Comments on: Debate Forum Right, 8/16/11 http://www.daytoncitypaper.com/debate-forum-right-81611/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=debate-forum-right-81611 Miami Valley's Arts, Culture & News Weekly Tue, 21 May 2013 06:51:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Eric Specht http://www.daytoncitypaper.com/debate-forum-right-81611/comment-page-1/#comment-1189 Eric Specht Wed, 17 Aug 2011 00:13:09 +0000 http://www.daytoncitypaper.com/?p=5859#comment-1189 Why not teach both as possible answers? Evolution cannot be proven as fact. Neither can creationism. Mankind has been on earth for some 6,000 years according to the bible, however life forms that may have existed on this planet in the some odd 16 billion years before man showed up are not documented in the bible. Why not allow for the possibility that the remains that have been used to "prove" evolution are from an entirely different creation? Who knows how many gods have put some form of life on this planet? How many cataclysms have wiped those creations from the face of the earth only to have some new life form take it's place? Teach both of them as mythology if you want, but stop trying to present a theory as a fact to the extent that naysayers and bible believers are ridiculed. Both may have some validity. Why not teach both as possible answers? Evolution cannot be proven as fact. Neither can creationism. Mankind has been on earth for some 6,000 years according to the bible, however life forms that may have existed on this planet in the some odd 16 billion years before man showed up are not documented in the bible. Why not allow for the possibility that the remains that have been used to “prove” evolution are from an entirely different creation? Who knows how many gods have put some form of life on this planet? How many cataclysms have wiped those creations from the face of the earth only to have some new life form take it’s place? Teach both of them as mythology if you want, but stop trying to present a theory as a fact to the extent that naysayers and bible believers are ridiculed. Both may have some validity.

]]> By: Kevin S. http://www.daytoncitypaper.com/debate-forum-right-81611/comment-page-1/#comment-1183 Kevin S. Tue, 16 Aug 2011 10:55:09 +0000 http://www.daytoncitypaper.com/?p=5859#comment-1183 The problem is that neither creationism nor intelligent design is a scientific theory. To be a scientific theory, an idea must be capable of being falsified by empirical observation. In other words, there must be some evidence that, if it existed,prove the idea to be false. No advocate of creationism or intelligent design has, to my knowledge, ever mentioned any experiment or observation that they believed would falsify either idea. Therefore, these ideas have no place in a science classroom. Now, if you want to teach creationism as part of a class on religion or mythology, or teach intelligent design in a philosophy class, that's fine. Of course, most evangelical Christians wouldn't like having an actual philosophy class where students debated whether it's really possible for a God with all three "omnis" to exist.... The problem is that neither creationism nor intelligent design is a scientific theory. To be a scientific theory, an idea must be capable of being falsified by empirical observation. In other words, there must be some evidence that, if it existed,prove the idea to be false. No advocate of creationism or intelligent design has, to my knowledge, ever mentioned any experiment or observation that they believed would falsify either idea.

Therefore, these ideas have no place in a science classroom. Now, if you want to teach creationism as part of a class on religion or mythology, or teach intelligent design in a philosophy class, that’s fine. Of course, most evangelical Christians wouldn’t like having an actual philosophy class where students debated whether it’s really possible for a God with all three “omnis” to exist….

]]>