How can evolution be taught while not considering biblical creation?

Because the liberal establishment controls the schools, clinging to 19th century guesses; because by making God seem to disappear, they eliminate the idea of absolute morality.

Deception plays a major role. Who's never heard this lie: "one...is supported by enormous amounts of evidence and accepted by virtually all professional scientists - evolution"? Misrepresent what you can't disprove. See http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&actio...

More than 500 scientists have signed a statement expressing their doubts about the credibility of Darwinian evolution. As signatories of "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," these scientists are expressing skepticism about claims of evidence for the theory of evolution.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

A recent article for Live Science magazine attempts to prove Darwin by using the swine flu. Author Robert Roy Britt sneers, "Anyone who thinks evolution is for the birds should not be afraid of swine flu...if there's no such thing as evolution, then there's no such thing as a new strain of swine flu infecting people."

But the intellectual dishonesty inherent in Britt's statement is almost as obvious as his lousy attempt at humor. Britt is using a common ploy of Darwinists: confuse people into believing that their utterly unsubstantiated speculation of species-to-species macro-evolution is synonymous with the universally accepted scientific fact of adaptation and development within a species (sometimes called micro-evolution).

The word "evolve" simply means to change, alter, or develop in some way. Everyone recognizes that changes in gene frequencies happen and are expressed in a population over time. Unfortunately for the Darwinists, that is not anywhere close to the "molecules to man" postulation Charles Darwin made (also known as "goo to you by way of the zoo"). The contention between Darwinists and those of us who believe in a Creator then is about what kind of evolution is possible and observable.

Britt concludes that since swine flu is a mutated form of the influenza virus, it proves that viruses evolve to survive, thus confirming Darwin's theory. The only real problem with Britt's conclusion is that it is utterly absurd. For Darwin to be affirmed, the swine flu would have to demonstrate some new genetic information that hadn't been present in the original influenza strain. It doesn't. No new genetic information is present – just mutated forms of pre-existing material.

Meanwhile, what we can find are innumerable cases of destructive gene mutations, where we end up with less genetic information than what was originally present. Take the recent discovery of perfectly preserved octopus remains. The discovery revealed that these ancient octopi actually had more genetic information than do modern octopi. Call it "Darwin in reverse." Both horizontal and destructive mutations support the creationist model...and both devastate Darwin's.

The truth is that the swine flu evolving does nothing to prove Darwin's ridiculous "molecules to man" evolutionary model.

Angela, if evolution were "true" then it would be provable and if it was provable then someone would already have done so.

All evolutionists theories are based on the big bang theory. It claims that singularities, which by the way defy any-ones understanding of physics, are thought to exist at the core of "black holes". The question to ask him therefore would be, as we are informed that there was nothing there prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. Where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? Also the big bang theory now claims to be the big expansion theory, not an actual explosion as first stated, but more like the blowing up a balloon to the present size of the universe. If this is the case ask him if the work done on 'cosmic microwave background' by Robert Dicke and Jim Peebles of Princeton, also that of George Gamow is now wrong and this background of microwaves is not in fact the cooled remnant of the primeval fireball i.e. an echo of the Big Bang, then what exactly is the cosmic microwave background.

Because the government cannot express this within a theory, the reason is because of the "seperation of church and state" clause.

Consider this if you will.

God says that a blink of an eye to him could be 1000years on earth, correct?

It said that it took God "seven days" to create the earth(now is that seven of our days or seven of HIS days?) so in reality it could have taken him millions of years to go through with his plan to create the universe. So if you think about it the "big bang" theory could possibly be true.

Whoa i got off track....i dont know where i was even going with that one?

To answer your question: If you believe in God and christianity then you cannot believe in evolution before the existance of humans considering the fact that in the bible it said that God created humans and then created animals for the humans (saying that we were here before the monkeys and single celled organisms)

that is a highly complex subject you have touched on there believe cannot be sabotaged completely by science and science is an immovable theory thats how it is.

Teaching biblical creation in public schools has been ruled to be unconstitutional. It would violate the separation of church and state. The theory of evolution is an accepted scientific theory, but the story of biblical creation is not accepted by the scientific community due to lack of evidence, and an insurmountable mound evidence which refutes biblical creation.

The answer is very simple: there are more than one religions in the world and in the US there is freedom of religion. The bible represents just one believe, and there are other believes out there. If you taught biblical creation in school, you would have to teach also other religious versions of creation, wouldn't you.

In science this is exactly the case. Science is about reasoning and deducing from evidence and testing hypotheses. In science nothing is hard fact but everything is hypothesis. So we scientists accept several different hypotheses at a time and test them. Religious people don't usually do that, accepting several religions at a time.

In your statement you make a claim you cannot prove, that biblical creation is true. You just say it. This has nothing to do with reasoning but is, entirely, faith-based. Nothing wrong with that but you cannot compare that to science. I don't tell you that evolution is true. What I do is showing you the evidence and then you can decide yourself. For me, the evidence for evolution is quite convincing, starting with things as simple as the dinosaurs and things so complex most non-scientists don't know about them or don't bother to learn. However, there is no evidence for biblical creation. Or can you show me one? There is only faith. This is totally ok but teaching faith belongs into church and not into school, or if in school, then into a religious class but not into biology.

A simple question: if there is no evolution, then how come we have on earth about 300,000 species of plants, 50,000 species of vertebrate animals, about 10 million species of invertebrate animals and about 1 million species of fungi, not counting microorganisms and protists? There is nothing in the story of Noah's Ark that Noah saved all these animals, let alone the plants and fungi. And yet they are here. Almost nobody now takes this story literally. So what is the problem for Christians to accept evolution if it is quite clear that the bible is not to be taken literally but rather as a interpretative reference?

There are several constitutional arguments to be made against what you suggest, but I'll keep it relatively simpler than that.

An atheist child, a Muslim child, a Hindi child, as example, should not be required to study a specific religions creation myth as a "scientific theory" when it is clearly not. A biblical creation myth is not specific to any number of Buddhists for example in a country that we might discuss and the very nature of many of these countries is a secular education.

The same constitutions that provide for a separation of church and state. No religion should be given precedence.

Biblical creation myths can be taught in religious training, religious schools and in the home. They should be taught as what they are -- parts of a religions system of faith -- not a "theory" because they are not a theory by any scientific reckoning.

If you do not see the right to my education being free of one specific or popular religion, then I see no need to protect the right to religion. It's a two way street.

Unless you're advocating that we do away with constitutions and individual rights, then we have done the right thing. if you suggest that we do away with rights to teach a specific religion as science, then I feel it is equally appropriate to do away with religious rights as well.

It's your choice.

Assuming that you mean a literal interpretation of the biblical creation account...

You are in a small minority in accepting that it is true. If we are to teach the Judeo-Christian creation myth then why not the Hindu, the Zulu, the Hopi or the Aboriginal creation myths?

Biblical creation and evolution are mutually incompatible. One is true and one is false. In school science lessons it would be perverse if we did not teach the one that is supported by enormous amounts of evidence and accepted by virtually all professional scientists - evolution.

I think there is room for biblical creation in the context of "things that people used to believe that have been shown to be false".

A teacher in an accredited high school must teach an approved curriculum. If the teacher is not teaching the approved curriculum, he is not doing his job. People who do not do their jobs get fired.

Any questions?

Take a look at a biology text approved for use in some AP Biology courses. My favorite example is "Campbell & Reece Biology 7th edition." Pick it up. It's a huge book. It's going to take all year to cover the material in the book. There's no time for teaching nonessentials.

Because if people stopped believing in the bible you still need to have science.

What's the more likely outcome: people give up science or people give up religion?

Not to mention, where I live, the main religion isn't Christinaity. You're going to piss off the whole community here as they string the teacher up from a tree for trying to push Christianity on them.