12-01-2004, 03:06 AM
the hindu world creation stories didn't directly affect science as much as the judeo-christian theory. early paleotology was religious based trying to prove things like the great flood. they were the ones with the money and had the people to spend time on this stuff. from their studies came other studies that showed differently.
and show me the direct evidence that shows that amphibians and reptiles and birds and mammels are all related and evolved from each other. there are similarities between the groups, but that could be because those similarities are best for survival.
i don't think the religious based ideas should be given equal time, but they shouldn't be ignored.
and because joobies is saying it much better than me:
and show me the direct evidence that shows that amphibians and reptiles and birds and mammels are all related and evolved from each other. there are similarities between the groups, but that could be because those similarities are best for survival.
i don't think the religious based ideas should be given equal time, but they shouldn't be ignored.
and because joobies is saying it much better than me:
Quote:JessicaKittie: the point is if something isn't fact, you have to show different sides to the story. You don't have to show all the sides, like a journalist doesnt include irrational views in a news article. You should show the most common viewpoints, and in the US that is evolution and biblical creation. If schools want to teach hindu views they can, but in general, american schools are doing their students a disservice if they don't point out that evolution is not what everyone believes because it is not a fully proven fact. and they dont have to teach about what creationism is to the same extent as evolution, they should just point out that because it cant be proven, some people instead believe whats in the bible