Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as an Alternative to Evolution?

[RobinD69]

(Jerusalem Junkie;44863)
Forget it Robin you would be better off arguing with a wall you would get further and the wall would make more sense.........
I dont know there may be hope for him. Oh and I made a mistake about Moses, He was around about 1400 to 1500 BC, sorry about that, I was tired and asked my son.

 

[Jerusalem Junkie]

No problem on the Moses deal.....I really do not pay attention to dates any way I can barely remember today..............

 

[RobinD69]

(Jerusalem Junkie;44866)
No problem on the Moses deal.....I really do not pay attention to dates any way I can barely remember today..............
Nice name change by the way.

 

[Christina]

adren@lineThe same warning here this thread isnt for you to defane our believes You arent a Christain fine this thread is so you can ask us questions if you came here to give us your opinions on us it better be respectful You dont have to agree with our choices but you will show us some respect I HOPE WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING kriss

 

[Wakka]

(adren@line;44450)
Thats fine. It should be taught as a theory. But do you think that ID is a suitable alternative or should be taught alongside?
I believe that evolution (except micro-evolution or adaptation to surroundings, a God given gift) isn't a science. It's the collection of assumptions made and accepted by scientists to support the theory of Darwinism. Scientists have neither seen nor created life forms. And uni-cellular organisms couldn't have come from mud or anything else. Might I remind you that in a uni-cellular organism, there are hundreds of thousands of parts working in unison to; keep itself alive, repair itself, and to reproduce. It's like saying a lightning bolt hit mud and a Boing 747 jet airplane was the product of the event.Not only that, but I'm convinced that, that any single celled organism is much more complex than a 747. It seems so asinine that things simply happened by chance.There are plenty of of well educated scientists who choose to not believe in a creator, and they're thinking of logical explanations. But these people are running into serious roadblocks.Just for fun, watch this (unbiased) documentary concerning some of the evidence brought up against Darwinism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq2QhmUY7ksIt's split into various clips. And the part I want to show you is nicely at the beginning of the clip. So just watch it.

 

[adren@line]

(Wakka;44910)
I believe that evolution (except micro-evolution or adaptation to surroundings, a God given gift) isn't a science. It's the collection of assumptions made and accepted by scientists to support the theory of Darwinism. Scientists have neither seen nor created life forms. And uni-cellular organisms couldn't have come from mud or anything else. Might I remind you that in a uni-cellular organism, there are hundreds of thousands of parts working in unison to; keep itself alive, repair itself, and to reproduce. It's like saying a lightning bolt hit mud and a Boing 747 jet airplane was the product of the event.Not only that, but I'm convinced that, that any single celled organism is much more complex than a 747. It seems so asinine that things simply happened by chance.There are plenty of of well educated scientists who choose to not believe in a creator, and they're thinking of logical explanations. But these people are running into serious roadblocks.Just for fun, watch this (unbiased) documentary concerning some of the evidence brought up against Darwinism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq2QhmUY7ksIt's split into various clips. And the part I want to show you is nicely at the beginning of the clip. So just watch it.

Ive actually seen that video before.In my humble opinion, the vast majority of people who are anti-evolution simply don't know that much about it or are reading stuff from sources that confirm to their bias.They dont apply the same standards to whatever theory they believe in as they do to evolution.

 

[adren@line]

(RobinD69;44861)
As I have said, I read alot and study alot, and yes I have sat thru many classes and they do not impress me. Why dont you try studying the Bible and if Christ thinks you can handle some things He will reveal some truths to you that will blow your mind.
Ive already read the Bible.You have some "unique" allegations against Buddhism, which has absolutely no connection to the OT or Judaism. Again, Buddhism places no importance on God, preaches in no-soul, the impermanence of existence, karma and reincarnation. Where in the OT are all of those 5 ideas?As far as plagiarism, the Jews themselves only became monotheists after the Babylonian Captivity, and "borrowed" their monotheism from the Zoroastrians (Persians). The Zoroastrians also believed in a "Satan" like figure and a judgment day.

 

[Wakka]

(adren@line;44913)
Ive actually seen that video before.In my humble opinion, the vast majority of people who are anti-evolution simply don't know that much about it or are reading stuff from sources that confirm to their bias.They dont apply the same standards to whatever theory they believe in as they do to evolution.
Are you talking about the population or scientists. Because those people in the video are professional biologists. And that's their field of expertise.And your logic can go the other way. Most evolutionists do not know much about Christianity. They get their opinion from sources that confirm to their bias. In fact, if a person wants their argument to be valid, they should first spend time studying that field. They should, for example, go to a theological school and study theology/the bible. Then get a degree in it.I can say that whole heartedly, because a TON of the arguments and "proof" against Christianity that I come across I regard it as foolish and easily refutable. That's because people are ill educated.I'm going to stop right here, I'm beginning to repeat myself.

 

[Jerusalem Junkie]

(RobinD69;44871)
Nice name change by the way.
Thanks I like it......

 

[RobinD69]

(adren@line;44915)
Ive already read the Bible.Thats a start.You have some "unique" allegations against Buddhism, which has absolutely no connection to the OT or Judaism.You claim Christ basically quoted Buddha. There is the connection. Again, Buddhism places no importance on God, preaches in no-soul, the impermanence of existence, karma and reincarnation. Where in the OT are all of those 5 ideas?The secular world, as in the OT, places no importance on God. They preach only self indulgence and dont care about a soul. They will cease to exist for their disbelief. You reap what you sew is Karma and being born again is reincarnation. They are there and were before Buddhism even existed.As far as plagiarism, the Jews themselves only became monotheists after the Babylonian Captivity, and "borrowed" their monotheism from the Zoroastrians (Persians). The Zoroastrians also believed in a "Satan" like figure and a judgment day.
You really need to stop listening to all those conspiricy theorists. Monothesim was the first faith as Adam and Eve walked with God over 6000 years ago. These things are not only recorded in the Bible, but in Egyptian hyrogliphs. Zoroastrians plagerized the OT. This was the original faith and all others seperated from the Adamic Noahtic Abrahamic Moseic Faith, Same faith throughout history, many names given by men.

 

[adren@line]

(RobinD69;44984)
You really need to stop listening to all those conspiricy theorists. Monothesim was the first faith as Adam and Eve walked with God over 6000 years ago. These things are not only recorded in the Bible, but in Egyptian hyrogliphs. Zoroastrians plagerized the OT. This was the original faith and all others seperated from the Adamic Noahtic Abrahamic Moseic Faith, Same faith throughout history, many names given by men.
- I didnt claim that Christ quoted the Buddha. I claimed that stuff that Christ said was nearly identical to stuff that the Buddha said. You then claimed that Buddhism is a "plagiarism of the OT" when anyone who has studied Buddhism and Judaism would know that there is no connection. You have yet to elaborate on what you do know about Buddhism, and instead make broad claims without backing them up, leading me to believe that you are simply lying. Thats very un-Christian like.- The OT, again, is all about the wrath and vengeance of God. Buddhism has no place for God in its philosophy. This doesnt simply equate to secularism, which is the lack of importance of religion in society, and Buddhism is a religion. Karma deals with rebirth and whether or not one will meet favorable conditions in the next life, which is different from "reaping what one sows".Buddhism itself is an offshoot of Hinduism and its philosophy is based on the selective acceptance, rejection, and re-interpretation of Hindu philosophy, which stems from the Upanishads, which are nearly 3000 years old when dealing with the oldest Upanishad (thats according to normal, non-Biblical/Christian sources)Im pretty sure you don't care about any of this, but that is what the secular, academic scholars state. If your Christian sources state something else, then so be it, but remember that nearly 4.5 billion of us aren't Christian and do not accept Christian versions of history and science (such as the earth being flat, the sun rotating around the earth, the earth being 6000-10000 years old, creationism, witchcraft, etc), while there are many Christians who "accept" secular history and science without the interference of religion. And that pretty much deals with your claims, none of which are adhered to by most educated peoples on this planet. If you cant even debate while using established dating and facts in regards to the history of various religions, and simply make up your own facts, then debating with you serves no purpose as anyone can make up stuff on whim to conform to their religious bias.

 

[adren@line]

(Wakka;44931)
Are you talking about the population or scientists. Because those people in the video are professional biologists. And that's their field of expertise.And your logic can go the other way. Most evolutionists do not know much about Christianity. They get their opinion from sources that confirm to their bias. In fact, if a person wants their argument to be valid, they should first spend time studying that field. They should, for example, go to a theological school and study theology/the bible. Then get a degree in it.I can say that whole heartedly, because a TON of the arguments and "proof" against Christianity that I come across I regard it as foolish and easily refutable. That's because people are ill educated.I'm going to stop right here, I'm beginning to repeat myself.
Im sorry, but it doesnt work the other way.Its much harder and takes more effort to understand biology and physics as opposed to Christianity or most religions. And besides, science describes reality as it can be measured and inferred upon. Its clams can either be falsified or verified by other scientists around the world. Christianity is simply one religion of many, a faith (of many), and there is absolutely no logical reason to state that scientists must be familiar with Christianity to disprove it, because the fundamental idea behind Christianity is God, and a particular form of God in which no evidence can be found.One could argue in favor of God itself through complexity and first-cause debates, but that doesn't have anything to do with the Christian God, but simply God as a generic concept.

 

[RobinD69]

(adren@line;44989)
- I didnt claim that Christ quoted the Buddha. I claimed that stuff that Christ said was nearly identical to stuff that the Buddha said. You then claimed that Buddhism is a "plagiarism of the OT" when anyone who has studied Buddhism and Judaism would know that there is no connection. You have yet to elaborate on what you do know about Buddhism, and instead make broad claims without backing them up, leading me to believe that you are simply lying. Thats very un-Christian like.Claiming that what Christ said was nearly identical to what buddha said is claiming Christ quoted Buddha in a round about way. Sneaky of you if I may say. There is a connection but apparently you cannot see it. No need for lies and you know nothing about what is or isnt Christian like.- The OT, again, is all about the wrath and vengeance of God. Buddhism has no place for God in its philosophy. This doesnt simply equate to secularism, which is the lack of importance of religion in society, and Buddhism is a religion. Karma deals with rebirth and whether or not one will meet favorable conditions in the next life, which is different from "reaping what one sows".You completely miss the point of the OT and that is disappointing considering your claims of what you have studied. Christianity isnt a religion, its a personal relationship. Karma is reaping what you sow, by your own definition, look at it, they are the same. Buddhism itself is an offshoot of Hinduism and its philosophy is based on the selective acceptance, rejection, and re-interpretation of Hindu philosophy, which stems from the Upanishads, which are nearly 3000 years old when dealing with the oldest Upanishad (thats according to normal, non-Biblical/Christian sources)Correct, Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism which its writings were 1500 years old at the time of Christ and would be 3500 years old now. But if you dig deeper into your research you will find that both are much more similar that you think and that neither has any real absolutes. These faiths change with the wind and they were designed that way so that the socalled holy men who wrote them could maintain their lifestyles without question.Im pretty sure you don't care about any of this, but that is what the secular, academic scholars state. If your Christian sources state something else, then so be it, but remember that nearly 4.5 billion of us aren't Christian and do not accept Christian versions of history and science (such as the earth being flat, the sun rotating around the earth, the earth being 6000-10000 years old, creationism, witchcraft, etc), while there are many Christians who "accept" secular history and science without the interference of religion. Can you show me in the Bible where it says the earth is flat, or the sun rotates around the earth or even where it endorses witchcraft? As for the earth being between 6000 and 10000 years old, this is backed by science and creationism is being proven every day. Secular history and science has been forced down our throats since the 1940s, no wonder so many who calin to be Christian are confused. And that pretty much deals with your claims, none of which are adhered to by most educated peoples on this planet. If you cant even debate while using established dating and facts in regards to the history of various religions, and simply make up your own facts, then debating with you serves no purpose as anyone can make up stuff on whim to conform to their religious bias.
You really need to check again, there are more who believe as I do than you think. Do some research please and possibly you my see what I have been trying to tell you. I dont need to make anything up, but apparently you cant seem to look deep enough into any topic to get any real information. I have made up nothing, but I know more than you are willing to give me credit for. Please do some deeper research, then possibly you may come to a better understanding than you have been brainwashed with.

 

[adren@line]

Claiming that what Christ said was nearly identical to what buddha said is claiming Christ quoted Buddha in a round about way. Sneaky of you if I may say. There is a connection but apparently you cannot see it. No need for lies and you know nothing about what is or isnt Christian like.
Sure I do. I have demonstrated an understanding of Christianity while you have demonstrated an understanding for Christianity and little else, in regards to religion (I might give you Judaism, but by default most Christians understand Judaism).
You completely miss the point of the OT and that is disappointing considering your claims of what you have studied. Christianity isnt a religion, its a personal relationship
lol.Do you want me to post the definition of religion?
Karma is reaping what you sow, by your own definition, look at it, they are the same.
Good job in disregarding all of the other key characteristics that seperate Buddhism from Judaism.And no, karma isnt reaping what one sows, because when one is re-born, there is no more "you". "You" are someone or something else. Simply the soul passes on in Hinduism and the consciousness in Buddhism (per popular interpretation).That is why the idea of karma exists in its original form. In the popular usage of the word as seen in western society, it has nothing to do with re-birth but more-so to do with doing good and receiving the benefits of such. However, that is not the original usage.
Correct, Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism which its writings were 1500 years old at the time of Christ and would be 3500 years old now
Im surprised you are admitting that. Thats a good step in the right direction.
But if you dig deeper into your research you will find that both are much more similar that you think and that neither has any real absolutes.
Your first point is wrong on the fact that Hinduism is a generic collection of indigenous Indian religions. You have everyone from polytheists, to henotheists, to monotheists, to atheists, all of whom are Hindus. You have the Kashmiri Shaivites, the Dvaitans, Advaitans, the tribal sects, the Bhakti movement, Carvakas, Mimamsas, etc, etc, etc. The Hindu philosophical work, The Upanishads, is only really followed by the Vedanta sects, and who are closer related to Buddhists in regards to beliefs.As far as your second point, you are correct. Hindus and Buddhists are adaptive and are usually not dogmatic. Both encourage free-thinking, which explains why India accepted everyone from the Jews to the Zoroastrians and has one of the world oldest Christian communities. The Hindu atheistic system Carvaka is also the worlds oldest established atheist doctrine, and they were tolerated.Christians are too diverse to stereotype in that regard. You have the liberal pro-evolution Christians and the dogmatic fundamentalists who believe in YEC and witchcraft. Some still believe in geocentricism, and while I know of none of who still believe that the earth is flat, I wouldn't be surprised if some did.The Gnostics in particular are rather liberal. Of course, you could come around and state that they aren't "real Christians" but im sure they, or the followers of one of the other couple of hundred of Christian sects would state the same about you.
These faiths change with the wind and they were designed that way so that the socalled holy men who wrote them could maintain their lifestyles without question.
Multi-million megachurches and evangelicals utterly dwarf any sort of lifestyle that any Hindu or Buddhist holy-men live-by in terms of the amount of money these preachers make and the lifestyles they live.If one turns on the TV, one can view channel after channel of rich pastors asking for donations. In truth, most Hindu and Buddhist holy-men are poor. Also in-truth, most western pastors live by modest means and are middle-class. But if you want to bring up "lifestyles without question", megachurch pastors take the cake.
Can you show me in the Bible where it says the earth is flat, or the sun rotates around the earth or even where it endorses witchcraft? As for the earth being between 6000 and 10000 years old, this is backed by science and creationism is being proven every day
lol.100 years from now, Christians will not believe that the earth is 6000 to 10000 years old, just as 100 years ago they believed in the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and in witches.Its an observable trend. What the religious believe in (particularly Christians) gets eroded away century after century, and more Christians come to terms with science. You can keep fighting it, but history proves my assertion correct.
Secular history and science has been forced down our throats since the 1940s, no wonder so many who calin to be Christian are confused.
History and science should be secular. Otherwise we have to teach every religions revision of history and science, in-order to be fair.
You really need to check again, there are more who believe as I do than you think
yes, there are more, but far, far-away from the majority. Just as 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and fake-moon landing people, these sort of beliefs are held by small fringe groups.

 

[Wakka]

(adren@line;44994)
Im sorry, but it doesnt work the other way.Its much harder and takes more effort to understand biology and physics as opposed to Christianity or most religions. And besides, science describes reality as it can be measured and inferred upon. Its clams can either be falsified or verified by other scientists around the world. Christianity is simply one religion of many, a faith (of many), and there is absolutely no logical reason to state that scientists must be familiar with Christianity to disprove it, because the fundamental idea behind Christianity is God, and a particular form of God in which no evidence can be found.One could argue in favor of God itself through complexity and first-cause debates, but that doesn't have anything to do with the Christian God, but simply God as a generic concept.
You couldn't be more wrong. There is a lot of science and proof that goes into ID, to convince people like you that there IS an alternative out there. Darwinism has it's holes, and while people are still figuring out ways to support their theory, creationism is there (complete and ready for you). What sounds more farfetched? Life and all of it's complexity coming from nothing (chances are absolutely close to zero if not zero, because life must have originated form somewhere). Or an intelligent creator who must have created life? I know I'm rewording it to make it kind of biased, but seriously do ask yourself that question, and weigh both sides of the argument equally.

 

[arniem]

Hi Adren@lineYou certainly have the gift of getting our adrenaline pumping , which I assume is your intention anyway.I have studied Darwanism based evolutionism in depth and have always come away empty handed when looking for factual proof.I no longer get into arguments or debates on this topic because the Darwin theory has been bleeding profusely in recent years. Even within scientific circles up to 70% "no longer beleive" in it. The scientists are de-bunking it themselves. My help is not required.You are obviously an intelligent person and you have assembled a lot of information on practically every religion and philosophy known to man. Yet it is hard to pinpoint what exactly it is you are wanting.If you are looking for the truth , and if there is One true God , then I suspect you will find it. It can be as simple as that. He will take care of the details. If you are simply looking to gather more information to prove the opposite , you will be busy for a long time and still come out empty handed in the end.The billions of Christians throughout history were not fools , neither are we. We did not just choose "some religion" and go with it. What we did was chose Christ and from that moment on he proves himself continuosly to each of us. I am talking absolute proof. You are not able to partake in any of this . The magic starts when you have the Holy Spirit.There is a very simple equation , If you want Christ , you will have him. ... If you do not want him , you will not have him. This is so utterly simple , yet so utterly clever. We get to chose our own destiny . We can blame nobody else for our choice.It is as simple as that.Best wishes in your researchArnie M...

 

[jamesrage]

(adren@line;44278)
Do you agree? Should ID be taught in science classes? What about other creation myths?
They teach the big bang as a theory but yet there is no proof of it nor is there any circumstantial evidence to support it.I see no reason why ID shouldn't be taught in the same classroom as evolution as another theory.

 

[Jerusalem Junkie]

The term "intelligent design" came into use after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1987 case of Edwards v. Aguillard that to require the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution was a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state aid to religion. In the Edwards case, the Supreme Court had also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."[22] In drafts of the creation science textbook Of Pandas and People, almost all derivatives of the word "creation", such as "creationism", were replaced with the words "intelligent design".[19] The book was published in 1989, followed by a "grass-roots" campaign promoting the use of the book to teach intelligent design in high-school biology classes.[23]
WikipediaJust another way of saying evolution without saying it..

 

[setfree]

(arniem;45045)
Hi Adren@lineYou certainly have the gift of getting our adrenaline pumping , which I assume is your intention anyway.I have studied Darwanism based evolutionism in depth and have always come away empty handed when looking for factual proof.I no longer get into arguments or debates on this topic because the Darwin theory has been bleeding profusely in recent years. Even within scientific circles up to 70% "no longer beleive" in it. The scientists are de-bunking it themselves. My help is not required.You are obviously an intelligent person and you have assembled a lot of information on practically every religion and philosophy known to man. Yet it is hard to pinpoint what exactly it is you are wanting.If you are looking for the truth , and if there is One true God , then I suspect you will find it. It can be as simple as that. He will take care of the details. If you are simply looking to gather more information to prove the opposite , you will be busy for a long time and still come out empty handed in the end.The billions of Christians throughout history were not fools , neither are we. We did not just choose "some religion" and go with it. What we did was chose Christ and from that moment on he proves himself continuosly to each of us. I am talking absolute proof. You are not able to partake in any of this . The magic starts when you have the Holy Spirit.There is a very simple equation , If you want Christ , you will have him. ... If you do not want him , you will not have him. This is so utterly simple , yet so utterly clever. We get to chose our own destiny . We can blame nobody else for our choice.It is as simple as that.Best wishes in your researchArnie M...
great post!! Hope he takes your advice!

 

[RobinD69]

(adren@line;45019)
Sure I do. I have demonstrated an understanding of Christianity while you have demonstrated an understanding for Christianity and little else, in regards to religion (I might give you Judaism, but by default most Christians understand Judaism). No , you have demonstrated a false view of Christianity, popular but false. lol.Do you want me to post the definition of religion?Sure knock yourself out.Good job in disregarding all of the other key characteristics that seperate Buddhism from Judaism.I addressed them all as you presented them.And no, karma isnt reaping what one sows, because when one is re-born, there is no more "you". "You" are someone or something else. Simply the soul passes on in Hinduism and the consciousness in Buddhism (per popular interpretation).You are mixing karma and reincarnation, both of which are just misunderstood adaptions of the Judeo Christian faith.That is why the idea of karma exists in its original form. In the popular usage of the word as seen in western society, it has nothing to do with re-birth but more-so to do with doing good and receiving the benefits of such. However, that is not the original usage. You dont know its original usage because the Buddhists dont even know for certain. Im surprised you are admitting that. Thats a good step in the right direction.I have no problem sharing dates if you have no problem accepting them, but even with such a date, you do know that Judaism predates Hinduism.Your first point is wrong on the fact that Hinduism is a generic collection of indigenous Indian religions. You have everyone from polytheists, to henotheists, to monotheists, to atheists, all of whom are Hindus. You have the Kashmiri Shaivites, the Dvaitans, Advaitans, the tribal sects, the Bhakti movement, Carvakas, Mimamsas, etc, etc, etc.Ok you accuse me of being wrong while proving me right, and you call yourself logical. The Hindu philosophical work, The Upanishads, is only really followed by the Vedanta sects, and who are closer related to Buddhists in regards to beliefs.As far as your second point, you are correct. Hindus and Buddhists are adaptive and are usually not dogmatic. Both encourage free-thinking, which explains why India accepted everyone from the Jews to the Zoroastrians and has one of the world oldest Christian communities. The Hindu atheistic system Carvaka is also the worlds oldest established atheist doctrine, and they were tolerated.Christians are too diverse to stereotype in that regard. You have the liberal pro-evolution Christians and the dogmatic fundamentalists who believe in YEC and witchcraft. Some still believe in geocentricism, and while I know of none of who still believe that the earth is flat, I wouldn't be surprised if some did.You really dont have a clue. In Christianity, yes there are many diverging doctrines, but all have the same core beliefs. The same cannot be said for Hinduism and Buddhism.The Gnostics in particular are rather liberal. Of course, you could come around and state that they aren't "real Christians" but im sure they, or the followers of one of the other couple of hundred of Christian sects would state the same about you.Actually the Gnostics have been adversaries of the Jews and the Christians since the beginning. If I remember correctly, Gnosticism is more like Hinduism than Cristianity, they cant make up their minds either. So no Gnostics arent Christians.Multi-million megachurches and evangelicals utterly dwarf any sort of lifestyle that any Hindu or Buddhist holy-men live-by in terms of the amount of money these preachers make and the lifestyles they live.False view of Christianity as popularized by the media.If one turns on the TV, one can view channel after channel of rich pastors asking for donations.See Above. In truth, most Hindu and Buddhist holy-men are poor. Also in-truth, most western pastors live by modest means and are middle-class. But if you want to bring up "lifestyles without question", megachurch pastors take the cake.I agree, mega church pastors are not living the Christian lifestyle, if they were there would be no poverty anywhere.lol.Are you going to provide proof for your claims?100 years from now, Christians will not believe that the earth is 6000 to 10000 years old, just as 100 years ago they believed in the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, and in witches.Where in the Bible does it say the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth or that it endoses witches. Oh and by the way, witches do exist, they are just another pagan sect. 100 years from now Christianity will have been proven true.Its an observable trend. What the religious believe in (particularly Christians) gets eroded away century after century, and more Christians come to terms with science. You can keep fighting it, but history proves my assertion correct.Actually it is the opposite way around, the true believers are constantly proven right and the make believers fall by the wayside.History and science should be secular. Otherwise we have to teach every religions revision of history and science, in-order to be fair.Not seking fair, but seking truth, and the Bible is proven true every day.yes, there are more, but far, far-away from the majority. Just as 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and fake-moon landing people, these sort of beliefs are held by small fringe groups.
We dont need a majority, we have God. If majority ruled, there would be no Christianity, but God rules and the majority is blind