretty much something that is to be expected from the Taliban.
Macroevolution is, quite simply, evolution above the species level that has produced more than one species from a single ancestral lineage. For example: Mallard, Bottled Duck, American Black Duck, Gadwall, Northern Pintail, American Wigeon, Eurasian Wigeon, Northern Shoveler, Garganey, Cinnamon Teal, Blue-winged Teal, Green Winged Teal, etc. All of the above are of the same genus. Macroevolution has been well established as fact by several lines of research. To deny that fact is ignorant.
So please name the "core created species" for us.
Such theories can be taught without teaching religion, they are Biblically compatible but do not require teaching the Bible in schools.
Nonsense. Creationism (the clandestine attempt to disguise religion as science) as well as Intelligent Design (the clandestine attempt to disguise creationism as science) have both been found to be based on religion by our courts and therefore cannot be presented as science in public schools.
I know that you don't understand, but your religion isn't a scientific theory. Creationism is based on religion and the teaching of creationism (or ID creationism) cannot be done in a science class without reference to mythology. You see, there is absolutely no evidence that supports that position. The teaching of creationism
IS the teaching of the Bible.
Like Evolutionary theory they are just frameworks; hypotheses.
An scientific hypothesis is untested. A scientific theory has been tested. Creationism is neither an hypothesis nor a theory. It is mythology that has no observational support in reality.
Isn't it interesting that all creationist argument boil down to two methods: to try to raise mythology to the level of science, and to try to reduce science to the level of mythology. You have tried both.
™ Version 4.2
