Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Xexima Originally posted by Draenor The man that wrote the article is Dr. Kent Hovind...a Christian Scientist who is offering a 250,000 dollar reward for anyone who can come forward with observable evidence of evolution, so far nobody has come forward.
hmm... maybe that is because people dismiss it as "adaptation." Such as that of the Darwins finches in galapagos island, who over a generartion or two change their beak shape depending on the type of food available.
You misunderstand what he means by evolution...he means if anyone can come forward with actual proof that an animal has added information to their DNA
Do you understand that evolution takes MILLIONS of years? Nobody can get DNA evidence because nobody is alive that long.
Also, just because something cannot be fully explained does not mean God or some higher being did it.
By the way, outofctrl I admire the way you're raising your kids letting them be individual and stuff...and not forcing Creationism on them.
Do you understand that evolution takes MILLIONS of years? Nobody can get DNA evidence because nobody is alive that long.
Also, just because something cannot be fully explained does not mean God or some higher being did it.
By the way, outofctrl I admire the way you're raising your kids letting them be individual and stuff...and not forcing Creationism on them.
He isn't asking for something to evolve right before his eyes...he is asking for one single bit of information to be added to DNA...if you are saying that you believe in evolution then that means that you are saying that millions of tiny bits of information are added to DNA over long periods of time...and yet, though millions of these pieces of information are being added, we have never discovered a single one...you want to talk about blind faith, I would say that is the very definition...be educated about what you believe, Nierro...I know that I will never be able to prove the existance of God...but at least I admit that, unlike evolutionists who seem so dead set on claiming to be able to prove something that they have not, cannot, and never will.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
It is a fact that natural formations, such as the Grand Canyon and many mountain you see, those take millions of years to form. Also, the 10,000 year old theory dosen't support the fossils in the rock layers, and the depth of the sea.
Actually no it isn't.
When Mount Saint Hellens erupted almost two decades ago, a mini grand canyon was formed over the course of two weeks...all it takes is one catastrophic event for something like the grand canyon to happen.
Funny thing about the rocks in the grand canyon, logic dictates that the rocks on the bottom would be the oldest right? Well, when taken in for dating, the rocks from the top of the grand canyon were dated older than the ones at the bottom...which goes to show you that dating methods that evolutionists follow are a farce...oh and the lava rocks created by the eruption of mount saint hellens, they were brought in to be dated, and they were dated at millions of years old...the dating methods that we use only date rocks from the time that they harden, and those rocks had only hardened a few weeks prior...interesting.
about the depth of the sea: You really need to educate yourself about this stuff Nierro, there is an explanation for it in the bible, read the story of the great flood....and since I'm talking about that...the great flood also explains why we have found dinosaur fossils in all parts of the world, including inland. If you know anything about fossilization then you know that something has to be burried very rapidly in order to fossilize...now what could possibly burry an entire planet's worth of large animals all at once?
Yup, I'm a crazy wack job jesus freak who actually believes in my own faith...crazy me.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Nierro You can't make something evolve, it just happens.
You don't know what is going to evolve, why it's going to evolve, or when, it just happens. So how could you get any DNA?
He isn't saying that they have to make something evolve, he just wants proof that something has actually had information added to their DNA...a poster yesterday was talking about his research in DNA and concured with my post that a change in genetic information has never been found, but rather that all animals already have all of the DNA present that they use to do things like adapt, there are different layers to DNA that become active when the animal needs them...but it isn't additional information, because it is already there, in order for evolution to be true, additional information needs to be added.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Nierro You can't make something evolve, it just happens.
You don't know what is going to evolve, why it's going to evolve, or when, it just happens. So how could you get any DNA?
He isn't saying that they have to make something evolve, he just wants proof that something has actually had information added to their DNA...a poster yesterday was talking about his research in DNA and concured with my post that a change in genetic information has never been found, but rather that all animals already have all of the DNA present that they use to do things like adapt, there are different layers to DNA that become active when the animal needs them...but it isn't additional information, because it is already there, in order for evolution to be true, additional information needs to be added.
Wait a second, what exactly is he asking for? To me it seems like he's asking for a DNA before and after picture...
Originally posted by Nierro Could you link that for me?
Link what? The thing about Mt. Saint Helen.
Let me go find it, I was looking for a thing about the Grand Canyon...and here is an article for you, it's fairly wordy but it will put it in perspective for you, that the age of the grand canyon is hardly fact.
Here is the mini grand canyon article...it also answers your questions about how the mountains came to be and how the continents were separated.
The following commentary by Ken Ham of AiG was submitted in May 2000 to a few newspapers in the United States to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Americas Pacific Northwest .
As I stood staring at the incredible geologic features that resulted from the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State, I was reminded afresh of how small and vulnerable we are as humans, but how awesome must be the power of God who created earth and its mountains.
It was hard to believe on May 18, 1980 right where I stood, incredibly hot swirling gases and debris from the explosion had devastated the landscape as the energy equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT (approximately 33,000 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs) was unleashed on this once beautiful landscapenow looking as barren as the surface of the moon.
What struck me even more was that the study of the eruption and its after-effects has challenged the very foundations of evolutionary theory.
In actuality, the eruption of Mount St. Helens was a rather small and localized event. I realized that if a small explosion like this could cause such catastrophic results, what could happen if there were larger explosions all over the globe?
I was thinking this way because the Bible states in Genesis 7:11, concerning the beginning of the great Flood of Noahs day, that all the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up. I believe this is a reference to great volcanic activity across earth, which must have been cataclysmic.
In fact, all over our globe, theres evidence that in the past there has been much volcanic activity. On the floor of the Pacific Ocean alone, there are an estimated 20,000 volcanoes.
The events associated with the volcanos explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years. One particular canyon was formed, which has since been named the Little Grand Canyon. About 100 feet deep and somewhat wider, it is about 1/40th the scale of the mighty Grand Canyon. This canyon was formed in one day from a mudflow. A newly formed river then flowed through the Canyon formed by the mudflow.
Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you assumed that the river took a long time to erode the canyon. My teachersnot having known what happened at Mount St. Helenswould have concluded the same thing about the small river cutting through the Little Grand Canyon.
View of Mount St. Helens from Spirit Lake showing logs from the original surrounding forest that was destroyed by the blast. Manmade lowering of the water level has caused the logs to be tilted.
The erosion of this canyon enables scientists to see some of the layers that were laid down. What astonished them were features such as the 25-feet-thick deposit that consisted of thousands of thin layers. In school, I was taught that you assume layers like this were laid down at the rate of perhaps one or two a year. Then you could estimate how long it took for such a deposit to form, perhaps even millions of years. However, this 25-feet-thick series of layers was formed in less than one dayperhaps even just three hours.
People around the world are indoctrinated by evolutionists who believe that layers like those we see at the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be laid down. That belief of billions of years is foundational to evolutionary thinking. What happened at Mount St. Helens is a powerful challenge to this belief.
The evidence here shows that one can logically accept that the Flood of Noahs dayand its after-affectscould have accomplished extraordinary geologic work, carving out canyons and the laying down of sediments in massive quantities all across the globejust as we see today!
Increasingly, most geologistsevolutionist or creationistwho have been to the Grand Canyon will now acknowledge that the Canyon was carved by a lot of water over a little period of time, not over millions of years.
In 2 Peter 3:7, the apostle Peter writes that in the last days, people will deny that there was a worldwide flood. Just like those who did not listen to the warning of the impending explosion of Mount St. Helens, how much more alert we should be today to heeding the words of Peter who says that there is a judgment to come, an enormous explosion (2 Peter 3:10)much bigger than Mount St. Helens.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor Here is the mini grand canyon article...it also answers your questions about how the mountains came to be and how the continents were separated.The following commentary by Ken Ham of AiG was submitted in May 2000 to a few newspapers in the United States to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Americas Pacific Northwest .
Nevermind, I thought it was a non-biased article from an actual scientist.
and on that note, it's dinner time...I'll give you time to read all of that stuff that I posted...there is a ton of it...This information, as well as a bunch of other CD's and information by various doctors and scientists, is what made me convert to Christianity...I was agnostic until a little less than a year ago.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor Here is the mini grand canyon article...it also answers your questions about how the mountains came to be and how the continents were separated.
The following commentary by Ken Ham of AiG was submitted in May 2000 to a few newspapers in the United States to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Americas Pacific Northwest .
Nevermind, I thought it was a non-biased article from an actual scientist.
If you aren't willing to even read the thing because you think that it will be biased then you are showing a great deal of bias yourself...I would suggest that you give it a read, just because the guy works for AiG doesn't mean that he is going to bible thump you. I'm pretty sure Ken Ham is a college grad with a doctorite...but if you are going to just skip over it because you read the first paragraph then you really have a lot of work to do.
edit: The guy that wrote the article has a degree in applied science and two honorary doctorites.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Nierro Originally posted by Draenor Here is the mini grand canyon article...it also answers your questions about how the mountains came to be and how the continents were separated.The following commentary by Ken Ham of AiG was submitted in May 2000 to a few newspapers in the United States to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Americas Pacific Northwest .
Nevermind, I thought it was a non-biased article from an actual scientist. If you aren't willing to even read the thing because you think that it will be biased then you are showing a great deal of bias yourself...I would suggest that you give it a read, just because the guy works for AiG doesn't mean that he is going to bible thump you. I'm pretty sure Ken Ham is a college grad with a doctorite...but if you are going to just skip over it because you read the first paragraph then you really have a lot of work to do. I skimmed the article, all I saw was links to Bible references. I looked up and say that he was like a graduate from Northern Texas University, or something like that and laughed to myself.
I quoted what I did because I didn't want it to be a longer post.
Originally posted by Draenor Here is the mini grand canyon article...it also answers your questions about how the mountains came to be and how the continents were separated.
The following commentary by Ken Ham of AiG was submitted in May 2000 to a few newspapers in the United States to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Americas Pacific Northwest .
Nevermind, I thought it was a non-biased article from an actual scientist.
If you aren't willing to even read the thing because you think that it will be biased then you are showing a great deal of bias yourself...I would suggest that you give it a read, just because the guy works for AiG doesn't mean that he is going to bible thump you. I'm pretty sure Ken Ham is a college grad with a doctorite...but if you are going to just skip over it because you read the first paragraph then you really have a lot of work to do.
I skimmed the article, all I saw was links to Bible references. I looked up and say that he was like a graduate from Northern Texas University, or something like that and laughed to myself.
I quoted what I did because I didn't want it to be a longer post.
Oh and enjoy your dinner. :P
Thanks...but read my post edit on what his degree is in...and do me a favor and read both of the articles that I posted, I posted them because you seem to have a genuine interest in learning, they have actual information in them, not just biblical references and reasons why you should believe in the Bible, they even show some of the problems with the young earth theory.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Nierro Oh, and I hope that the Christianity is real. Like a lot, I hope there is an after life and all that stuff, but I just can't beleive it.
Originally posted by LilithIshtar Originally posted by Nierro Oh, and I hope that the Christianity is real. Like a lot, I hope there is an after life and all that stuff, but I just can't beleive it.
What about reincarnation?
I'd rather be reborn as a new creature ( I was taught that you're never a human twice in a row ) than be stuck in so "paradise." That would get
I already beleive in reincarnation.
I said I hoped that there was a neat paradise thing.
Originally posted by Nierro Oh, and I hope that the Christianity is real. Like a lot, I hope there is an after life and all that stuff, but I just can't beleive it.
What about reincarnation?
That's why the Bible says that Heaven is constantly getting better and more wonderous...so that you'll never get bored hehe...
To the one that says that he didn't find anything to corroborate: that isn't surprising that you can't just google something like that and get a bunch of sources...I'm sure that if you did enough digging, you would find that it isn't just the most hardcore of Christian Jesus freaks that don't buy the old world theory...I remember listening to a CD last year where the guy speaking rattled off about a hundred different various scientists who agree that the world can't possibly be bilions of years old...he didn't read them all in a row of course, but over the course of this lecture that he gave which lasted for five days he named all of these people, along with various quotes.
What I will never understand is Atheism...Atheism might give an answer to how life started on earth, or even our current universe...but no matter what, they will never be able to answer the question: "What was before that?"
Some would say that God is a cop out for that very question, but I disagree, I think that a living God(or even Gods and Goddesses as Lilith believes) is a very real and rational explaination for "what was before that?"
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I'm sure someone has already said that, but I just wanted to reiterate it from a teacher's point of view. If you want your kids to learn creationism or I.D., then send them to a theology class that matches your belief. But when kids are learning science in school and the scientific method, then how can you justify teaching a belief. It's like learning that mythology is truth in a history class.
Comments
maybe that is because people dismiss it as "adaptation." Such as
that of the Darwins finches in galapagos island, who over a generartion
or two change their beak shape depending on the type of food available.
You
misunderstand what he means by evolution...he means if anyone can come
forward with actual proof that an animal has added information to their
DNA
Do you understand that evolution takes MILLIONS of years? Nobody can get DNA evidence because nobody is alive that long.
Also, just because something cannot be fully explained does not mean God or some higher being did it.
By the way, outofctrl I admire the way you're raising your kids letting
them be individual and stuff...and not forcing Creationism on them.
Also, just because something cannot be fully explained does not mean God or some higher being did it.
By the way, outofctrl I admire the way you're raising your kids letting them be individual and stuff...and not forcing Creationism on them.
He isn't asking for something to evolve right before his eyes...he is asking for one single bit of information to be added to DNA...if you are saying that you believe in evolution then that means that you are saying that millions of tiny bits of information are added to DNA over long periods of time...and yet, though millions of these pieces of information are being added, we have never discovered a single one...you want to talk about blind faith, I would say that is the very definition...be educated about what you believe, Nierro...I know that I will never be able to prove the existance of God...but at least I admit that, unlike evolutionists who seem so dead set on claiming to be able to prove something that they have not, cannot, and never will.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Actually no it isn't.
When Mount Saint Hellens erupted almost two decades ago, a mini grand canyon was formed over the course of two weeks...all it takes is one catastrophic event for something like the grand canyon to happen.
Funny thing about the rocks in the grand canyon, logic dictates that the rocks on the bottom would be the oldest right? Well, when taken in for dating, the rocks from the top of the grand canyon were dated older than the ones at the bottom...which goes to show you that dating methods that evolutionists follow are a farce...oh and the lava rocks created by the eruption of mount saint hellens, they were brought in to be dated, and they were dated at millions of years old...the dating methods that we use only date rocks from the time that they harden, and those rocks had only hardened a few weeks prior...interesting.
about the depth of the sea: You really need to educate yourself about this stuff Nierro, there is an explanation for it in the bible, read the story of the great flood....and since I'm talking about that...the great flood also explains why we have found dinosaur fossils in all parts of the world, including inland. If you know anything about fossilization then you know that something has to be burried very rapidly in order to fossilize...now what could possibly burry an entire planet's worth of large animals all at once?
Yup, I'm a crazy wack job jesus freak who actually believes in my own faith...crazy me.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You don't know what is going to evolve, why it's going to evolve, or when, it just happens. So how could you get any DNA?
He isn't saying that they have to make something evolve, he just wants proof that something has actually had information added to their DNA...a poster yesterday was talking about his research in DNA and concured with my post that a change in genetic information has never been found, but rather that all animals already have all of the DNA present that they use to do things like adapt, there are different layers to DNA that become active when the animal needs them...but it isn't additional information, because it is already there, in order for evolution to be true, additional information needs to be added.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Yup, I'm a crazy wack job jesus freak who actually believes in my own faith...crazy me.
What is your problem? I never trying to mock you and I didn't use sarcasm in my posts.
The thing about Mt. Saint Helen.
He
isn't saying that they have to make something evolve, he just wants
proof that something has actually had information added to their
DNA...a poster yesterday was talking about his research in DNA and
concured with my post that a change in genetic information has
never been found, but rather that all animals already have all of the
DNA present that they use to do things like adapt, there are different
layers to DNA that become active when the animal needs them...but it
isn't additional information, because it is already there, in order for
evolution to be true, additional information needs to be added.
Wait a second, what exactly is he asking for? To me it seems like he's asking for a DNA before and after picture...
The thing about Mt. Saint Helen.
Let me go find it, I was looking for a thing about the Grand Canyon...and here is an article for you, it's fairly wordy but it will put it in perspective for you, that the age of the grand canyon is hardly fact.
http://www.origins.org/articles/bohlinray_grandcanyon.html
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I don't really see why this is an issue at all.
Here is the mini grand canyon article...it also answers your questions about how the mountains came to be and how the continents were separated.
The following commentary by Ken Ham of AiG was submitted in May 2000 to a few newspapers in the United States to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the eruption of Mount St. Helens in Americas Pacific Northwest .
As I stood staring at the incredible geologic features that resulted from the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State, I was reminded afresh of how small and vulnerable we are as humans, but how awesome must be the power of God who created earth and its mountains.
It was hard to believe on May 18, 1980 right where I stood, incredibly hot swirling gases and debris from the explosion had devastated the landscape as the energy equivalent to 400 million tons of TNT (approximately 33,000 Hiroshima-size atomic bombs) was unleashed on this once beautiful landscapenow looking as barren as the surface of the moon.
What struck me even more was that the study of the eruption and its after-effects has challenged the very foundations of evolutionary theory.
In actuality, the eruption of Mount St. Helens was a rather small and localized event. I realized that if a small explosion like this could cause such catastrophic results, what could happen if there were larger explosions all over the globe?
I was thinking this way because the Bible states in Genesis 7:11, concerning the beginning of the great Flood of Noahs day, that all the fountains of the great deep [were] broken up. I believe this is a reference to great volcanic activity across earth, which must have been cataclysmic.
In fact, all over our globe, theres evidence that in the past there has been much volcanic activity. On the floor of the Pacific Ocean alone, there are an estimated 20,000 volcanoes.
The events associated with the volcanos explosion accomplished in seconds, hours, or just a few days, geologic work that normally would be interpreted as having taken hundreds or even millions of years. One particular canyon was formed, which has since been named the Little Grand Canyon. About 100 feet deep and somewhat wider, it is about 1/40th the scale of the mighty Grand Canyon. This canyon was formed in one day from a mudflow. A newly formed river then flowed through the Canyon formed by the mudflow.
Now I remember being taught in school that when you saw a canyon with a river running through it, you assumed that the river took a long time to erode the canyon. My teachersnot having known what happened at Mount St. Helenswould have concluded the same thing about the small river cutting through the Little Grand Canyon.
The erosion of this canyon enables scientists to see some of the layers that were laid down. What astonished them were features such as the 25-feet-thick deposit that consisted of thousands of thin layers. In school, I was taught that you assume layers like this were laid down at the rate of perhaps one or two a year. Then you could estimate how long it took for such a deposit to form, perhaps even millions of years. However, this 25-feet-thick series of layers was formed in less than one dayperhaps even just three hours.
People around the world are indoctrinated by evolutionists who believe that layers like those we see at the Grand Canyon took millions of years to be laid down. That belief of billions of years is foundational to evolutionary thinking. What happened at Mount St. Helens is a powerful challenge to this belief.
The evidence here shows that one can logically accept that the Flood of Noahs dayand its after-affectscould have accomplished extraordinary geologic work, carving out canyons and the laying down of sediments in massive quantities all across the globejust as we see today!
Increasingly, most geologistsevolutionist or creationistwho have been to the Grand Canyon will now acknowledge that the Canyon was carved by a lot of water over a little period of time, not over millions of years.
In 2 Peter 3:7, the apostle Peter writes that in the last days, people will deny that there was a worldwide flood. Just like those who did not listen to the warning of the impending explosion of Mount St. Helens, how much more alert we should be today to heeding the words of Peter who says that there is a judgment to come, an enormous explosion (2 Peter 3:10)much bigger than Mount St. Helens.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
If you aren't willing to even read the thing because you think that it will be biased then you are showing a great deal of bias yourself...I would suggest that you give it a read, just because the guy works for AiG doesn't mean that he is going to bible thump you. I'm pretty sure Ken Ham is a college grad with a doctorite...but if you are going to just skip over it because you read the first paragraph then you really have a lot of work to do.
edit: The guy that wrote the article has a degree in applied science and two honorary doctorites.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
is an after life and all that stuff, but I just can't beleive it.
If
you aren't willing to even read the thing because you think that it
will be biased then you are showing a great deal of bias yourself...I
would suggest that you give it a read, just because the guy works for
AiG doesn't mean that he is going to bible thump you. I'm pretty
sure Ken Ham is a college grad with a doctorite...but if you are going
to just skip over it because you read the first paragraph then you
really have a lot of work to do.
I skimmed the
article, all I saw was links to Bible references. I looked up and say
that he was like a graduate from Northern Texas University, or
something like that and laughed to myself.
I quoted what I did because I didn't want it to be a longer post.
Oh and enjoy your dinner. :P
If you aren't willing to even read the thing because you think that it will be biased then you are showing a great deal of bias yourself...I would suggest that you give it a read, just because the guy works for AiG doesn't mean that he is going to bible thump you. I'm pretty sure Ken Ham is a college grad with a doctorite...but if you are going to just skip over it because you read the first paragraph then you really have a lot of work to do.
I skimmed the article, all I saw was links to Bible references. I looked up and say that he was like a graduate from Northern Texas University, or something like that and laughed to myself.
I quoted what I did because I didn't want it to be a longer post.
Oh and enjoy your dinner. :P
Thanks...but read my post edit on what his degree is in...and do me a favor and read both of the articles that I posted, I posted them because you seem to have a genuine interest in learning, they have actual information in them, not just biblical references and reasons why you should believe in the Bible, they even show some of the problems with the young earth theory.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
I'd
rather be reborn as a new creature ( I was taught that you're never a
human twice in a row ) than be stuck in so "paradise." That would get
I already beleive in reincarnation.
I said I hoped that there was a neat paradise thing.
That's why the Bible says that Heaven is constantly getting better and more wonderous...so that you'll never get bored hehe...
To the one that says that he didn't find anything to corroborate: that isn't surprising that you can't just google something like that and get a bunch of sources...I'm sure that if you did enough digging, you would find that it isn't just the most hardcore of Christian Jesus freaks that don't buy the old world theory...I remember listening to a CD last year where the guy speaking rattled off about a hundred different various scientists who agree that the world can't possibly be bilions of years old...he didn't read them all in a row of course, but over the course of this lecture that he gave which lasted for five days he named all of these people, along with various quotes.
What I will never understand is Atheism...Atheism might give an answer to how life started on earth, or even our current universe...but no matter what, they will never be able to answer the question: "What was before that?"
Some would say that God is a cop out for that very question, but I disagree, I think that a living God(or even Gods and Goddesses as Lilith believes) is a very real and rational explaination for "what was before that?"
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Not a theology class.
I'm sure someone has already said that, but I just wanted to reiterate it from a teacher's point of view. If you want your kids to learn creationism or I.D., then send them to a theology class that matches your belief. But when kids are learning science in school and the scientific method, then how can you justify teaching a belief. It's like learning that mythology is truth in a history class.