No, you're not. You want them to teach creationism and theistic beliefs. Neither are science.You can teach about a creator without having to mention one in particular. However, it does make sense to talk about Jesus since we live in nation that was created by Christians. If I lived in a Hindu nation, I would expect their colleges to teach Hindu creation myths.
I am fine with colleges teaching science.
If students don't want to learn about science, they shouldn't take science classes.My problem is when they force their secular worldviews on clueless students.
Praise Chuck from whom all tautologies flow.
What is Meant by "Scientific Evidence" for Common Descent?
Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.
What a humongous cop-out
Scientific evidence is put in parenthesis
It states that empirical testability is the hallmark of science, then proceeds to break that statement down.
It starts by changing the definition of testability and talks about making predictions.........
And you really really clever guys eat this up for breakfast........
All organisms that reproduce sexually have a sex, including all humans. All humans also have a gender, which is usually, but not always the same as their sex. Sex is biologically determined, usually but not always by genetics. Gender is socially determined, usually but not always by the external genitalia as apparent at birth. Gender has nothing to do with reproduction. It refers to the way in which the individual interacts with society, adopting societal norms of clothing and behaviour. It is also not the same as sexual preference.They reproduce once then how will they reproduce again?
Not as difficult as you may think. There are seven billion (7e9) humans on the planet. On average, each of us has about 75 mutations. That is a total of 7e9 x 75 = 5.25e11 mutations in the whole population. The human genome has three billion (3e9) base pairs. 5.25e11 / 3e9 = 175 mutations per base pair. For any given base pair there are 3 possible mutation, changing it from its current value. 175/3 = 58. Every possible point mutation is present in the human population 58 times on average.Natural selection is your form of "Maxwell's demon" and leave out the fact that random mutations still have to provide all the possible ramifications from a vast sea of possible sequences in order for natural selection to make a choice.
Both would be wrong.Yes. Some places teach that Jesus was God, other places teach that He was a Prophet of Allah whose message was later distorted. At least one of those teachings must be wrong.
Your opinion about the origin of life is not the same as claiming that the earth is round. The fact that you cannot see this is evidence that you parrot whatever your biased college professors taught you.Sure.
Like the the world being round is "parroted by a lot of college students". They "parrot" it because it is true.
Yes, this statement has already been parroted in this thread multiple times. You guys really do have a religious like devotion to the evolutionary theory.No, you're not. You want them to teach creationism and theistic beliefs. Neither are science.
Your beliefs about the origin of the universe are not science. You can believe whatever nonsense you want. But you should not force your godless worldview on college students.If students don't want to learn about science, they shouldn't take science classes.
Ah, yet another example of "science is better than religion" from a religious person who wants to denigrate the bits of science they disagree with.You guys really do have a religious like devotion to the evolutionary theory.
I have no idea what you mean by this.Ah, yet another example of "science is better than religion" from a religious person who wants to denigrate the bits of science they disagree with.
That is a historical question. The Bible's answer on that is perfectly clear.If you want to counter evolution, try showing that birds (Genesis day 5) appeared before land animals (Genesis day six).
Both are extremely well supported by evidence, both are accepted as part of mainstream science by people of numerous faiths and no faith.Your opinion about the origin of life is not the same as claiming that the earth is round. The fact that you cannot see this is evidence that you parrot whatever your biased college professors taught you.
You are criticising the science of evolution. As part of your criticism you are making evolution look like a religion: "a religious like devotion to the evolutionary theory."I have no idea what you mean by this.
Both clear and wrong. Birds first appeared a long time after the first land animals. There is no evidence supporting the sequence given in the Bible.That is a historical question. The Bible's answer on that is perfectly clear.