Sentences with phrase «creationism out»

After decades of fighting to keep creationism out of the classroom, US science education advocates are steeling themselves to face a new foe: climate change sceptics.

«Discussing American science literacy without mentioning evolution is intellectual malpractice» that «downplays the controversy» over teaching evolution in schools, says Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit that has fought to keep creationism out of the science classroom.

That's why it is so important to keep ID and Creationism out of our public schools.

Athiests and many scientists simply expect people to dismiss religion and creationism out of hand, and take a scientific I.O.U. for all of the assumptions that they make.

we need to let them keep their silly cross it means nothing, but we need to fight them to keep creationism out of schools.

I think more effort and resources would be more effectively and more critically placed into keeping our government secular, keeping Creationism out of the science class, and religious fundamentalism away from interfering with women's reproductive choices — just to name a few priorities.

Not exact matches

Bottom line is this, keep it out of the public square; learn to respect others beliefs / disbeliefs; stop trying to tell LGBT they are wrong; stop trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies; stop trying to push bogus creationism crap (backed with zero evidence) on innocent children in the public school system; just stop pushing it outside your home or church.

If you do Creationism you have to go through other faith's take on the creation of the universe as well and that wont give our kids the much needed brain power they need to get us out this funk!

(You can check out a philosophical / theological debate for creationism that actually makes sense to me on my blog http://shadetree-theology.blogspot.com/2009/07/just-how-old-is-earth.html).

Bill Nye, «the Science Guy,» made fundamentalist Christian heads snap recently when he declared it was flat - out wrong for children to be taught creationism.

No one can prove creationism or evolution which does prove Nye is a jerk for coming out with such a preposterous video.

It is christians who are out attempting to impose their views (ie: denial of gay rights b / c their book apparently says so; denial of women's rights; using the threat of hell; teaching dis - proven creationism to innocent children) on the public.

It is completely scary and hilarious that the country I live in and the people that surround me every day are so STUPID they will just toss out all scientific studies just to believe some book and so called fake scientist that try to prove creationism.

By pushing out evolution for creationism it stumps the future.

Find out why he now supports creationism at http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

Nye comes out swinging at creationism casting it as unscientific.

And for the record, when I say the evidence out there supports creationism, I'm also not necessary saying all things were built by the will of some all knowing intelligent being though I don't preclude it as a possibility.

Evolution is a theory, Creationism is a hypothesis which has been disproven time and time again by the mountain of evidence that is out there.

creationism is far from an adult theory, its a child like story with fantasy elements based on myth and NO science, we always hear about these crazy people trying to outlaw evolution.But has you stated we have billions of years of evidence, thanks for helping us evolutionists out, unfortunately you have none, just a book, no science, no artifacts, no garden of eden, no bones of adam or eve or even the snake for that matter, no ark, no proof of a biblical flood, no proof of a created world by a higher power, no nothing..

At one point as we dwell in the past we might find a point in our evolution where something put us on the path of where we are today or created us out of nowhere but until then creationism is simply a dream wished up by those who refuse to be more open minded about the universe we live in.

Creationism starts with the conclusion and goes out looking for evidence to support it.

The reason that such an admission is out of the question is that it would open the door to creationism, which in this context means not simply biblical fundamentalism, but any invocation of a creative intelligence or purpose outside the natural order.

Darwinists disagree with creationists as a matter of definition, of course, but the degree of contempt that they express for creationism in principle requires some explanation beyond the fact that certain creationists have used unfair tactics such as quoting scientists out of context.

Granted that Pat Robertson is already something of a fool, but his coming out against Creationism confirms his lack of faith and his ignorance in thinking that religion and science can't be compatible.

Together they knocked out of Arkansas's statutes the bill that would have required creationism to be taught alongside evolution in the public schools.

Check out apologetics press dot org for rational discussions of creationism vs evolution theory, random chance vs design.

it would keep creationism and id out of the science classes AND be a huge step in the right direction to keeping religious idiocy out of political discourse in the united states.

The problem with being against «Creationism» is there is no published policy of what it is, even the Internet can not agree: http://goo.gl/2Aa0r — not all of these definitions rule out evolution or put a < 10,000 year timeline on the universe.

In fact, one could argue that if someone believed in Creationism is more motivated to find out how everything works; i.e..

Science is not starting with an idea (in this case God / creationism) then setting out to prove it right.

One area where we atheists have performed a valuable community service is in keeping creationism and other religious dogma out of public schools.

there is a web site called Reasons to Believe out there... take a look, there are volumes of scientific evidence available to support a belief in scientific creationism...

What different does it make that he is a mechanical engineer - he is still correctly pointing out the fact that creationism is not a scientific hypothesis let alone theory and therefore has no place in a science class.

Creationism was dealt a blow in Kansas today, when moderate Republicans defeated three out of the four conservative incumbents up for reelection on the state's Board of Education.

Obediently they form two lines and file out across the decorated hallway strewn with pasted pictures they'd posted from their creationism class the week before.

Indeed, every single «original» idea from this guy's mouth has turned out to be as accurate as the likes of Young Earth Creationism (aka not in the slightest) and his chances of getting things right seems to be about as «good» as the daily horoscope, TV psychics and Micheal Pachter's predictions (aka non existent).

His recent article branching out from climate science into a defense of creationism seemed to me to be a burning of the last bridge between him and the scientific mainstream.

Another claim frequently made about peer review is that it keeps out opposing views, not just on climate change but also things like alternative medicine, creationism, all sorts of pseudo stuff.

In other words, the consensus issue is one that was raised by those claiming there was none — you will find that biologists involved in evolution - creationism disputes also frequently point out that scientists have reached consensus on evolution (although perhaps not in those words), and in both cases this protestation is raised only because it is a (true!)

«NCSE provides information and advise as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the classroom and to keep out creationism and climate science denial».

Plimer went broke because he tried to sue a Creationist for misleading and deceptive conduct under the old Trade Practices Act for handing out pamphlets on young earth creationism.

Further, what do you even define as an «orderly debate,» why are «orderly debates» as you would define them necessary to thresh out the truth and validity in a scientific theory, and in what ways are the current debates over creationism / evolution, or (non)- CAGW not meeting this standard and being hindered accordingly?

As Drum points out, Gerson doesn't even mention the major battlegrounds like global warming denialism, creationism and intelligent design, and the Gingrich - era shutdown of the Office of Technology Assessment, focusing on a much narrower set of issues including stem cell research and abortion.

We don't «debate» creationism because creationists do the same thing — they quote a stream of unsupportable garbage and expect the scientists to refute every clueless thing that comes out of their mouths.

so get the flat earth, creationism and tobacco out of your system and focus on the topic at hand.