If science is about reasoning and debate, why do evolutionists censor controversies,

Because your "controversy" only exists in your mind and in your church.

ID/Creation/Bible science whatever you choose to call it this year has never once established any credible evidence for itself to be true, or against prevailing scientific theories.

The reason it doesn't appear in textbooks is because its not science.
 
Source?

There are no controversies. There are different ideas as to the workings of evolution, but no biologist disputes that evolution happens.
 
You mean misinformation coming from the religious right, people who obviously have no reason to lie about evolution? Their "evidence" and arguments are pseudo-scientific at best, and out right fraudulent at it's worst.
 
i have one question for all the non-believers of that God created this earth and EVERYONE on it...


If you think we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys now?


I don't get why people think we came from monkeys. BECAUSE WE DID NOT!
 
we don't censor ... it's the disgusting corrupt religions that censor everything they can .... there is NO god.
 
Arguing with a creationist is not a controversy, it becomes a case of repetition.

"God did it."
"Nature caused it."
"You're wrong."
"NO, you are."

Anyway, what you're saying isn't even true.
 
It's a conspiracy all designed by scientists who want nothing more than to make religious people cry.
 
They toss out pseudo-science all the time: creationism, intelligent design, etc. Real science they talk about.

Evolution is true, it happened to us, and will continue happening.
 
They don't. They do, however, omit unscientific nonsense many creationists insist are controversies.
 
Giving creationism a chance is like starting a lecture on genetics with the stork bringing the baby theory, its just rubbish, get out of the way and let science be science please.
 
Because there is no controversy for scientists. The theory of evolution is almost universally accepted. Imagine How much you would learn in science if you had to be taught every 'controversy' that people felt you should be taught.

Storck Theory vs Sex Theory
Round Earth Theory vs Flat Earth Theory
Intelligent Design (no evidence) vs Evolution (substantial evidence)

Real controversy's are taught in science but only where there is evidence for them. Evolution is well supported with factual evidence and is the only current scientific theory which explains the development of life on earth.

I don't get why people want to play it 'fair' and teach both sides of a virtually non existant arguement within science. In science being fair means teaching what the evidence says and only the evidence. Peoples opinions and points of view don't matter - only the evidence.

or put another way:

"You don't have to teach both sides of a debate if one side is a load of crap." -Bill Maher
 
Science is not the same as science history. Science corrects it's frauds (did you really think that it was the church that figured out the few cases of it?)

Yes, there are controversies in science, but in order to actually have a valid opinion in them you need a significant understanding of the subject matter. (Science does not claim that there are no controversies...)
 
Science is not the same as science history. Science corrects it's frauds (did you really think that it was the church that figured out the few cases of it?)

Yes, there are controversies in science, but in order to actually have a valid opinion in them you need a significant understanding of the subject matter. (Science does not claim that there are no controversies...)
 
For the same reason they censor astrology from them.

CREATIONISM ISN'T SCIENCE.

Grow up.
 
Back
Top