As I'd mentioned before, some non-religious individuals even dare say Jesus Christ never existed, as a very short sighted attempt to discredit the Bible; But even Jewish and Roman Historical unbiased texts from that time period mention Him several times.

Further though, in respect to my suggestion, Since world religions are taught as basic education, for examinations of beliefs, etc, but not PROMOTING said religions individually, why not then, in 'Biology' classes, where the Theory of evolution is mostly taught, also do comparative studies showing the Biblical Creation account?

I would even *gasp* be open to the idea, since it IS a 'public' school system we are discussing, to have 'other' creation accounts entered into the cirriculum as well, for at the very least, comparative studies.

While there have been many here who disagree, There IS credible, scientific studies and evidences FOR a 'Creation' account, thereby, allowing it to be studied as same said alternate view of the origins of life, etc.

Creation, by it's very namesake, implies automatically, a CREATOR; i.e. 'god', supreme being, intelligent design, etc, etc. Hence, religious overtones are perhaps a by-product of said topic, as opposed to the predominant evolution stance, that no 'higher power' is responsible.

But, going back to my History classes example, if it can be done in THOSE classes, why not in the science (i.e. Biology) classes as well?

But I must remind you that most who denounce a creator having a hand in our world tends to be someone who thinks they have "all the answers"; convinced and attempting like hell to convince others that God doesn't exist, simply because evolution does exist.

As for classrooms, I was once in a one time only alternative class called "Humanities" which stumbled on the subject of religion differences. It was shot down by people who couldn't consider sitting in a classroom and listening to the FACT that other's have differing beliefs. It was never taught again.

Please show me in these 108 pages who has said this.

I was once in a one time only alternative class called "Humanities" which stumbled on the subject of religion differences. It was shot down by people who couldn't consider sitting in a classroom and listening to the FACT that other's have differing beliefs.

Some of the non-religious persuasion think they have the only true answers too; denouncing all other beliefs as false.

to be the response you would want.

Can't you see you're not making Christianity better, you're just making rock and roll worse.

Hank Hill

No, fortunately the work, in terms of scrutiny of these sites, is all ready well represented. talkorigins is one of many sites that exists to expose pseudo-science, the work has already been done in terms of critical thinking.

There is no "Unified Quantum Physics/ Biology/ Archeology/ Et Al" disipline of science taught in schools, if there was such an ill-concieved pursuit, then I suppose there would be a "Science of Creation".

No such unified course of study exists. In terms of "science", creationism is a "pseudo-science", as such I have no problem with it being included in a course of an academic study. One already exists, it is called Theology.

I have never really found the analogy to love very meaningful, because love is a pretty vague concept. Love has subtly different meanings to different people, depending on the interpersonal experiences they have had in their lives, and, even to the same person throughout his or her life, it takes on different shades of meaning. Also, most of us have had the experience of feeling that we have met our "soul mate" and only a few short years later find ourselves thinking "what the hell was I thinking?" Love is just not a concrete "thing" so much as it is a vague concept, where as the prevailing concept of god is as a concrete consciousness, not necessarily material, but certainly essential.

On the other hand, hooked up to a couple of paddles, capacitors like this bring people back from the dead every day.

Like I always say, ....mixing science and religion is like, dancing about architecture.... sure, it can be done, but it really doesn't do either any good, ....does it?

Your automatic labelling of 'Creationism' as "pseudo-science"

"I watched very carefully 'Ebert and Roper' to gain valuable insight on their critical analysis of a movie I heard of; Neither one of THEM liked it, therefore, I need not even to bother watching said movie."

Your broad generalisations to simply cast off 'creation' into a theology class are really not well informed or well researched.

Einstein also pointed out

Here is a good place for you to peruse:

Actually, a better analogy would be that I don't use movie critics as a source for weather forcasts.

Also in reference to "Answers in Genesis" and their claims being "science" based

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.

2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

n 1: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

I don't disagree with this in principle. The point is that there are different methodologies for finding truth. Science does not, by definition, include ALL avenues. Philosophy doesn't either, but it has much more latitude than what science, by necessity, allows