Some of you believers want to
give creation science the same level of acceptance as evolution in OUR schools.
Not exact matches
«
Creation» seems to magically conform to whatever seems closest to it, not so much in mainstream
science, but anything some reputable scientist might have said that might serve to
give the idea a bit of cover.
Science and natural history as we know them simply did not exist, even though they owe a debt to the positive value
given to space, time, matter and history by the biblical affirmation of
creation.
Our survey question about the «most important» way that theology meets
science offered three options: theology 1)
gives meaning, 2) defends the biblical account of
creation or 3) provides ethics.
The point is illustrated by the logic which the National Academy of Sciences employed to persuade the Supreme Court that «
creation - scientists» should not be
given an opportunity to present their case against the theory of evolution in
science classes.
Science may
give us small glances at the greatness of
creation but we will never understand it all.
However, Weigel
gives too little emphasis to the equally prescient emphasis in Gaudium et Spes on the dynamic world view ushered in by
science, nor to its vision of the Christ as the recapitulation of all
creation and history.
Tireless lobbying by that California - based society for the past decade is largely responsible for the introduction in a number of states of legislation that would require
giving equal time in
science classes to the teaching of the alleged single account of
creation as recorded in Genesis.
Amen.The thing is too many people from both sides try to disprove the other, Scientist (well some) will say there is no God Ala Hawkings here and then some believers will say that evolution or anything pertaining to
science that they don't understand is false.I don't believe that
science and God are mutually exclusive.For me personally
science helps to explain a lot of things regarding
creation, almost like
giving me a window into how creative God is.I believe that God uses
science to show us how awesome he is.To me
science does not disprove Gods existence it actually reaffirms it on a human logic level, for me.You may disagree, that's fine, but this is just how I see it.
Science and religion do come together «in persons», but it needs to be in persons who can
give answers to a sceptical world and restore the full Catholic vision of
Creation in Christ.
Nor is it possible to say whether the foundation of the
science of later centuries, based as it has been on the conviction that the universe is orderly, is from the Christian belief in the
creation and governance of the world by God and from the discipline
given the European mind by the debates in theology and the associated philosophy.
In one Life
Science lesson, the book says that «
Creation stories
give an holistic image of the origins of the earth, plants, animals and human beings».
Given that it has been deemed the progeny of
creation science and its teaching is unconstitutional in the public schools, I think the skin is peeling.
Ham was a high school
science teacher who found his way to creationism when his students, knowing he was a Christian, challenged him to reconcile the
science in their textbooks with the account of
creation given in Genesis.
In March 1981 Arkansas governor Frank White signed legislation requiring that «
creation science» and evolution be
given parity in the state's public schools.
In designing the displays, the Whipple has tried to move away from a traditional didactic museum atmosphere (a handbook replaces the traditional museum - style labelling) to
give visitors the «feel» of what it was like to be involved in the
creation of
science during the period.
The report urges Spain to raise the government's «contribution to
science and innovation» — currently at 0.61 % — «to 0.7 % of the gross domestic product (GDP) and argues for the
creation of a national funding agency that
gives out merit - based grants, more autonomy for the universities, and a major overhaul of Spain's national research centers.
Therefore, the film «
Creation» (which should have been called «Evolution,»
given its proper nomenclature) only confirms what I already knew to be true: that in the end, everyone must make their own «leap of faith» toward some belief, be it based in
science, religion, perceived facts, or the scriptures themselves.
It's that slipperiness of
creation and that psychosis that finds us repeating ourselves by repeating images of ourselves (Multiplicity is a trickier flick than
given credit for) which informs a trio of new
science - fiction films reaching North American movie screens simultaneously (though only one is American in origin)-- we are the world's new cultural / emotional wasteland and the films of our new millennium reflect that status.
U.S. District Judge Adrian Duplantier said in his ruling that there can be no legitimate secular reason for the «Balanced - Treatment for
Creation -
Science and Evolution -
Science Act,» which the Louisiana legislature passed in 1981 to require the state's public schools to
give balanced treatment to creationism if evolution is taught.
«There is no real divide between
science and art:
science is simply an art of studying natural phenomena and art is the
science of
giving expression to the
creations or interpretations of our minds.
He often compared artistic
creation to scientific discovery and insisted, «in art, as in
science, it is the new that
gives the field its significance.»