I dont mind if she dies it as an option and teaches about intelligent design. Yes as long as we have a course on atheism that teaches us that its 100% for sure that we blank into a void on nothingness. This way both sides of the coin are given.
Evolution has nothing to say about life after death pingpong and it has nothing to say about the existance of god, It's an explanation of the diversity of life. But don't let that stop you continuously misrepresenting it. What would jesus lie about? Still waiting for that evidence against evolution baconbits.
One of the first things that you learn in college-level science classes is that there is no such thing as a scientific fact. There are only theories that tend to explain things until a better theory comes along. Do not forget that "reason" as used in your statement implies "theory". A good example is an atomic structure with protons and neutrons orbited by electrons. Many people accept that a factual representation of an atom, yet no one has ever seen an atom. Even the most powerful electron microscopes do not get down to the atomic level. What we accept as the visualization of an atomic structure is just a theory and not a fact. Darwinism and evolution are theories that appear to be supported by the available evidence. I am not a believer in creationism, but it is also a theory that should be taught as a different viewpoint, which could also be true. No one knows for certain because none of us were there over the past millions of years. Evolution is therefore just another theory that tends to explain things. It is not a fact. Heck, the schools teach all kinds of distorted drivel today related to the history of the country, the causes of global warming, the threat of mass extinctions and other politically motivated crap that has no real basis in fact. Why not teach both viewpoints about the origin of humans? It is much more harmless than of lot of the junk misrepresented as facts to mushy little minds.
Scientific theories are supported by all the available evidence, they are testable and they make predictions. Three things which creation seems to think are unimportant. There is also the misconception that a theory is some how a rung on the ladder of certainty. Scientific theories are completely different to facts and they never become facts, They are explanation of facts. It is a fact that humans and chimpanzees share ERV DNA, The explanation of this fact is common decent. Creation isn't believed because of evidence, it's believed in spite of it, Which is why it shouldn't be taught outside theology class or a course on ancient mythology. You mean besides that fact that it is contradicted by all available evidence?
Highlighted statement is untrue. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory specifically because it is supported by empirical evidence. There is not one form of creationism that is supported by any observable evidence. As such, it should not be taught in a *science* class - it belongs in philosophy or theology. Science is a way of learning, not a body of knowledge. The means of learning in science is through *observable* and *repeatable* controlled experiments. I personally believe this is the best form of education, as it provides real tangible results, and tends to be a self-correcting discipline. Using politics to push religious views on children through public school is not just unconstitutional; when baseless theories are taught as science, it undermines the whole discipline.
I learnt about the Creation, the Big Bang and evolution. There's no harm in teaching children about Creation as long as it's not presented as scientific fact, but rather a religious way of thinking.
Not necessarily. I was taught about alchemy in my early science classes and told that historic explorers considered the world to be flat. Those were the perfectly valid opinions of learned scholars in days gone by, before evidence was available to refute them. There are many, many remarkable things that science can not explain. The Big Bang and evolution are convenient explanations for a lot of things, but by no means everything.
That is totally different, you are showing on one hand how science proved something wrong. That is totally different than showing side by side a scientific theory and a religious idea with no real facts to back it up. Totally different IMHO. You also have to remember the US and it's constitution is a bit different than where you live
Ok then, I'll compromise. lets tell children that creation exists as a belief, And then have them uncontrollably laugh at it, As you no doubt did when you heard about people thinking the earth was flat. See, You weren't told that some people used to believe the earth was flat because it's a possibility or a valid alternative to "spherical earth theory", You were told it to demonstrate how little people used to understand the world around them and how wrong people are when their conclusions aren't based on sound science. I am in favour of using creation to show children how wrong people can be when they don't use science and evidence to form conclusion.
I wouldn't use Creation for that purpose. There are many Christians who still think there is a little bit of God's magic in how the world was formed. It's a harmless enough belief, so whether it be right or wrong who be anyone else to cast scorn on it? As I said, as long as it's not presented as scientific fact I'd be happy enough for my children to learn about it as an alternative way of thinking.