Who should set science curriculum ?

[McCulloch]

Who should determine the science curriculum in publicly funded schools?

[paarsurrey1]

According to evolution around here on these boards,
there is no God and He is not needed, therefore atheistic.

As a believer in a Creator, you have to specify this difference.

I do not get why people, and especially Atheist, try to deny that their version of evolution includes the rejection of God as the Creator.

Why are not they proud of it? why do they run and hide from it?

And truly the denials are fooling nobody.

Evolution does not directly say that there is no God nor Gods, and yet that is their point and purpose in preaching that anti God version of evolution.

I myself accept the reality that God is evolving life on earth, and so I take pride in declaring my Theist version of evolution.

I myself accept the reality that God is evolving life on earth

I agree with one here.
The process of evolution started millions of years ago with the word/commandment "be" from One-True-God and everything started taking shape as per the design set by Him :

[2:117] And they say, ‘Allah* has taken to Himself a son.’ Holy is He! Nay, everything in the heavens and the earth belongs to Him. To Him are all obedient.
[2:118] He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a thing, He does only say to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... &verse=117
*One-True-God

Regards

[KenRU]

You and that person do not give any specific as to what am I wrong about? what do you want explained? what about the thread topic?

Sure they did, in Post 41. Here, I’ll paste the line from Bust Nak for you so there can be no misunderstanding:

--We expect more than that here, in case it wasn't clear, this is a debate forum. You are expected to defend your message, not merely to deliver the message. Again, we are not in a teacher/student saturation here, you are being challenged, either put up or concede.

And previously in Post 38:

--Please, your point wasn't complicated, you were asked to prove the spiritual and you want to paint that as some sort of learning exercise. That won't work here, we are not in a teacher/student saturation here, at least not in the way you envisage. Instead we are in a debate, you are being challenged, either put up or concede.



As did Neatras in Post 43:

--Cusick, it's really important that we all understand that simply stating something as fact is not enough. What you are doing is insubstantial.

And:

--Do you believe, that simply by claiming you are right and honest, that everyone should take you at your word? If not, then for what reason should anyone take your arguments seriously, when all you've done is relied on credibility you've never established to make sweeping assertions? That is what your arguments up to this point have ALL consisted of, man. We can't debate this if you keep on retreating away from even substantiating a single point. Instead, you repeat, ad infinitum, the exact same thing.



Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.


-all the best

[JP Cusick]

Sure they did, in Post 41.

And previously in Post 38:

As did Neatras in Post 43:

Hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

All of that is past-tense,

as all of that has been settled,

and we moved on.

I am completely satisfied.

[Peter]

According to evolution around here on these boards,
there is no God and He is not needed, therefore atheistic.

As a believer in a Creator, you have to specify this difference.

I do not get why people, and especially Atheist, try to deny that their version of evolution includes the rejection of God as the Creator.

Why are not they proud of it? why do they run and hide from it?

And truly the denials are fooling nobody.

Evolution does not directly say that there is no God nor Gods, and yet that is their point and purpose in preaching that anti God version of evolution.

I myself accept the reality that God is evolving life on earth, and so I take pride in declaring my Theist version of evolution.

The Theory of Evolution does not require any gods. That's not the same as denying gods exist. I myself cannot say that no gods exist only that the 1000+ man invented gods don't exist.

[paarsurrey1]

According to evolution around here on these boards,
there is no God and He is not needed, therefore atheistic.

As a believer in a Creator, you have to specify this difference.

I do not get why people, and especially Atheist, try to deny that their version of evolution includes the rejection of God as the Creator.

Why are not they proud of it? why do they run and hide from it?

And truly the denials are fooling nobody.

Evolution does not directly say that there is no God nor Gods, and yet that is their point and purpose in preaching that anti God version of evolution.

I myself accept the reality that God is evolving life on earth, and so I take pride in declaring my Theist version of evolution.

The Theory of Evolution does not require any gods. That's not the same as denying gods exist. I myself cannot say that no gods exist only that the 1000+ man invented gods don't exist.

The Theory of Evolution does not require any gods.

Is it just one's conjecture or from religion or from science or from one's no-god position/no-position, please?
If it is from science then:

If it is from science then:
1. Please quote from a textbook of science
2. Or from a peer-reviewed article published in a journal of Science of repute.
3. Please also mention the discipline of science to which it is related.

Regards

[help3434]

The Theory of Evolution does not require any gods.

Is it just one's conjecture or from religion or from science or from one's no-god position/no-position, please?
If it is from science then:

If it is from science then:
1. Please quote from a textbook of science
2. Or from a peer-reviewed article published in a journal of Science of repute.
3. Please also mention the discipline of science to which it is related.

Regards

Er, all of them? No scientific publication of repute claims that any phenomenon requires a god.