November 19, 2005

Man's evolution from monkey a proven scientific fact?

yewjin said:

If the letter was an appeal for a more critical look at evolution that would be a applaudable point of view, but a religiously-motivated criticism sees things through tinted eyes, and here’s the frightening part, this FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) spreads.

Recommended by Anonymous Coward: "This article discusses and rebukes a recent forum letter that attacks the validity of evolution."

Link

Submitted by Anonymous Coward on November 16//10:05pm and published by mb, tinkertailor :: 40091 reads | trackback (9)
Comments 384

I believe you have not read my post.

The point is when you ask evolution not to be taught in science class, that is equivalent to asking Sunday School NOT to teach the Word of God. (What's wrong with saying Christianity? Or are you just throwing around synonyms?). Remember it's an analogy so don't go ape on me because you think it does not apply or whatever.

Your contention is that Christian Children should not be taught evolution--but what if we flip the situation around now, and you have non-Christian Children in Sunday School, and people are now "demanding" that Sunday School to stop teaching the Word of God because these children should not be subject to teachings of such belief.

What now?

How can you simply flip like that? Common sense will tell you people who are found in Sunday school are there to learn about God and christianity, whether or not they are forced by their parents. Sunday school is not compulsory. Going to a public school is compulsory. Don't like Sunday school, you can stay away, don't like public school you still have to go.

Want to flip, somersault or whatever also must do with common sense mah. Not everything can flip one.

Posted by Anonymous Coward* on 11 January, 2007 - 4:35am

"What now?" is that Sunday School is not forced upon children. It is a choice of the head of that household to let their children be subjected to whatever is taught in that Sunday School. They attend that church and allow their little ones to be taught whatever that church wishes to teach them. Now, on the other hand, children are required by law to attend some sort of learning institution (government funded and guided or not). Now you may argue that parents have a choice in which institution that they enroll their children in, but that only applies to families that have the resources. Choice, unfortunately, is merely a luxury, and most American families do not live in luxury. Therefore, by in the very least, offering an alternative study in opposition to the THEORY of evolution is not only fair, but right.

Posted by Of Course* on 11 January, 2007 - 3:49am

If you have seen my threads, you would have understand that my issue with the theory of evolution is it is not true science that is agnostic. But rather it is atheism in the guise of science; a science that is biased towards atheism. As such, this anti-religious "theory" does not belong in the classroom.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8