Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:

"Vince Hart" wrote in message
ups.com...
Rob wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:
No. I did not forget. I don't think that the quotes you cited
demonstrate that Einstein or Newton would want creationism taught
as
science. Do you?

Creationism taught as science? Is that what you meant with your
statement that I responded to? Would you like me to post it again in
its entirety or would you like to go back and read it?

Or would you rather stoop down to the level of Holsby instead and
spew
innuendos and ad-hominem as you're doing now?


Yes Liam. I meant "creationism taught as science." That is what I was
referring to when I wrote "he considers to be idiots (although
"deluded" is probably a better word choice than "idiots") those people
who want creationism taught along with (if not instead of) evolution in
public school science classes." That is why I used the word
"creationism," the word "taught," and the phrase "in public school
science classes." What did you think I meant?

And there is also "intelligent design" that seeks to unite the two
theories in many ways.

I have not seen anything to suggest that "intelligent design" is
anything other than an attempt to repackage "scientific creationism."

The attempt to force intelligent design down our throats, and to teach it as
science, is nothing more than religio-fascism with a smiley face.

Intelligent design does not "unite" anything. It is a mystical belief which
at some level I suppose I share, but which has no place whatsoever in a
science classroom. It is not science. It is not testable or provable. Our
inability to prove the existence of "the creator of the earthworm" does not
mean that God created the earthworm. Quite the contrary, it is up to
individuals making wild claims to prove their claims are correct. You can't
prove a negative.

This is a most lucid argument, one finds. Well put.