gbrk posted:I admit it does not deserve to be taught as science, I'll agree to that. I do though believe each should be explained to where there is the ability to know what each position advocates and if that happens in a Science class then so be it but I agree it's not Science, however, it is a competitive theory that, I believe, deserves its space. After all, there are plenty of things Science has been unable to prove and document yet are taught as Science or taught within that context.
Scientist believes they know and understand what the content of the Sun is made up of or even our own planet but yet they have yet to be able to prove it and have yet to even be able to reach the inner core of the Earth or sample it. There are still areas under the sea that are to be seen and documented and books are being rewritten all the time due to updated discoveries. Learning is an ever continual process and elimination of any one position or belief is either short sided or biased (that's my own belief). Science may not be able to prove Creation but it also cannot disprove it. Maybe to the satisfaction of some, it can but realistically, dogmatically, it cannot disprove it.
Again, I agree with you as it not being Science however that is no reason to exclude it for if ever it was proven then it becomes scientific fact. Until then we are just dealing with various and different theories. My own belief is that each, prevalent one, deserves its due. But that's just my own opinion.
GB, if you believe your God created the earth you live in, then what
is referred to as science can only exist byway of God's creation.
A natural order of logic always follows rain, fire or human hemoglobin.
One couldn't be created without the other. The creation itself and the
reason/logic behind it's existence from the start....
If you believe the mud puppy created itself, then its becomes a lot
more complicated--