SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LLCF who wrote (3339)1/10/2010 6:44:38 PM
From: LLCF  Respond to of 69300
 
Creation science:

en.wikipedia.org

<<The 1982 ruling at McLean v. Arkansas found that creation science fails to meet the essential characteristics of science and that its chief intent is to advance a particular religious view.[7] This ruling concorded with the overwhelming consensus in the sciences that creation science is not truly science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[8]

The teaching of creation science in public schools in the United States effectively ended in 1987

with the United States Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.[3] The court affirmed that a statute requiring the teaching of creation science alongside evolution when evolution is taught in Louisiana public schools was unconstitutional because its sole true purpose was to advance a particular religious belief.[7]>>

HUH! No wonder all these folks don't believe in evolution.

It's funny... the homeschool Biology textbook I looked at today stated that Darwin's theory leads people to think that environmental causes can be responsible for "wicked sin" and "Christians believe" only each person is responsible.

Say what? So now growing up in violent homes has nothing to do with the outcome?

I'm really seeing what simpletons these wacko's are. Really quite sad. I'm VERY thankful for the supreme court decision above.

DAK



To: LLCF who wrote (3339)1/10/2010 8:22:06 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300
 
if you can't prove there is something wrong with it, companies can put it in your food.

Technically, they're not putting anything in food, it IS the food.

I find it strange that the most practical fruit of genetic study is being condemned as evil.