Teach the controversy?
So I'm doing a persuasive speech on why creationism/intelligent design aka "the controversy" should NOT be taught in science classes. Funny thing is, my teacher in the class is SUPER right wing, religious, and a creationist. Not I don't give a shit about this I'm gonna say my piece but there goes my grade lol. This teacher is known for being heavily opinionated and showing it when grading. Provided my grades in the class mysteriously tank after this project this just might be lawsuit worthy.
Your thoughts on this? And provide your best argument on why creationism should not be taught in the science room. I'm positive I can handle the presentation just fine on my own but I'm just curious what y'all can bring to the table if I haven't thought of everything.
Science is the science of (i.e study of - knowledge of) nature. When teaching science, evolution should be taught. It is the best naturalistic explanation of the way man came to be.
That being said, it should also be taught that the study of nature can only go so far. If the world is only 6,000 years old, but science keeps trying to explain what is past that, science is in the right (i.e. in the moral and state of affairs sense), though they could be wrong factually. Let us suppose that the world is only 6,000 years old. If my job as a scientist is to study nature, then we assume naturalism absolutely, while studying the world, trying to explain as much as possible. However, this assumption could be wrong, though in my study I could be simply past what is actually there. Science, as said, tries to explain as much as possible in a naturalistic way, which is all fine and dandy. But, if we suppose that supernaturalism is possible, then it follows that the naturalistic studies could be gravely wrong.
Therefore, in science classes, evolution should be taught, without intelligent design, because science is the science of nature, but it should also be taught coinciding with an understanding of the intrinsic limits of science and how science is assuming naturalism. Moreover, because of this, we should most certainly have religion classes. Religion is a vital part of society, and it cannot simply be ignored. It should be taught in the curriculum.
Hence, in science classes, we should not have intelligent design discussions. However, we should have religion courses, explaining the opposing view of the way we came to be, trying to reconcile the supposed evidence for evolution to the religious views.
That's a good idea. But, we need to have an age requirement to make sure the students understand the religious topics before they start getting taught it. What year would you recommend teaching Islam? How old should someone be before they got taught about Mormonism? Should we wait to high school to teach the Eastern religions?
Sorry ... but mindless chance is not a creative force .... if you believe that there is no God and that all things were derived from mindless random chance .... you've bought the greatest Satanic lie of all time .... Creation: Believe It or Not, Part 1 ... http://www.gty.org/MediaPlayer/sermons/
Evolutionists are such good liars because they get away with it
They "get away with it" because evolutionary understanding is based around observation and experimentation that has repeated dozens or hundreds of times and verified by researchers all over the world. Some of the simpler ones are actual labs that first year biology and med students take for a direct demonstration of evolutionary principles. They don't have to rely on secondary sources, they see it with their own eyes. They "get away with it" because they can use EXISTING, testable, demonstrable structures and lines of evidence to confirm hypothesis and theories, not unfalsifiable concepts.
but common sense tells you that the universes greatest engineer (God) created everything.
Common sense tells you that you shouldn't put your bets on something that can't be proven to exist. Common sense tells you that something which can be demonstrated is more likely to be true than something that is not. Common sense tells you that everything in the observable universe has limits, so a being which has none is unlikely.
The fact that evolutionists would bet their eternal life on such slim chances is utterly stupid to me.
We don't have reason to believe that there is an eternal life. That's another unprovable concept you guys have to make up to make everything fit into your fairy tale world.
And slim chances? How would one even make an accurate assessment of the odds?
Sigh......"let the earth bring forth", "let the waters bring forth". Sound familiar? God caused other things to make other things. It how the world works today BTW. The Big Bang Theory is not "mindless" creation, it is in fact very organized and patterns have been examined in the universe to suggest this. The theory of evolution is also not mindless, and the "after their kind" was not a creative restriction, but was a way for us to identify the different kinds. As new kinds evolved they were given categories and different kinds came about "after their kind".