Sentences with phrase «creationism as»

Yes, for the latter type I think we have a winner — Plimer, who did as creepy a job attacking creationism as he's doing now attacking radiation physics.

The phrase «intelligent design» arose as a reaction to a defeat in federal court of an attempt to teach creationism as part of the biology curriculum in the south.

Critics say the measure will enable K - 12 teachers to present intelligent design and creationism as acceptable alternatives to evolution in the classroom.

In subsequent written correspondence with civil servants, the BHA stated that «Our concern is for the government to make absolutely clear that there is no chance it will ever accept [creationist Free School] bids, or allow any state - funded school to teach creationism as science, anywhere in the curriculum, and this is only possible through a change in the law... we would support any adjustment to the model funding agreement to add a statement [to this effect]... Could we request that the next time the [Free School] model funding agreement is reviewed, our desire for this point's inclusion is considered?»

But in addition it has also introduced new clauses for Church Academies helpfully clarifying the meaning of creationism and the fact that it is a minority view within the Church of England and Catholic Church, but also stating that «the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.»

The parties further recognise that the requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum, in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.

It then adds: «The requirement on every academy and free school to provide a broad and balanced curriculum in any case prevents the teaching of creationism as evidence based theory in any academy or free school.»

A few Christians and nearly all atheists, define creationism as believing the universe was created in a very short period of time, in a precisely described sequence of events.

I'm okay with teaching creationism as long as equal time is given to Pastafarianism.

The loudest advocates for creationism as opposed to evolution in the U.S.A. are not from uneducated backgrounds.

Ken Ham's Ignorance is Exposed (Again) in a Rant Against UK Schools Banning the Teaching of Creationism as Science http://richarddawkins.net/2014/06/ken-hams-ignorance-is-exposed-again-in-a-rant-against-uk-schools-banning-the-teaching-of-creationism-as-science/

The effort to secure action by state legislatures to require the teaching of creationism as science along with evolutionary theories has already succeeded in two states.

Several movements still defend creationism as a dogma.

I'm seeing a lot of comments where people accept that evolution per se occurs, but either deny that there is evidence of life arising by the theory of evolution by natural selection or just want to treat creationism as equal to that theory in the classroom.

Lewontin thus saw creationism as falsified not so much by any discoveries of modern science as by universal human experience, a thesis that does little to explain either why so absurd a notion has attracted so many adherents or why we should expect it to lose ground in the near future.

Just not teaching ID or creationism as a «science.»

And fundies can't teach creationism as science.

I have posted these examples earlier: the word god on currency; ten commandments displayed on government buildings, court buildings, schools, etc.; teaching christian creationism as science; etc..

And of course Jews also believe, or at least teach, creationism as claimed in Genesis as well.

I want to learn as much as possible if I'm in school and that means I want to know the origin and basis for creationism as well as evolution and intelligent design for that matter.

The question is whether you teach creationism as a scientific theory.

Teaching Creationism as a scientific theory teaches people to reject the value of evidence and accept dogma and tradition.

Im from canada and I know very well that many people here hold to young earth creationism as well..

If you truly had an open mind, you would have no problem with creationism as a theory.

It is off - topic but there is a well - funded campaign to teach creationism as science — loading school boards, voucher systems, etc..

As a fundamentalist (not literalist) Christian, I see Creationism as a tool of Satan.

Teaching Creationism as an alternative to science damages science, damages trust in science and in truth.

So please could a good Christian who has creationism as part of their belief explain why it is absolutely positively essential for them in order to be a Christian.

Not exact matches

No wonder the country is descending into international laughing stock and jobs created through scientific innovation are steadily shifting offshore when even those charged with educating your children act as if creationism has any validity in the science classroom.

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!

@Topher It seems that before Ken Ham started his own project over there at AIG, he worked for the Insti / tute for Creation Research, which basically does the same thing as the Discovery Insti / tute — namely, try to create a «sciencey» veneer for Young Earth Creationism.

«He (Ham) believes it is fundamentally unfair of folks like Nye to push creationism further into the educational shadows and to deny what Ham sees as its scientific components.»

He believes it is fundamentally unfair of folks like Nye to push creationism further into the educational shadows and to deny what Ham sees as its scientific components.

«Me» - The problem isn't with teaching about Creationism, but with teaching it AS SCIENCE, which it is not.

Nye wasn't there to debate whether or not people should be allowed to believe in Creationism... he was simply there to challenge, as has always had to be done, the idea that beliefs should be taught right alongside science as though the two were not mutually exclusive.

We don't like seeing creationism being described as having the same scientific validity as evolution, when in fact it has no scientific validity at all.

This faith is either in evolution (molecules to man theory not proven, but only mans» speculation at best) or creationism (God / intelligent designer as described in Bible).

However, this does not imply some of the more ridiculous tenets of creationism (such as man walking with dinosaurs or the world being 6000 years old) should be objectively viewed as truth when all evidence points to evolution as fact.

It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in Creationism because of one simple fact not one of you were there so who is right!

The government, the Supreme Court actually, you know, the one made up of christians and jews but no atheists, said one religion could not be taught to the exclusion of others, and they said ID is not science, just religious creationism in disguise, so can not be taught as science.

I hope that Creationism will continue to be taught, as was suggested, in a historical context — in philosophy courses and in the history of religion and science.

If he had asked the question you're posing, then yes, I would agree that «creationism» should be taught under Religious Education or Religious Studies as it obviously does not fall under Science.

I want everyone who acts as if this type of thinking is inconsequential to consider this: To accept creationism requires a complete disregard for carefully and elegantly researched scientific evidence, and 40 + % of people in America do so.

For me, the evidence from DNA makes a strong case for the theory, but I also recognize the fact, as with «creationism», that a certain degree of speculation and conjecture is involved.

darwinian evolution takes just as much faith to believe in as creationism....

you are either for creationism or for science while ignoring what people such as myself believe that, yes, God created us but through the process of evolution according to the laws of His Nature.

Their «orthodoxy,» as it were, would hold to creationism.

ID is a purposeful repackaging of Christian creationism in an attempt to disguise it as science so that they could slip it back into public science classrooms.

As far fetched as the I Dream of Jeannie method of blinking everybody into existence, which is basically CreationisAs far fetched as the I Dream of Jeannie method of blinking everybody into existence, which is basically Creationisas the I Dream of Jeannie method of blinking everybody into existence, which is basically Creationism?

I am amazed at how people believe in evolution when there is literally just as much evidence as creationism.