"What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"

[jesus_wept]

In their mind what can possibly be the harm in teaching both sides or the so called "controversy"? It is all in the name of honest debate. So why not teach both sides? What are you afraid of "evolutionists"? :p

Why stop at creationism and evolution? Why not just teach all the nonsense we know of and let the kids decide?



Or we could just stick to teaching kids facts about reality.

[Diablo]

This seems to be the RCC position on evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Ch..._evolution

Quote:
Catholic schools in the United States and other countries teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values, wrote in a letter sent to all U.S. bishops in December 2004: "... Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence.

Here is a link about other religions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceptance_...ous_groups

These are the groups with the lowest acceptance of evolution:
Hist. Black Protest. 38%
Evang. Protestant 24%
Mormon 22%
Jehovah's Witness 8%

I'm not sure what the first group is.

So it's only the fringe groups who have a real problem with it, all US as far as I can tell.

[Minimalist]

Hist. Black Protest. 38%

Maybe they meant Hysterical Black Protestants?

[Dolorian]

Why stop at creationism and evolution? Why not just teach all the nonsense we know of and let the kids decide?

...

Or we could just stick to teaching kids facts about reality.

Exactly, if we are going by the excuse of "honest debate" or "teaching both sides", why not open the flood gates and let in every sort of discredited ideas?

Similar to your image, I liked this video:

[jesus_wept]

Exactly, if we are going by the excuse of "honest debate" or "teaching both sides", why not open the flood gates and let in every sort of discredited ideas?

Cue the special pleading to "explain" why only their nonsense should be taken seriously...

[Esquilax]

One of many correct responses to this "teach the controversy!" equal time bullshit creationists want is to ask them when they're going to take the first step and allow an evolutionary biologist to teach at their church every Sunday. You'll quickly see just how committed they are to the concept of all ideas being given the same level of consideration, and the conversation will be over.

[Dolorian]

Indeed, creationists really are not interested in allowing people to hear people both sides. You don't see them letting an evolutionary biologist teach at their church every Sunday for the same reason you don't see them allowing a Christ myth theorist give a lecture in there either. They already know that the Bible is the inspired word of God and is 100% literally true from cover to cover and no amount of contrary evidence can possibly prove otherwise.

"If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate." - Kurt Wise

"Nothing." - Ken Ham (when asked what would change his mind)

How can there possibly be an "honest" debate with someone with that mindset? There can't.

But creationists seem like easy targets, what about ID proponents such as Dembski, Luskin, Behe and the like who only want both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution to be taught in schools in the name of "academic freedom"? Surely that's a sensible request? :p

[Gawdzilla]

Creationism is already taught in school, Sunday school. I have yet to see a preacher invite anyone in for a rebuttal.

[Tonus]

ID proponents on the other hands seem to just want to poke holes at evolution and it's mechanisms without providing a scientific solution of their own.

I think a lot of religious debate comes down to some form of "you can't prove it isn't." Poking holes seems to be the only thing left. Which is fine; poking holes in theories is one of the ways that science progresses and how we learn more about our world and universe.

[Esquilax]

ID proponents on the other hands seem to just want to poke holes at evolution and it's mechanisms without providing a scientific solution of their own.

I think a lot of religious debate comes down to some form of "you can't prove it isn't." Poking holes seems to be the only thing left. Which is fine; poking holes in theories is one of the ways that science progresses and how we learn more about our world and universe.

Just so long as you don't mistake that hole as validation of your own pet theory, which is where creationism and ID proponents fall down, time and again.