Quote:
Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Rick..What's with the insertion of Christain beliefs(good) vs. the social progressive movement(evil)? There is a vast difference between analyzing trends in temperature, rainfall etc and debating the existence of a prime force in the Universe. Can you really equate Creationism with observable scientific data? Just curious. I do not understand the relation.
|
To me, the two debates are remarkably similar. Creationism offers one way to explain something that science has thus far been unable to, that is the origin of life. We can observe evolution of species through the fossil record, but most scientists will agree that evolution cannot and does not try to explain how life began. Creationism attempts to do that, admittedly without scientific evidence.
The global warming hypothesis does the same with trying to explain climate change. We can observe that the temperature of the earth is increasing, much as we can observe evolution in animals. We cannot, however, say WHY that temperature rise is occurring. Some people attribute it to greenhouse gases. Some attribute it to a global warming/cooling cycle which has been occuring for millions of years, thus the continuing debate.
Unfortunately (as with most major questions which face our people), the debate has become politically charged and motivated by profits. That means that you will have a very hard time finding anyone who isn't biased in one way or the other regarding the evidence. Thus you have Al Gore (who says that the scientists who disagree with him are in the pocket of Big Oil) vs those very scientists (who say that Al Gore is off his rocker, has no clue what he is talking about and is using the issue for political gain). Who to believe?
That is precisely why I don't think that a film which is obviously biased towards one side of the issue should be shown in a government funded school to young children. It presents a skewed view. I think the same principle applies to creationism. I think that neither creationism nor evolution should be taught in schools as an explanation for the origins of life. Evolution as an observable occurance in species is fine, trying to extrapolate that back to the "primordial soup" theory is where I have an issue. So, I would say that school simply shouldn't touch the origins of life, unless they are prepared to present all sides of the argument and let the kids decide for themselves.
Fair enough?
P.S. I never said that Christianity was good vs. the social progressive who are evil. I simply said that many of the same posters (here on PPOT) who are against teaching creationism in school seem to be for pushing Al Gore's message on students.