creationism evolution debate

You have heard Creationists and their sympathizers evoke the comment that you cannot assemble life from randomness. What you don't know is that this is an intentional misunderstanding of science that, unfortunately, works to sway millions of people.
A homeschooling mom's video recently went viral and offers insight into the minds of people outraged at the idea of science museums. An audit implies a power relationship, and Fox had come to the Field Museum on a mission to put those scientists in their place.
How could an educated citizen of the 21st century ever reach the conclusion that a saber-toothed cat or Tyrannosaurus rex preferred eating fruit over flesh?
If this same God chose to reveal himself to the universe he made by the poverty of a baby born in obscurity -- if God is
If you tuned in to the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye creationism vs. science debate, you may well have found yourself thinking, 'This guy just doesn't get it.' And, regardless of which side you're on or which guy you were referring to, you were probably right.
In its survey, PRRI asked those who believe in creationism when life began. About 19 percent of creationists said humans
Many, including members of the Baha'i Faith, look forward to a future when science and religion -- and faith and reason -- are reconciled and no longer opposed.
No matter what side of the creation-evolution debate you are on, your partisanship costs you dearly. Why? Because it costs you the ability to read the Bible on its own terms. What do we lose by straightjacketing the Bible with the creation-evolution debate?
It kind of blew my mind to consider that the point of Genesis 1 could possibly not be a literal six day creation. The professor
Intelligent Design doesn't offer theories on how, but speculates about who. In a general sense, such conjecture is compatible with a kind of theistic evolution, a metaphysical philosophy which I actually find reasonable.
The political leanings of review panelists are especially noteworthy because Texas textbooks have the power to influence
The board attempted to add creationism to the district’s curriculum in 2011. However, that proposal failed due to public
A new set of science standards released by Achieve, an educational nonprofit, could transform American science education -- if politicians can keep their distance. The "Next Generation Science Standards" took two years to create, and are the result of a drafting committee of 41 members -- including Nobel Prize laureates, National Research Council members, science education researchers and standards and policy experts.
The "Next Generation Science Standards" took two years to create, and are the result of a drafting committee of 41 members
Students who go on to study science and join the scientific community will one day work on actual scientific controversies -- and there are many. But they are not the ones that the anti-evolutionists want to see in America's public schools.
Teaching our students creationism is wrong. American citizens must stand up and demand that their state governments stop funding creationism with public money. We must teach evidence based science and not fund voucher schools which will fail our students.
The most up-to-date evolution science is useful because we can demonstrate it in real time to Creationists and their children. That is by far the best way to change their thinking and reduce their influence on our schools.
Young-earth creationism, which argues that the world was created in six 24-hour days, is widely promoted on a popular level. Less publicized is that a large number of evangelical thinkers prefer a different range of options.
There is still some scientific disagreement about man-caused climate change, this much is true. But there is no debate or controversy whatsoever on evolution; it's generally accepted science in broad terms.
Louisiana State Senator Karen Carter Peterson wants to make sure evolution's taught in Louisiana science classes. This week