Alabama Lawmaker Introduces Bill Allowing Biblical Creation to Be Taught in Schools

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — A Republican lawmaker in Alabama has introduced a bill that would allow Biblical Creation to be taught in public schools in the state, alongside evolutionary theory.

H.B. 258 was recently presented by Rep. Steve Hurst, R-District 35, and provides allowance for teachers to explain to students both Biblical Creation and evolution, so that youth can formulate their own conclusions as to what they believe.

If a student adheres to a belief in the Bible’s account of the creation of the world, he or she would be permitted credit on exams if the student answers test questions in accordance with the Scriptures. In other words, the student would not be punished in any manner for answering the questions in alignment with the Bible, as long as the answers are correct and reflect what was taught.

“In any public K-12 school instruction concerning the theories of the creation of man and the Earth, and which involves the theory commonly known as evolution, any teacher may include as a portion of instruction the theory of creation as presented in the Bible, and may read passages in the Bible as deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation, thereby affording students a choice as to which theory to accept,” the bill reads.

“For those students receiving instruction … and who accept the Bible theory of creation, credit shall be permitted on any examination in which the student provides a response in adherence to the theory, provided the response is correct according to the instruction received,” it states.

Read the bill in full here.

The National Center for Science Education notes that the legislation mirrors an existing statute in Kentucky that was passed in 1976 and remains on the books.

  • Connect with Christian News

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Alabama has expressed opposition to Hurst’s proposal, as it believes that information on the Bible should not be presented in schools, and that teaching the Biblical view of Earth’s origin should be left up to parents.

“We strongly oppose this legislation that would place religious beliefs alongside sound scientific principles in our classrooms. Parents, not public schools, are entitled to instill religious beliefs in their children,” it said in a post on its website. “If passed, it would likely be challenged because similar laws have already been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Education Policy and has yet to be brought up for a vote.


As previously reported, in 1830, just over 40 years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and vice-president of the Bible Society of Philadelphia, wrote:

“[T]he benefits of an early and general acquaintance with the Bible were not confined to the Jewish nation; they have appeared in many countries in Europe since the Reformation. The industry and habits of order which distinguish many of the German nations are derived from their early instruction in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible. In Scotland and in parts of New England, where the Bible has been long used as a schoolbook, the inhabitants are among the most enlightened in religions and science, the most strict in morals, and the most intelligent in human affairs of any people whose history has come to my knowledge upon the surface of the globe.”

“The sciences have been compared to a circle, of which religion composes a part. To understand any one of them perfectly, it is necessary to have some knowledge of them all. Bacon, Boyle, and Newton included the Scriptures in the inquiries to which their universal geniuses disposed them, and their philosophy was aided by their knowledge in them. A striking agreement has been lately discovered between the history of certain events recorded in the Bible and some of the operations and productions of nature, particularly those which are related in Whitehurst’s observation on the deluge, in Smith’s account of the origin of the variety of color in the human species, and in Bruce’s travels. It remains yet to be shown how many other events related in the Bible accord with some late important discoveries in the principles of medicine. The events and the principles alluded to mutually establish the truth of each other.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Steven Thompson

    I cannot imagine a Federal court finding this act constitutional, or finding for the defendants if any teacher tries to use this act and is subsequently sued (cf. Kitzmiller vs. Dover, which is only the most recent of a series of court decisions on lawsuits regarding similar laws). It is quite possible that Rep. Hurst does not even intend for this bill to come up for a vote, much less actually pass. If it does pass, it will be no kindness to any school district that tries to use it.

    • Blue

      Yes. This type of thing is good for raising money. “I stood up to atheists. Send money.”

      The bright side is when the state gets sued for ignoring the Constitution, it is the taxpayer not the politician who will pay the legal bills. Win Win

      • aedgeworth

        It is the rulings of liberal Supreme Court Justices that are ignoring the Constitution. Each liberal ruling takes us farther and farther away from original intent. But you are right about standing up to atheists. It sounds like you consider yourself to be one. Our great nation was founded as a Christian nation. It is atheists such as yourself that want to change that. Then you set back and wonder why so much violence exists in our public schools with all the shootings and all.

        Well, let’s see: liberal Supreme Court rulings removed the Bible, prayer, the 10 Commandments, and the teaching of supernatural origins from our schools. That wouldn’t have a negative effect on the morals of our youth would it? Duh!

        • Blue

          The Constitution is the one foundational document of our nation. It was signed in 1789 and replaced the Articles of Confederation.

          Please show me where our Constitution says we are a Christian nation. It is not there. The only mentions of religion in that document place restrictions on government action. The government cannot impose a religious test for public office and the government cannot promote religion.

          The Constitution established the Supreme Court and SC rulings are authoritative.

          Now for some facts.

          The bible has not been removed from public schools. Students can bring bibles to school, read them during free time and form bible clubs.

          Prayer has not been removed from public schools. Students can pray in a non-disruptuve manner and form prayer clubs. However, school employees cannot lead prayer, or encourage or discourage student prayer. School employees cannot tell students when to pray, what to pray, whether to pray or who to pray to. School employees cannot give one religion special access to public address systems to enable one group of students to force all other students to listen to their prayers.

          Schools cannot favor or promote one religious view. They cannot post bible verses telling students which god to worship.

          This ensures that the religious freedom of every single student is respected and protected from government interference.

          Did you know that some of those court cases you despise were brought by christians? In one, Catholics and Mormons objected to repeatedly being led in evangelical protestant prayers.

          Government authority cannot be used to influence the religious exercise of students.

          And adults violating the Constitution by telling students which god to worship does not make anyone more moral.

          • Tim Matter

            Blue- aedgeworth ought to agree with those Supreme Court rulings as they are very much in line with the Golden Rule. The problem is, he doesn’t want his religion to be treated equally.

    • aedgeworth

      Edwards vs Aguillard indicated that teachers already had the flexibility to teach a supernatural view of origins. The Alabama Bill states that a teacher may not stress any particular denominational view. Kitzmiller vs Dover was concerned that ID was promoting a particular supernatural view that would be to the exclusion of other religious views. The Alabama Bill does not.

      Teaching the theory that a Supernatural Being brought the physical universe into existence from a state of nothingness is consistent with the laws of science, and does not promote any particular religious view, thus passing the Lemon Test.

      Teaching that a Supernatural Being brought life into existence from non-life is not promoting any particular religious view. Teaching Abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, a supernatural origin of life does not violate the Law of Biogenesis.

      • Tangent002 ✓

        The bill is specific to a Biblical account of creation, so your assertion it is just some sort of generalized Supernatural Being is false.

      • Blue

        Kitzmiller v Dover concluded that “intelligent design” was creationism under a new name.

        After the Supreme Court declared that it is illegal to teach creationism, some tried to change the name and pretend “intelligent design” was totally different. Evidence at the trial showed that both creationism and intelligent design had the exact same definition. The authors of the creationist textbook had literally done a search and replace to change “creationism” to “intelligent design” and “creationist” to “design proponent.”

        Google “cdesign proponentsists” for the missing link.

        It is illegal to teach that a supernatural being did – or did not – bring anything into existence. Government employees cannot encourage vor discourage religious belief.

      • SFBruce

        “Teaching the theory that a Supernatural Being brought the physical universe into existence from a state of nothingness is consistent with the laws of science…”

        No, it simply is not. Proving the existence (or not) of a supernatural being is beyond the bounds of science. It’s also true that accepting the scientific consensus about evolution doesn’t automatically mean there is no God.

        “Teaching that a Supernatural Being brought life into existence from non-life is not promoting any particular religious view.”

        This is a self-contradictory statement: the belief that life came into existence because a supernatural being created it, is, indeed, a very particular religious view. But again I remind you: accepting evolution doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting a belief in God.

  • james blue

    So can they get credit for writing about the flying spaghetti monster? What about non Christian faiths, can they get credit for answering with their version of events? Limiting it to the bible will violate the religious freedom of all non Christians

    Creationism no more belongs in a science class than evolution belongs in a bible class.

    • mikegillespie

      New account named “Blue.” You could’ve come up with a more clever name for your sock puppet, Blue.

      • james blue


      • Blue

        Nope. I am totally unrelated to James Blue. My “Blue” is short for Pale Blue Dot, the picture of earth taken by Voyager I from the edge of the solar system. As Carl Sagan said:

        Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It’s been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.
        — Carl Sagan, speech at Cornell University, October 13, 1994

      • Blue

        Nope. I am totally unrelated to James Blue. My “Blue” is short for Pale Blue Dot, the picture of earth taken by Voyager I from the edge of the solar system. As Carl Sagan said in October 1994:

        “… if you look at it, you see a dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. …

        “To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”

    • aedgeworth

      Teaching that a Supreme Being brought this universe into existence out of a state of nothingness and brought life into existence from non-life; does not violate any religious faith but atheism. It is also completely consistent with the laws of science. The Big Bang theory violates at least 3 known laws of science and chemical evolution violates the Law of Biogenesis.

      Only allowing students to be taught a naturalistic view of origins to the exclusion of all others is indoctrination, not education. There is a great difference between real science and scientific naturalism. Find out how they differ and maybe you’ll understand the issue a little better.

      • Steven Thompson

        Which three laws of science does the Big Bang violate (and how did you notice this when 90% of the physicists who’ve ever lived failed to?)?

      • james blue

        Ah but this bill only allows a certain supreme being.

  • Polish Bear

    I wonder if maybe our churches (and Christian parents) have failed kids in this regard. Since we know kids will encounter the teaching of evolution in school, why aren’t we teaching them, as early as possible, the core Christian doctrine that God is “Maker of heaven and earth,” as the old creeds say, and that evolution really has no bearing at all on whether God exists. We do our kids a great disservice by letting them enter high school or college without ever discussing this key issue. No Christian creed has ever required that Christians subscribe to any statement about the age of the earth or of the solar system. Christians believe that the universe exists because God made it. These science debates are really a distraction and totally unnecessary.

    • MCrow

      I don’t share your beliefs, but I think this is the right idea

    • PumperPickle

      This I can agree with. Teach your kids whatever religious beliefs you want, but leave it to the school to teach them science.

  • Blue

    The bible never says “ignore science.”

    But several times, the bible does say “respect the governmental authority.” And our laws say that public schools cannot teach religion.

    Churches should teach their creation story. But why don’t you trust that your kids can learn about evolution? Understanding what the Theory of Evolution is and the evidence that supports it is important to being educated, regardless of whether you accept the accuracy of it.

    Lying to your kids about evolution is a dangerous strategy. When they realize they’ve been lied to about evolution, they are likely to ask what other lies they’ve been told.

    • aedgeworth

      I don’t expect you to believe this, but you have not only been lied to about evolution, but you have been brainwashed. Real science by the way is not anti-supernatural. Real science is neutral in regards to religious beliefs.

      Our laws do not say that public schools cannot teach a supernatural theory of origins, alongside a purely naturalistic theory of origins. You have been lied to about that. The law indicates we should not promote a particular religious view of origins to the exclusion of all others. That would not be the case with the Alabama Bill.

      To teach and promote only a naturalistic view of origins to the exclusion of all other possibilities is not education, it is indoctrination. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. What if a supernatural being actually did speak the universe into existence out of a state of nothingness less than 10,000 years ago? What if that supernatural being also brought humankind and all other life forms into existence as distinct kinds (dogs, cats, birds, etc,) about 6,000 years ago? Should it be the job of scientists to try to disprove that and promote a naturalistic view of origins only? Where exactly does the reality of what really happened fit in all of this?

      There are no scientific evidences that disprove a supernatural view of origins. Evidence must be interpreted, it doesn’t speak for itself. Evolution is a naturalistic philosophical worldview interpretation of the evidence, and that is all that it is.

      It isn’t about science and religion. It is a supernatural worldview versus a purely naturalistic worldview. They are both looking at the same evidence.

      • Tangent002 ✓

        The law indicates we should not promote a particular religious view of
        origins to the exclusion of all others. That would not be the case with
        the Alabama Bill.

        The bill only references the Biblical account of creation.

      • PumperPickle

        “There are no scientific evidences that disprove a supernatural view of origins.”

        Burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Science doesn’t need to disprove it, you need to prove it.

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          If it were supernatural, it wouldn’t be able to be proven as far as they why’s, only that it did happen. Don’t you know what supernatural means?

  • Michael C

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Why are these legislators throwing away taxpayer money? Are their jobs really so easy that they have this kind of time to waste?

    Question time;

    Who wins in a fight? A little Alabama law or the Constitution of the United States?

    Which do you value more? A little Alabama law or the Constitution of the United States?

    • mikegillespie

      Laws are man-made. The US Constitution is not sacred. It has been changed over the years.

      You people who bash Christians and tell us that the Bible is just the words of men have no business pretending the Constitution is sacred. You homosexuals didn’t obey the sodomy laws when they were in force, did you? Now suddenly you pretend to be so law-abiding. You’re just like anyone else, you disobey the laws that you don’t like. Who do you think you’re fooling with this “I care about the Constitution” routine? You just think you can twist the Constitution to use it against Christians. It’s a thin disguise for your anti-Christian bigotry. We see you for what you are.

      • Michael C

        Laws are man-made. The US Constitution is not sacred. It has been changed over the years.

        You people who bash Christians and tell us that the Bible is just the words of men have no business pretending the Constitution is sacred. You homosexuals didn’t obey the sodomy laws when they were in force, did you? Now suddenly you pretend to be so law-abiding. You’re just like anyone else, you disobey the laws that you don’t like. Who do you think you’re fooling with this “I care about the Constitution” routine? You just think you can twist the Constitution to use it against Christians. It’s a thin disguise for your anti-Christian bigotry. We see you for what you are.

        Got it. You value this potential little Alabama law more than the Constitution of the United States. Thank you for taking the time to reply.

        • aedgeworth

          The Alabama Law is completely in line with the original intent of the Constitution. But I don’t expect an atheist to understand that or even care.

          • Michael C

            I’m glad we have you to interpret the “original intent” of the Constitution. Thank you for taking the time to reply.

      • PumperPickle

        “You people who bash Christians and tell us that the Bible is just the
        words of men have no business pretending the Constitution is sacred”

        SJW detected. Somebody call the whambulance. Someone’s fee fees got hurt by the evil baby-eating atheists voicing their opinions.

    • aedgeworth

      You really have no clue do you? There is a great difference between the original intent of the Constitution, and liberal interpretations and rulings that have allowed the Bible, prayer, the 10 Commandments and supernatural origins to be taken out of our schools. Please don’t give us your liberal nonsense about valuing the Constitution.

      • PumperPickle

        Well until you can present the original interpretation, then you’re just spouting nonsense.

        Regardless, nobody wants their hard earned tax dollars going towards religious beliefs they don’t agree with. We can be a happier nation if the government stopped doing that. How would you like it if the government spent tax dollars to fund a satanist display?

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          What original interpretation? Do you mean the original Hebrew or Greek texts? Explain.

          Evolution is a religious belief. It has no scientific foundation. I don’t want my tax dollars going towards it. See how that works?

  • Reason2012

    Science has long shown us that fish to mankind evolution is anti-science. It’s observable, repeatable, verifiable scientific fact that evolution doesn’t do what fish to mankind evolutionists claim it does, that it’s only set up to work within boundaries while they demand there are NO boundaries, yet science shows there are barriers can only stay within. For example it’s observable, repeatable, verifiable fact that no matter how many generations go by (in the lab or in nature): ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria, canines remain canines, felines remain felines and many more such barriers. To avoid this problem some evolutionists expose their disdain for science and common sense to claim human beings are fish.

    So If fish to mankind evolution can be called ‘science’ and taught to all kids when it’s really anti-science, then creation by God can be taught as well, since it really comes down to belief, not science for this topic. If they don’t want creation by God belief taught, then they need to remove the fish to mankind belief system as well, more so since fish to mankind evolution is anti-science.

    • Blue

      Reason2012 said .”Science has long shown us that fish to mankind evolution is anti-science.”

      Citation, please

      • aedgeworth

        It is very simple science. Simple changes within life forms is observable, testable, reproducible science. Fish to mankind evolution is not. If macro evolution has been going on for 600 million years, we would be able to look all around us and observe millions of life forms in all different stages of transition from one distinct life form into a completely different life form that has not existed before. No such evidence exists.

        Oh wait, you wanted citations from evolutionists admitting macro evolution is anti-science didn’t you? You probably wouldn’t accept the articles by over 1,000 scientists with advanced degrees from accredited universities that reject evolution would you?

        You prefer stories that start out: “Once upon a time, long ago and far away, billions of years ago.” Made up stories to be sure.

        • Steven Thompson

          What would a “life form in transition to a completely different life form” look like? What constitutes a “completely different life form?” I don’t suppose that in the late Jurassic such animals as Archaeopteryx or Anchiornis looked like that were in mid-transition between “fully-formed reptiles” and “fully-formed birds;” they were just small feathered theropod dinosaurs doing what they did. When Australopithecus sediba (or the later Homo habilis, or the still later Homo erectus) was roaming the African savanna, could you have looked at it and decided that it was “in transition” between clearly nonhuman apes and human beings?

          Again, not everyone on the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism” list actually denies that you are descended from monkeys (and then again, not everyone on that list is actually a “scientist with an advanced degree,” anyway). You may have heard of the “Project Steve” statement (basically, “yes, you share ancestors with baboons and bass and bananas, and natural selection is an important cause of evolution”), which is signed by more people than the “Dissent from Darwinism” statement, even though only actual scientists (preferably biology professors) named “Steve” are allowed to sign (no, I’m not one of them). Again, nothing in the “Scientific Dissent” statement actually contradicts anything in the “Project Steve” statement, though presumably some of the “Dissent” signers would have signed a statement actually denying large-scale evolution.

  • robert boe

    Science is always having to correct itself as it learns new things. With that said since I’m a grandfather of 9 grand children ,
    I would rather see children go to the school of their parents choice . This way Gods word on the subject can be exalted above the word of just humans on how everything was created. If my family is reading this yes its far far.

    • Blue

      Why would you think it is a negative to correct errors? Science is able to weed out frauds and errors. And refinements improve accuracy.

      Example – Our understanding of electricity has advanced from the speculations of ancient Greeks, to simple tests on lightning by Ben Franklin, to the work of Edison, Bell, Tesla and Westinghouse, and then to modern technological and scientific advances.

      All along the way, errors were identified and corrected as knowledge improved. This is a good thing and the very nature of science. And at no time did anyone of those people say “Gee, we sure were wrong about that. I guess we’re going to have to go back to the belief lightning really is thrown by Zeus.”

      Every new piece of knowledge about and evidence for evolution gets added to the complete body of knowledge and the many lines of evidence that show the Theory of Evolution is accurate.

      • Reason2012

        Adding a new reason to believe in fish to mankind evolution doesn’t elevate it beyond an anti-science story. It’s observable, repeatable, verifiable fact that no matter how many generations go by (in the lab or in nature): ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, amphibians remain amphibians, birds remain birds, bacteria remains bacteria, canines remain canines, felines remain felines and many more such barriers. So science is really showing that fish to mankind evolution is anti-science.

        • aedgeworth

          You are exactly right. The differences between reptiles and birds, and also chimps and humans, outweigh the similarities by a 10 to 1 margin. Enough to falsify either hypothesis.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            How exactly do you obtain this 10 to 1 margin? Is that a scientifically validated number? You’re using scientific words (“falsify either hypothesis”) without using scientific data. In other words, you’re just talking out of your hat.

          • Samwise

            All living things on earth have a common ancestor (except maybe some weird RNA microbes).

            By sequencing DNA, we can compare the DNA of humans to other branches of life – animal and plant.

            Humans share about 96% to 98 % of our DNA with chimpanzees.

            90% with domestic cats
            80% with domestic cattle
            61% with fruit flies
            60% with chickens
            60% with bananas

            During the Ebola crisis, scientists were using tobacco plants to grow a potential vaccine. They could do this because of genetic similarities between humans and tobacco plants.

            What is fascinating is how errors can be tracked. Occasionally, virus DNA gets inserted to the reproductive cell of an individual. The error is harmless, but that exact error in that exact location will be present nt in all descendants. Lineage can be traced with these verror

      • aedgeworth

        There is absolutely no scientific evidence that indicates the theory of evolution is accurate. A Supreme Being brought the whole universe into existence less than 10,000 years ago, and all the fossils and rock layers were formed by a Great Flood about 4400 years ago. There is no scientific evidence that contradicts that, and much evidence that confirms it: such as polystrate fossils, missing layers, reversed layers, human artifacts in the wrong layers (according to evolution that is.).

        • Blue

          There is overwhelming scientific evidence that indicates the fact that evolution occurs and the validity of the Theory of Evolution as the explanation of that fact.

          Evidence is found in the following scientific disciplines, and others:

          Vestigial traits and atavisms
          Paleontology and the fossil record

          If human artifacts have been found in the wrong layer, when and where? Please provide the citation to the peer reviewed paper supporting that discovery.

          There are human civilizations that produced written records that are older than 4,400 years.

          There are tree alive today older than 10,000 years.


        • The Skeptical Chymist

          I’m sorry, but your simple declaration that “there is no scientific evidence that …(whatever)” does not make your declaration true. There is a great deal of scientific evidence that the earth is far older than 10,000 years, and there is no evidence of a worldwide flood about 4400 years ago. There is plenty of genetic evidence that shows that there is no known species that is descended from two individuals that survived a cataclysm that occurred 4400 years ago. The rate of mutations is vastly insufficient to account for the amount of genetic diversity in most species today, given the small number of generations between the supposed near-extinction event and the present time.

        • Tim Matter

          aedgeworth- “A Supreme Being brought the whole universe into existence less than 10,000 years ago”.

          Then you must have an answer to the Distant Starlight Problem. If the universe is 10,000 years old, why can we see stars that are farther than 10,000 light years away?

  • Samwise

    The idea that thousands of scientists at every university in America and around the world are making everything up makes no sense.

    There is extensive evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution, and your kids are going to learn about it sooner or later. Just start with Wikipedia, and read

    Introduction to Evolution
    Evolution as Fact and Theory
    Natural Selection
    Transitional Species

    • aedgeworth

      There are no known transitional fossils. Try spending a few minutes on the internet reading about polystrate fossils, reversed layers, missing layers, human artifacts in the wrong layers, etc. that completely refute uniformitarianism. While you are at it, read about the over 1,000 scientists with advanced degrees from accredited universities such as Yale, Harvard, Princeton, MIT, etc. that have signed the Dissent from Darwinism list. The list is growing rapidly. But I doubt you care anything about that.

      We all fall in one of two categories: we are either an honest seeker of truth; or a protector of a belief system. Evolution is a made up story whose sole purpose is to promote an alternative to a supernatural view of origins.

      Look up “scientific naturalism,” and see if you can tell the difference between that and real science. That is if you are an honest seeker of truth, which I doubt.

      • ZappaSaid88

        Evolution is supported by mountains of evidence and is true. However, if you feel you have evidence that overturns evolution that alone doesn’t make your assertion of a supernatural creator true by default. You have to PROVE that a super natural creation took place. That’s something that has not been done and cannot be done because there is zero evidence of it.

      • Steven Thompson

        What is your definition of “transitional fossil?” Why don’t Anchiornis, Rodhocetus, or Homo ergaster qualify? “Polystrate” fossils mostly aren’t, really, or else they cross layers of volcanic ash that were indeed laid down quickly — unlike, e.g. the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon. Missing layers are no more mysterious than erosion that caused them, and inverted layers are caused by plate tectonics folding and bending at plate boundaries.

        The “Dissent from Darwinism” statement is most impressive (to me) because it doesn’t actually dissent from Darwinism. It states that natural selection of random mutations cannot explain everything about evolution, but Darwin himself admitted that (and so do modern “ultra-Darwinians” like Richard Dawkins). It posits no supernatural mechanisms for the origin of life or life’s diversity, and does not deny common descent or a 4.54 billion-year-old Earth.

      • Blue

        Your summary of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is incorrect and misleading.

        First, many of the signers do not have PhDs in relevant fields.

        Second, the statement is written in such a way that some people who fully support the Theory of Evolution signed it. Natural Selection is the major mechanism of evolution, but since Darwin other mechanisms have been identified. The term “Darwinian Evolution” implies natural selection is the only means of evolution, and so some people agreed that “Darwinian Evolution” is incomplete. This does not mean they question the fact of Evolution or the current theory that encompasses alternate causes of Evolution. They just acknowledge that we’ve learned a few things since 1869.

        Third, the number of signers is not growing rapidly for any normal definition of “rapid.”

      • Blue

        Every life form is a transitional species. Because whenever offspring vary genetically from parents and environmental forces favor some variations and disfavor others, evolution will happen.

        There is no “this far and no farther line.”

      • Blue

        Someone is flagging my posts as spam. I will try breaking my comment into separate pieces.

      • Blue

        We are surrounded by evolution.

        Whenever there is genetic variation and environmental forces favor some variations, variations will accumulate. Evolution cannot “not happen.”

      • Blue

        Just by looking around, it is easy to see snapshots of transitional forms at this moment in time.

        There are organisms that display every stage in the evolution of eyes from microorganisms with patches of light sensitive cells, to eye cups in worms to compound eyes of insects and complex mammalian eyes. There are variations in night vision, color vision, focus, ability to sense movement and more, with each eye benefiting the species that has it.

      • Blue

        Species alive today are acquiring new capabilities may lead to new species. Lung fish and snakehead fish can breath air, travel across land and survive outside of water for up to a few days. These are easily transitional between fish and a new, yet to evolve, variety of land creature.

      • Blue

        In nature, there is no line for this far but no father.

        Horses and donkeys are still closely enough connected that they can produce live but sterile offspring. But they are different species. This is what it looks like as species diverge from a common ancestor.

        The European Blackcap is in the process, in just 50 years, of splitting into two species – one long distance migrator that eats fruits and olives and one shorter distance migrator that eats birdseed from feeders. If they remain reproductively isolated a while longer, mutations will accumulate in each population until the two populations cannot interbreed.

      • Blue

        Scenario 1

        Speaker A: There are no trees in forests.

        Speaker B: Of course there are trees in forests. We can see them. We can take pictures of them. We can analyze them in labs. We can determine their ages, geographic dispersal and relationship to other trees. We can predict which trees are likely to be found in different environments.

        Speaker A: See, I was right, there are no trees in forests.

        Scenario 2

        A: There are no transitional fossils.

        B: Yes there are trees transitional fossils. We can see them. We can take pictures of them. We can analyze them in labs. We can determine their ages, geographic dispersal and relationship to other fossils. We can predict which fossils are likely to be found in different types and ages of rocks. Tiktaalik Roseae is a classic example of scientists predicting what type of fossil would be found in rocks of a certain age and type.

        A: See, I was right, there are no transitional fossils.

        If you think Speaker A in Scenario 1 was weirdly ignorant and stubborn, the same conclusion is appropriate for Speaker A in Scenario 2.

  • Reason2012

    Any scientists who dare even question fish to mankind evolution have their reputation smeared, their funding attacked and their job threatened. So of course when asked scientists are hence going to say “yeah, sure, I believe in evolution”, all so they can go back to doing actual science in peace. Then evolutionists claim it’s some sort of “proof” for fish to mankind evolution that so many scientists believe in it.

  • ZappaSaid88

    “If a student adheres to a belief in the Bible’s account of the creation of the world, he or she would be permitted credit on exams if the student answers test questions in accordance with the Scriptures.” – so on a science exam you can give a biblical answer and get credit? How idiotic. Is the teacher supposed to be a biology expert AND a biblical expert?

  • SFBruce

    Among biologists, evolution is completely uncontroversial. The notion that both evolution and creationism have equal scientific validity is simply not true. To suggest otherwise is like teaching a flat earth theory alongside a round earth theory. Or letting students “decide for themselves” if they believe 2+2=4 or 2+2=5. If this bill is signed into the law, the students of Alabama will be the biggest losers, especially those who have an interest in and an aptitude for science.

    • Ginger

      IF is a little word. If evolution were true one could walk out the door to see all the different phases occurring. This hypothesis was put forth by a Freemason, Charles Darwin. Why they want to put the world into delusion.
      Albert Pike (1809-1891) born on Dec 29. US lawyer, historian, general. Masonic author. Brig General, (Confederate Army), died in 1891. Well-known Masonic author (Morals and Dogma) and composer of the ritual for the concordant body, the Scottish Rite, Southern Jurisdiction, he was elected Sovereign Grand Commander of that body in 1859, an office he held until his death. Appointed Grand Orator of the Grand Lodge of Arkansas on November 7, 1864, from 1853 onward he was, at various times, chairman of numerous committees and boards, as well as Grand Representative of four jurisdictions. Founder of
      the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) see also: The Scottish Rite’s KKK Project Albert Pike addressing the 23 Supreme Councils of the world on July 14, 1889:- “To you, Sovereign Grand Instructors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: ‘the Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the LUCIFERIAN Doctrine. . .”
      The strange gods of Freemasonry. Notice small g.

      • Samwise

        One can look around and see evolution happening.

        • Ginger

          Evolution Weakness– taught in our classrooms!

          “Why is not every geological formation and every stratum
          full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” Charles Darwin, Origin of Species p. 413

          “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions…has been a persistent and naggish problem for
          gradualist accounts of evolution.” Stephen J. Gould, Evolution Now, p. 140

          “If if could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight
          modification, my theory would absolutely breakdown.” Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, p. 154

          “they [Gould & Eldridge] were not even willing to explain from whence such a massive addition of genetic information could have come, Thus, after Gould’s passing away, punctuated equilibrium lost popularity and gradualistic neo-Darwinism became the ruling dogma in academia again.” Emil Silvestry, The Fossil Record Evolution’s Achilles Heels, p. 139

          The biggest problem Charles Darwin had a theology degree never a science one. He later became a Freemason. Look into the strange gods of Freemasonry.

          • Samwise

            Quote Mining: Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

            And as for: ” “If if could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight
            modification, my theory would absolutely breakdown.” Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, p. 154 ” – no such organ exists.

          • Ginger

            I read this trash to know where it came from. I read the Bible in its entirety I do not call it trash but I have learned our Father’s plan to understand it. Not taking the word of these one verse revs that spout a lot of hot air for an hour that willfully or in ignorance simple what to pour out their denominations doctrine mostly false. When I am typing I may mistakenly number a page.
            Scientific research takes steps.
            Step 1: Ask a Question
            OK. This one is easy.
            Anyone can ask a question about anything. Here it goes: “How did we all get here?”
            Step 2: Do Background Research
            Gather data and observe
            it carefully. If you detect a pattern that suggests a plausible conclusion, then move onto the next step. What Darwin “discovered” during this step is that all living creatures share many common traits; and that the differences among them adapt them perfectly to their natural environment.
            Step 3: Construct a Hypothesis
            Based on your data mining, make an educated guess as to what the truth is. Not just any ole guess; not a wild and baseless guess;
            but an educated guess based on a compelling pattern of data. Here, at a very early stage of the Scientific Method, Darwin has already gone off the rails. In his own weasel words:
            “The real affinities of all organic beings, in contradiction to their adaptive resemblances, are due to inheritance or community of descent. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have
            descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.”
            What Darwin observed is nothing that an 8 year old, living
            10,000 years ago, could not have easily noticed on his own; namely, that all creatures have many traits in common. For example, a lizard has two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc; and, a human being also two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc. And from that, and nothing more, Darwin “hypothesizes” that all living things came from an original
            “single-cell” organism?
            In fact, as even prominent Evolutionists openly admit, the fossil record
            actually appears to show that new life forms came on to the scene very suddenly. (which supports the Intelligent Design Hypothesis)
            Step 4: Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
            I don’t even know where to even begin with this one. How does one construct an experiment to “prove” that great-great-great grandma was a piece of algae that spontaneously appeared in a pond,

            Obviously, steps 5 and 6 of the Scientific Method are rendered mute; but that doesn’t stop the dogmatic Evolutionists and degenerate Marxists from pounding their fists on the table and screaming “Science … science … science!” in your face; whilst viciously denouncing you
            as “uneducated” for daring to question their pond scum to human
            scenario. You want to believe Darwin? Have a nice trip.

          • Samwise

            1. Stop quote mining
            2. Take a science class

  • Tangent002 ✓

    If enacted, this bill wouldn’t pass even the most cursory legal challenge.

    • ZappaSaid88

      It’s ironic that “fiscal conservative” politicians are always willing to create expensive legal liabilities.

      • Tangent002 ✓

        It’s all window dressing so Conservative Evangelicals can tell their constituents they are ‘doing something’ even though they know full well such bills don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hades.

  • Brother TC

    If you start with the presupposition that God does not exist, you end up accepting the theory of evolution. If you start with the presupposition that God does exist and the Bible is true, you end up accepting the biblical narrative of creation. (I’ll leave aside the deistic evolution option, since it’s unbiblical.) The biblical narrative of creation is not unscientific, as it accords with all the same natural evidence used to support evolutionism. Holders of the theory of evolution will balk at this point, but that’s because they don’t believe the Bible, not because creation is unscientific or unsupported by the natural evidence. It’s all science, and which way you go — which belief you hold — depends entirely on your presuppositions. To teach all of science, you must teach our understanding based on both biblical and unbiblical viewpoints.

    • ZappaSaid88

      Science does not deal with the super natural, therefore creationism is unscientific. And please tell me what natural evidence supports creationism?

      • Brother TC

        You kindly asked, “Please tell me what natural evidence supports creationism?”

        Do you think the universe has existed eternally or do you posit a beginning? Almost all unbelievers now agree in some sort of beginning, but this wasn’t always the case. Before the “Big Bang” theory took hold in the 50s, cosmologists generally believed in an eternal steady state universe. The Big Bang theory was initially resisted on the grounds that it was too religious, not only because its originator was a Roman Catholic priest (!), but because every smart person from Aristotle on agreed that the universe always existed. According to the common wisdom of scientists about 50 years ago, the universe having a beginning was biblical nonsense.

        Now we’ve got natural evidence supporting a beginning point of the universe, just as God said.

        What caused the universe to come into being? Hawking thinks it was gravity. So what caused gravity to come into existence? Who knows — the natural mind cannot grasp a cause that has no cause. As a Christian, we like to call that uncaused cause God, and He has given us His first-hand account of the creation of everything.

        What caused nature to come into being? Whatever it was — no matter what your theory says — that cause was supernatural.

        You said, “Science does not deal with the super natural,” and you said perhaps more than you know with that. Natural science does not and cannot deal with the beginning of the universe, because that subject is literally “above nature”.

        This is why we don’t try to prove God with natural science. All the evidence is there, but you will not accept it as proof because you’re blind to the spiritual things of God.

        • ZappaSaid88

          So we agree that the super natural (creationism) is not the realm of science and therefore it has no place in a science classroom as the article suggests. And certainly biblical creation is not a correct answer for any science test as the legislator in the article wants to legalize.

          And I might add you provided no evidence at all FOR your position. You attempted to poke holes in some theories, but poking a hole in a theory doesn’t make your theory automatically correct.

          And finally, the creation of the universe really has no relation to the article because it’s about evolution which is the change in life forms over time. It has nothing to do with creation.

          • Brother TC

            You said, “So we agree that the super natural (creationism) is not the realm of science and therefore it has no place in a science classroom as the article suggests.”

            After I had said, “It’s all science, and which way you go — which belief you hold — depends entirely on your presuppositions… In such matters, you must start from your presuppositions and work the science from there.”

            Do you understand how I’m saying that, while our presuppositions are not science, all of our scientific theories proceed from them?

            Following your line of thinking, then, your presupposition that God did not create man is also not in the realm of science and therefore it has no place in a science classroom. Your belief in evolution is based on your presupposition that God didn’t create man, so therefore it has no place in the science classroom.

            But that would be absurd. We base our favored scientific theories on our presuppositions.

            “You attempted to poke holes in some theories, but poking a hole in a theory doesn’t make your theory automatically correct.”

            Yeah, sure. Sounds like a science debate to me. Let’s teach it.

            You said, “And finally, the creation of the universe really has no relation to the article.”

            Dude. You asked me about creationism.

            You said, “[Evolution] has nothing to do with creation.”

            Oh yes it does. If creationism were taught in school alongside evolution as competing theories, you would understand how these subjects are related. As it stands, you were not taught, so you’re ignorant of these things.

          • ZappaSaid88

            Science is science and faith is faith. I have no more time to waste reading your pseudo-philosophical word salad. Creationism doesn’t belong in a science classroom period.

          • Brother TC

            Not a strong finish.

          • PumperPickle

            Still stronger than your arguments though, I’ll give you that.

          • Brother TC

            If you have a counter-argument, bring it. Otherwise, your comment amounts to taunting.

          • PumperPickle

            That’s already been done for me thank you very much.

          • Brother TC

            The upvote and downvote buttons would suffice for that. When you speak with nothing to say, you only make noise. Perhaps that’s your intention.

          • PumperPickle

            When your arguments are equal to that of just noise, who are you to judge? As I have stated, it has already been counter-argued. Read ZappaSaid88’s post again.

          • Brother TC

            Care to reiterate a point, or are you just too lazy? Remember, that in school, it was insufficient to say, “my book already answered this question.” When we interact with other human beings in rational discourse, we try to demonstrate original thinking. This is your chance, PumperPickle, to reveal what you’re actually thinking about. Go for it.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Actually, ZappaSaid88’s posts are easily refuted and have been. Is that you?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You haven’t proven anything.

          • LynnRH

            That’s your opinion but it isn’t EVERYONE’s opinion.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Evolution is fantasy. Science can be found in the Bible and thus, the two can be used together. Evolution has no basis in reality.

          • Michael C

            …your presupposition that God did not create man is also not in the realm of science and therefore it has no place in a science classroom.

            First, where did ZappaSaid88 presuppose that God did not create man?

            Second, science classrooms do not teach that God did not create man. They cannot.

            We base our favored scientific theories on our presuppositions.

            This may be how you operate but this isn’t how scientists work.

            Lastly, the Constitution of the United States forbids public schools from teaching creationism (the Christian religion) alongside science. You don’t have to like it but it’s how it is here in the US.

          • Brother TC

            You asked, “First, where did ZappaSaid88 presuppose that God did not create man?”

            Read this sentence: “And please tell me what natural evidence supports creationism?”

            1. The guy clearly denies creationism.

            2. Creationism includes the creation of man, whole and complete. This is how creationism carries with it a strong rejection of evolutionism.

            You said, “Second, science classrooms do not teach that God did not create man. They cannot.”

            I’m not talking about what they teach explicitly. I’m talking about the presupposition that leads to teaching godless scientific theories.

            Secular science is based on a positive assertion/assumption that there is no God. This is indeed a very strong presupposition.

            When it comes to God, leaving Him out of the picture only happens when you deliberately deny Him.

            Secularists and atheists like to say that they don’t promote any particular view, but rather, they just avoid the sticky questions about God. They don’t understand that you can only do this if you deny God. Knowing God, and knowing that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life, and that no man comes to the Father except by Him, literally commands believers to preach the gospel so that people may be saved.

            Look around. Engage your moral consciousness. The burden of proof is not on Christians to prove the existence of God, but on unbelievers to prove how this came about without God. Sure, unbelievers favor Darwin’s godless explanation. Understood. That’s a theory based on a bold presupposition that God didn’t do what He says He did in the Bible, and it’s based on blind faith. That’s right. Evolutionism is a blind faith.

            You said, “This may be how you operate but this isn’t how scientists work.”

            You don’t speak for all scientists. You speak for the majority of unbelieving scientists, or at least the scientists who are unwilling or unable to express their true feelings on the matter.

            I like natural science. By God’s grace, we’ve been given an ordered universe that can be explored and understood rationally. I love that about God.

            You said, “Lastly, the Constitution of the United States forbids public schools from teaching creationism (the Christian religion) alongside science. You don’t have to like it but it’s how it is here in the US.”

            Are you talking about the establishment clause? I say bring all the religions into school for lessons, discussion and debates. As for science, teach all the science that follows from the presuppositions. We currently teach the theories derived from one particular unscientific presupposition — that of godlessness — now let’s teach the others.

            Unless you want to keep the kids ignorant.

          • Michael C

            The only presuppositions I’m seeing in this conversation are your own.

            You presuppose that to accept the scientific theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God.

            You presuppose that the scientific theory of evolution is derived from the denial of the existence of God.

            Have a nice night.

          • Brother TC

            You said, “You presuppose that to accept the scientific theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God.”

            In my first comment, I said, “(I’ll leave aside the deistic evolution option, since it’s unbiblical.)”

            There is a way to fashion evolution around an unbiblical creator who takes a hands-off approach to everything.

            I advocate teaching this line of thinking to kids as well. They ought to know about it.

            You said, “You presuppose that the scientific theory of evolution is derived from the denial of the existence of God.”

            To be more precise, the scientific theory of evolution is derived from the presuppositional denial of God as revealed in the Bible. The scientific theory of creationism, on the other hand, is derived from the presuppositional affirmation of God as revealed in the Bible.

            Two presuppositions that ought to be shared with the kids.

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        That’s completely false. The best scientists are/were Creationists.

        • Brother TC

          Very true. Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Descartes, Bacon, Boyle. Not exactly lightweights.

          • Samwise

            Every one of those scientists also believed man could not fly to the moon.

          • Brother TC

            You claimed, “Every one of those scientists also believed man could not fly to the moon… They all believed it was impossible to record sounds and images, and to send sounds and images across town and the world instantaneously.”

            How do you know what these men thought about what science could achieve? They were very optimistic about the possibilities.

            C.S. Lewis called what you’re doing “chronological snobbery.” I think that’s a good description of your fallacy.

            By the way, you’re mostly talking about technology, not science. There’s a difference.

          • Samwise

            Yes, and we likewise have no way of knowing what they would have thought about evolution had they been able to read On the Origin of Species or review any part of the mountains of the evidence identified since 1859.

            Claiming to know what these people would have thought of a theory that did not exist when they were alive is specious.

          • Brother TC

            On the Origin of Species provides a crutch for people who already don’t believe the Bible, not a reason to lose one’s faith.

            It appears that your education in evolutionary theory is lacking. Darwin didn’t come up with the idea. Darwin’s grandfather, Erasmus, was a well-known evolutionist. Furthermore, the theory of evolution dates back to at least the 6th Century BC with Anaximander, who believed man evolved from water-dwelling creatures. All the ancient Greek philosophers argued over evolution vs. fixed forms. The idea also exists in Taoism. Even Augustine favored taking a figurative view of Genesis, a view that never took hold within the larger body of Christendom until very recently with liberal Bible interpreters. The theory of evolution was well-known way before Darwin, and available to the scientists I mentioned.

            You’re the guy who claimed, without one shred of evidence, to know what these scientists believed with regard to what man could or could not achieve through scientific endeavor. Talk about specious. Meanwhile, we have their quotes where they thank God for creating an orderly universe that allows for science in the first place.

            If we taught science properly in school, you’d know all this already.

        • PumperPickle

          That doesn’t make creationism scientific. Do you know the scientific method?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Are you having trouble following my posts?

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ


  • Present both sides of the debate. Let the kids decide.

    • Tangent002 ✓

      Shall we teach the stork theory of reproduction as well? Alchemy alongside chemistry?

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        Don’t forget astrology, and the theory that the earth is held up by a turtle! Teach the controversy!

        • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

          I’m sure you didn’t mean for your turtle comment to be racist, but that’s what it sounds like.

          • Samwise

            How is that racist? The creation stories of other cultures deserve the same respect as yours. If your creation story is taught as fact, dozens of other creation stories will need equal time.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s racist because you disparaged the Native Indian account of creation and treated them as though they were idiots. I do not believe in their version of creation, but I treat those who do with respect. Shame on you.

          • Samwise

            It was actually another commenter who brought up the turtle creation myth. They recommended that it be taught.

            It is you who thinks that your creation myth, and only your myth, is entitled to be taught in public schools as fact in science classes.

            You do not extend that honor to the creation myth of any other culture.

            Personally, I think the creation myths of multiple cultures should be taught side by side as literature.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I don’t believe in a creation myth. I believe in science.

          • Samwise

            What part of science includes talking snakes, magic trees, and plant life that existed before the sun?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’d have to tell me since you’re the one talking about them.

    • MCrow

      Sounds like a great exercise in a philosophy classroom. Science classrooms, however, are for science

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        And the greatest scientists were/are Creationists.

        • MCrow

          Proof please

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Joseph Priestley (1733–1804): Nontrinitarianism clergyman who wrote the controversial work History of the Corruptions of Christianity. He is credited with discovering oxygen.[note 3]

            Isaac Milner (1750–1820): Lucasian Professor of Mathematics known for work on an important process to fabricate Nitrous acid. He was also an evangelical Anglican who co-wrote Ecclesiastical History of the Church of Christ with his brother and played a role in the religious awakening of William Wilberforce. He also led to William Frend being expelled from Cambridge for a purported attack by Frend on religion.[35]

            Samuel Vince (1749–1821): Cambridge astronomer and clergyman. He wrote Observations on the Theory of the Motion and Resistance of Fluids and The credibility of Christianity vindicated, in answer to Mr. Hume’s objections. He won the Copley Medal in 1780, before the period dealt with here ended.[36]

            Alessandro Volta (1745–1827): Italian physicist who invented the first electric battery. The unit Volt was named after him.[37]

            Andre Marie Ampere (1775–1836): one of the founders of classical electromagnetism. The unit for electric current, Ampere, is named after him.[38]

            Olinthus Gregory (1774–1841): he wrote Lessons Astronomical and Philosophical in 1793 and became mathematical master at the Royal Military Academy in 1802. An abridgment of his 1815 Letters on the Evidences of Christianity was done by the Religious Tract Society.[39]

            John Abercrombie (1780–1844), Scottish physician and Christian philosopher[40] who created the a textbook about neuropathology.

            Mary Anning (1799–1847): paleontologist who became known for discoveries of certain fossils in Lyme Regis, Dorset. Anning was devoutly religious, and attended a Congregational, then Anglican church.[41]

            William Kirby (1759–1850): A Parson-naturalist who wrote On the Power Wisdom and Goodness of God. As Manifested in the Creation of Animals and in Their History, Habits and Instincts and was a founding figure in British entomology.[42][43]

            William Buckland (1784–1856): Anglican priest/geologist who wrote Vindiciae Geologiae; or the Connexion of Geology with Religion explained. He was born in 1784, but his scientific life did not begin before the period discussed herein.[44]

            Marshall Hall (1790–1857), notable English physiologist who contributed with anatomical understanding and proposed a number of techniques in medical science. A devout Christian, his religious thoughts were collected in the biographical book Memoirs of Marshall Hall, by his widow (1861). He was also an abolitionist who opposed slavery on religious grounds. He believed slavery to be a sin against God and denial of the Christian faith.[45]

            Lars Levi Læstadius (1800–1861): botanist who started a revival movement within Lutheranism called Laestadianism. This movement is among the strictest forms of Lutheranism. As a botanist he has the author citation Laest and discovered four species.[46]

            Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864): geologist, paleontologist, and Congregationalist pastor. He worked on Natural theology and wrote on fossilized tracks.[47][48]

            Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864), chemist and science educator at Yale; the first person to distill petroleum, and a founder of the American Journal of Science, the oldest scientific journal in the United States. An outspoken Christian,[49] he was an old-earth creationist who openly rejected materialism.

            Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866): son of a pastor, [note 4] he entered the University of Göttingen at the age of 19, originally to study philology and theology in order to become a pastor and help with his family’s finances. Changed to mathematics upon the suggestion of Gauss.[50] He made lasting contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, and differential geometry, some of them enabling the later development of general relativity.

            William Whewell (1794–1866): professor of mineralogy and moral philosophy. He wrote An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics in 1819 and Astronomy and General Physics considered with reference to Natural Theology in 1833.[51][52] He is the wordsmith who coined the terms “scientist”, “physicist”, “anode”, “cathode” and many other commonly used scientific words.

            Michael Faraday (1791–1867): Glasite church elder for a time, he discussed the relationship of science to religion in a lecture opposing Spiritualism.[53][54] He is known for his contributions in establishing electromagnetic theory and his work in chemistry such as establishing electrolysis.

            James David Forbes (1809–1868) physicist and glaciologist who worked extensively on the conduction of heat and seismology. He was a devout Christian as can be seen in the work “Life and Letters of James David Forbes” (1873).

            Charles Babbage (1791–1871), mathematician and analytical philosopher known as the first computer scientist who originated the idea of a programmable computer. He wrote the Ninth Bridgewater Treatise,[55][56] and the Passages from the Life of a Philosopher (1864) where he raised arguments to rationally defend the belief in miracles.[57]

            Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873): Anglican priest and geologist whose, A Discourse on the Studies of the University discusses the relationship of God and man. In science he won both the Copley Medal and the Wollaston Medal.[58]

            Temple Chevallier (1794–1873): Priest and astronomer who did Of the proofs of the divine power and wisdom derived from the study of astronomy. He also founded the Durham University Observatory, hence the Durham Shield is pictured.[59]

            John Bachman (1790–1874): wrote numerous scientific articles and named several species of animals. He also was a founder of the Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary and wrote works on Lutheranism.[60]

            Robert Main (1808–1878): Anglican priest who won the Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1858. Robert Main also preached at the British Association of Bristol.[61]

            James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879): Although Clerk as a boy was taken to Presbyterian services by his father and to Anglican services by his aunt, while still a young student at Cambridge he underwent an Evangelical conversion that he described as having given him a new perception of the Love of God.[note 5] Maxwell’s evangelicalism “committed him to an anti-positivist position.”[62][63] He is known for his contributions in establishing electromagnetic theory (Maxwell’s Equations) and work on the chemical kinetic theory of gases.

            James Bovell (1817–1880), Canadian physician and microscopist who was member of Royal College of Physicians. He was the mentor of William Osler, as well as an Anglican minister and religious author who wrote about natural theology.[64]

            Andrew Pritchard (1804 –1882): English naturalist and natural history dealer who made significant improvements to microscopy and wrote the standard work on aquatic micro-organisms. He devoted much energy to the chapel he attended, Newington Green Unitarian Church.

            Gregor Mendel (1822–1884): Augustinian Abbot who was the “father of modern genetics” for his study of the inheritance of traits in pea plants.[65] He preached sermons at Church, one of which deals with how Easter represents Christ’s victory over death.[66]

            Philip Henry Gosse (1810–1888): Marine biologist who wrote Aquarium (1854), and A Manual of Marine Zoology (1855–56). He is more famous, or infamous, as a Christian Fundamentalist who coined the idea of Omphalos (theology).[67]

            Asa Gray (1810–1888): His Gray’s Manual remains a pivotal work in botany. His Darwiniana has sections titled “Natural selection not inconsistent with Natural theology”, “Evolution and theology”, and “Evolutionary teleology.” The preface indicates his adherence to the Nicene Creed in concerning these religious issues.[68]

            Julian Tenison Woods (1832–1889): co-founder of the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart who won a Clarke Medal shortly before death. A picture from Waverley Cemetery, where he’s buried, is shown.[69]

            James Dwight Dana (1813–1895): A geologist, mineralogist, and zoologist. He received the Copley Medal, Wollaston Medal, and the Clarke Medal. He also wrote a book titled Science and the Bible and his faith has been described as “both orthodox and intense.”[70]

            John William Dawson (1820–1899), Canadian geologist who was the first President of the Royal Society of Canada and served as President of both the British and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. A presbyterian, he spoke against Darwin’s theory and came to write The Origin of the World, According to Revelation and Science (1877) where he put together his theological and scientific views.[71]

            Armand David (1826–1900): Catholic missionary to China and member of the Lazarists who considered his religious duties to be his principal concern. He was also a botanist with the author abbreviation David and as a zoologist he described several species new to the West.[72]

          • Samwise

            Many christians since Darwin accept the Theory of Evolution while maintaining their belief in the Christian god.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure … and there is nothing in scripture about any kind of “evolution” as the mechanism God used ….. so which came first ….. the chicken or the egg …. or the dinosaur or the egg ….. please tell us which …… using “evolution” ……. maintaining a lie and your “belief” in the christian God is not compatible ………

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Armand David (1826–1900): Catholic missionary to China and member of the Lazarists who considered his religious duties to be his principal concern. He was also a botanist with the author abbreviation David and as a zoologist he described several species new to the West.[72]

            John Hall Gladstone (1827–1902): served as President of the Physical Society between 1874 and 1876 and during 1877–1879 was President of the Chemical Society. He also belonged to the Christian Evidence Society.[80][81]

            George Stokes (1819–1903): minister’s son, he wrote a book on Natural Theology. He was also one of the Presidents of the Royal Society and made contributions to Fluid dynamics.[82][83]

            Henry Baker Tristram (1822–1906): founding member of the British Ornithologists’ Union. His publications included The Natural History of the Bible (1867) and The Fauna and Flora of Palestine (1884).[84]

            Enoch Fitch Burr (1818–1907): astronomer and Congregational Church pastor who lectured extensively on the relationship between science and religion. He also wrote Ecce Coelum: or Parish Astronomy in 1867. He once stated that “an undevout astronomer is mad” and held a strong belief in extraterrestrial life.[85][86]

            Lord Kelvin (1824–1907): At the University of Glasgow he did important work in the mathematical analysis of electricity and formulation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. He gave a famous address to the Christian Evidence Society. In science he won the Copley Medal and the Royal Medal.[87]

            William Dallinger (1839–1909): British minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church and an accomplished scientist who studied the complete lifecycle of unicellular organisms under the microscope.[88]
            Wilhelm Röntgen (1845–1923) was a German engineer and physicist, who, on 8 November 1895, produced and detected electromagnetic radiation in a wavelength range known as X-rays or Röntgen rays, an achievement that earned him the first Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901[89]

            Giuseppe Mercalli (1850–1914) was an Italian volcanologist and Catholic priest. He is best remembered for the Mercalli intensity scale for measuring earthquakes.

            Pierre Duhem (1861–1916): worked on Thermodynamic potentials and wrote histories advocating that the Roman Catholic Church helped advance science.[90][91][92][93][94]

            James Britten (1846–1924): botanist who was heavily involved in the Catholic Truth Society.[95][96]

            Charles Doolittle Walcott (1850–1927): Walcott was a paleontologist, most notable for his discovery of the Burgess Shale of British Columbia. The late Stephen Jay Gould said that Walcott, “discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes.”[97]

            Johannes Reinke (1849–1931): German phycologist and naturalist who founded the German Botanical Society. An opposer of Darwinism and the secularization of science, he wrote Kritik der Abstammungslehre (Critique of the theory of evolution), (1920), and Naturwissenschaft, Weltanschauung, Religion, (Science, philosophy, religion), (1923). He was a devout Lutheran.[98]

            Guglielmo Marconi (1874–1937): was an Italian inventor and electrical engineer known for his pioneering work on long-distance radio transmission and for his development of Marconi’s law and a radio telegraph system. He shared the 1909 Nobel Prize in Physics.[99][100]

            Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955): French Jesuit paleontologist, co-discoverer of the Peking Man, noted for his work on evolutionary theory and Christianity. He postulated the Omega Point as the end-goal of Evolution and he is widely regarded as one of the most important Catholic theologians of the 20th century.

            William Williams Keen (1837–1932): first brain surgeon in the United States, and a prominent surgical pathologist who served as President of the American Medical Association. He also wrote I believe in God and in evolution.[101]

            Francis Patrick Garvan (1875–1937): Priestley Medalist who received a “Mendel Medal” from Villanova University, was mentioned by Catholic Action as a “prominent Catholic layman”, and was involved with the Catholic University of America.[102][103]

            Pavel Florensky (1882–1937): Russian Orthodox priest who wrote a book on Dielectrics and wrote of imaginary numbers having a relationship to the Kingdom of God.[104]

            Eberhard Dennert (1861–1942): German naturalist and botanist who founded the Kepler Union, a group of German intellectuals who strongly opposed Haeckel’s Monist League and Darwin’s theory.[105] A Lutheran, he wrote Vom Sterbelager des Darwinismus, which had an authorized English translation under the name At The Deathbed of Darwinism (1904).

            George Washington Carver (1864–1943): American scientist, botanist, educator, and inventor. Carver believed he could have faith both in God and science and integrated them into his life. He testified on many occasions that his faith in Jesus was the only mechanism by which he could effectively pursue and perform the art of science.[106]

            Arthur Eddington (1882–1944): British astrophysicist of the early 20th century. He was also a philosopher of science and a popularizer of science. The Eddington limit, the natural limit to the luminosity of stars, or the radiation generated by accretion onto a compact object, is named in his honor. He is famous for his work regarding the theory of relativity. Eddington was a lifelong Quaker, and gave the Gifford Lectures in 1927.[107]

            Alexis Carrel (1873–1944): French surgeon and biologist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1912 for pioneering vascular suturing techniques.[108]

            Charles Glover Barkla (1877–1944): British physicist, and the winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1917 for his work in X-ray spectroscopy and related areas in the study of X-rays (Roentgen rays).[109] Mr. Barkla was a Methodist and considered his work to be part of the quest for God, the Creator”.[110][111][112]

            John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945): in science he is noted for the Right-hand rule and work on vacuum tubes. He also won the Hughes Medal. In religious activities he was President of the Victoria Institute, and preached at St Martin-in-the-Fields.[113][114][115]

            Philipp Lenard (1862–1947): German physicist and the winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1905 for his research on cathode rays and the discovery of many of their properties. He was also an active proponent of the Nazi ideology.[116][117]

            Robert Millikan (1868–1953): second son of Reverend Silas Franklin Millikan, he wrote about the reconciliation of science and religion in books like Evolution in Science and Religion. He won the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics.[118][119][120][121][122]

            Charles Stine (1882–1954): son of a minister who was VP of DuPont. In religion he wrote A Chemist and His Bible and as a chemist he won the Perkin Medal.[123]

            Max Born (1882–1970): was a German physicist and mathematician who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics. Born won the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physics for his “fundamental research in Quantum Mechanics, especially in the statistical interpretation of the wave function”[124][125][126]

            E. T. Whittaker (1873–1956): converted to Catholicism in 1930 and member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. His 1946 Donnellan Lecture was entitled on Space and Spirit. Theories of the Universe and the Arguments for the Existence of God. He also received the Copley Medal and had written on Mathematical physics before conversion.[127]

            Arthur Compton (1892–1962): won a Nobel Prize in Physics. He also was a deacon in the Baptist Church and wrote an article in Christianity Takes a Stand that supported the controversial idea of the United States maintaining the peace through a nuclear-armed air force.[128][129]

            Ronald Fisher (1890–1962): English statistician, evolutionary biologist and geneticist. He preached sermons and published articles in church magazines.[130]

            Georges Lemaître (1894–1966): Roman Catholic priest who was first to propose the Big Bang theory.[131]

            Kathleen Lonsdale (1903–1971): notable Irish crystallographer, the first woman tenured professor at University College London, first woman president of the International Union of Crystallography, and first woman president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. She converted to Quakerism and was an active Christian pacifist. She was the first secretary of the Churches’ Council of Healing and delivered a Swarthmore Lecture.

            Neil Kensington Adam (1891–1973): British chemist who wrote the article A CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST’S APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF NATURAL SCIENCE.[132][133]

            David Lack (1910–1973): Director of the Edward Grey Institute of Field Ornithology and in part known for his study of the genus Euplectes. He converted to Anglicanism at 38 and wrote Evolutionary Theory and Christian Belief in 1957.[134][135]

            Hugh Stott Taylor (1910–1974): chemist who received Villanova University’s “Mendel Medal”[136] and was made a Knight Commander of the Papal Order of St. Gregory the Great.[137]

            Charles Coulson (1910–1974): Methodist who wrote Science and Christian Belief in 1955. In 1970 he won the Davy Medal.[138]

            George R. Price (1922–1975): American population geneticist who while a strong atheist converted to Christianity. He went on to write commentaries on the New Testament and dedicated portions of his life to helping the poor.[139]

            Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–1975): Russian Orthodox geneticist who criticized young Earth creationism in an essay, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” and argued that science and faith did not conflict.[140][141]

            Werner Heisenberg (1901–1976): German theoretical physicist and one of the key pioneers of quantum mechanics. Heisenberg was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for 1932 “for the creation of quantum mechanics”.[142]

            Michael Polanyi (1891–1976): born Jewish, but became a Christian. In 1926 he was appointed to a Chemistry chair in Berlin, but in 1933 when Hitler came to power he accepted a Chemistry chair (and then in 1948 a Social Sciences chair) at the University of Manchester. In 1946 he wrote Science, Faith, and Society ISBN 0-226-67290-5.[143]

            Wernher von Braun (1912–1977): “one of the most important rocket developers and champions of space exploration during the period between the 1930s and the 1970s.”[144] He was a Lutheran who as a youth and young man had little interest in religion. But as an adult he developed a firm belief in the Lord and in the afterlife. He was pleased to have opportunities to speak to peers (and anybody else who would listen) about his faith and Biblical beliefs.[145]

            Pascual Jordan (1902–1980): German theoretical and mathematical physicist who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. He contributed much to the mathematical form of matrix mechanics, and developed canonical anticommutation relations for fermions.[146][147]

            Peter Stoner (1888–1980): co-founder of the American Scientific Affiliation who wrote Science Speaks.[148][149]

            Henry Eyring (1901–1981): American chemist known for developing the Eyring equation. Also a Latter-Day Saint whose interactions with LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith on science and faith are a part of LDS history.[150][151]
            Mary Kenneth Keller (1914–1985): American nun who was the first woman to earn a PhD in Computer Science in the US.[152]

            William G. Pollard (1911–1989): Anglican priest who wrote Physicist and Christian. In addition he worked on the Manhattan Project and for years served as the executive director of Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies.[153]

            Frederick Rossini (1899–1990): American noted for his work in chemical thermodynamics. In science he received the Priestley Medal and the National Medal of Science. An example of the second medal is pictured. As a Catholic he received the Laetare Medal of the University of Notre Dame. He was dean of the College of Science at Notre Dame from 1960 to 1971, a position he may have taken partly due to his faith.[154][155]

            Aldert van der Ziel (1910–1991): researched Flicker noise and has the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers named an award for him. He also was a conservative Lutheran who wrote The Natural Sciences and the Christian Message.[156]
            Jérôme Lejeune (1926–1994): French pediatrician and geneticist known for research into chromosome abnormalities, particularly Down syndrome. He was the first President of the Pontifical Academy for Life and has been named a “Servant of God.”[157][158]

            Alonzo Church (1903–1995): American mathematician and logician who made major contributions to mathematical logic and the foundations of theoretical computer science. He was a lifelong member of the Presbyterian church.[159]

            Ernest Walton (1903–1995): Irish physicist who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1951 for his work with John Cockcroft with “atom-smashing” experiments done at Cambridge University in the early 1930s, and so became the first person in history to artificially split the atom, thus ushering the nuclear age. He spoke on science and faith topics.[160]

            Nevill Francis Mott (1905–1996): Anglican, was a Nobel Prize-winning physicist known for explaining the effect of light on a photographic emulsion.[161] He was baptized at 80 and edited Can Scientists Believe?.[162]

            Mary Celine Fasenmyer (1906–1996): member of the Sisters of Mercy known for Sister Celine’s polynomials. Her work was also important to WZ Theory.[163]

            John Eccles (1903–1997): Nobel laureate and neurophysiologist who was a devout theist and a practicing Catholic.[164]

            Arthur Leonard Schawlow (1921–1999): Arthur Shawlow was an American physicist who is best remembered for his work on lasers, for which he shared the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physics. Shawlow was a “fairy Orthodox Protestant.”[165] In an interview, he commented regarding God: “I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.”[166]

            Carlos Chagas Filho (1910–2000): Neuroscientist who headed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for 16 years. He studied the Shroud of Turin and his “the Origin of the Universe”, “the Origin of Life”, and “the Origin of Man” involved an understanding between Catholicism and Science. He was from Rio de Janeiro.[167]

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            2001–today (21st century)
            Sir Robert Boyd (1922–2004): pioneer in British space science who was Vice President of the Royal Astronomical Society. He lectured on faith being a founder of the “Research Scientists’ Christian Fellowship” and an important member of its predecessor Christians in Science.[168]

            Alberto Dou Mas de Xaxàs (1915–2009): Spanish/Catalan Jesuit priest and one of the foremost mathematicians of his country. He was a member of the Royal Academy of Sciences and a Professor of Mathematics at Universidad Complutense de Madrid and he was Rector of Universidad de Deusto from 1974 to 1977.

            Richard Smalley (1943–2005): A Nobel laureate in Chemistry known for buckyballs. In his last years he renewed an interest in Christianity and supported Old Earth Creationism

            Mariano Artigas (1938–2006): He had doctorates in both physics and philosophy. He belonged to the European Association for the Study of Science and Theology and also received a grant from the Templeton Foundation for his work in the area of science and religion.[169]

            J. Laurence Kulp (1921–2006): Plymouth Brethren member who led major studies on the effects of nuclear fallout and acid rain. He was a prominent advocate in American Scientific Affiliation circles in favor of an Old Earth and against flood geology.[170][171][172][173]

            Arthur Peacocke (1924–2006): Anglican priest and biochemist, his ideas may have influenced Anglican and Lutheran views of evolution. Winner of the 2001 Templeton Prize[174]

            John Billings (1918–2007): Australian physician who developed the Billings ovulation method of Natural family planning. In 1969, Billings was made a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Gregory the Great (KCSG) by Pope Paul VI.[175]
            Russell L. Mixter (1906–2007): Noted for leading the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) away from anti-evolutionism, and for his advocacy of progressive creationism.[173][176]

            C. F. von Weizsäcker (1912–2007): German nuclear physicist who is the co-discoverer of the Bethe-Weizsäcker formula. His The Relevance of Science: Creation and Cosmogony concerned Christian and moral impacts of science. He headed the Max Planck Society from 1970 to 1980. After that he retired to be a Christian pacifist.[177]

            Stanley Jaki (1924–2009): Benedictine priest and Distinguished Professor of Physics at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, who won a Templeton Prize and advocated the idea modern science could only have arisen in a Christian society.[178]

            Allan Sandage (1926–2010): astronomer who did not really study Christianity until after age forty. He wrote the article A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief and made discoveries concerning the Cigar Galaxy.[179][180][181][182]

            Ernan McMullin (1924–2011): Ordained in 1949 as a catholic priest, McMullin was a philosopher of science who taught at the University of Notre Dame. McMullin wrote on the relationship between cosmology and theology, the role of values in understanding science, and the impact of science on Western religious thought, in books such as Newton on Matter and Activity (1978) and The Inference that Makes Science (1992). He was also an expert on the life of Galileo.[183] McMullin also opposed intelligent design and defended theistic evolution.[184]

            Joseph Murray (1919–2012): Catholic surgeon who pioneered transplant surgery. He won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1990.[185]
            Ian Barbour (1923–2013): Physicist who wrote Christianity and the Scientists in 1960, and When Science Meets Religion ISBN 0-06-060381-X in 2000.[186]

            Charles H. Townes (1915–2015): In 1964 he won the Nobel Prize in Physics and in 1966 he wrote The Convergence of Science and Religion.[187][188]
            Peter E. Hodgson (1928–2008): British physicist, was one of the first to identify the K meson and its decay into three pions, and a consultant to the Pontifical Council for Culture.

            Nicola Cabibbo (1935–2010): Italian physicist, discoverer of the universality of weak interactions (Cabibbo angle), President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences from 1993 until his death.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            want more …………….

          • MCrow

            Yep. Because unless you can definitively prove that every important discovery ever was made by creationists and only creationists, the statement that was made was false

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope …. all of science comes from the christian world view …… the a-theist has nothing but stolen ideas ………..

          • MCrow

            You need more material. You’re getting predictable.

            Science comes from a (gasp) scientific worldview. There is no conflict with religion, so long as they remain respectful of one another. Science doesn’t tell you how to worship your god, and your religion shouldn’t tell me that observable facts are wrong because of a book of parables

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are predictable and you have no material ….. and no idea ….. and stolen worldviews ….. and no OBJECTIVE MORALITY ….. just your puny opinion ………

          • MCrow

            I am actually laughing. You literally are repeating the same arguments and adding “and so are you.” I’ve heard better arguments from my students in schoolyard fights.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            FYI …… Evolution ……..came from a Jesuit PRIEST …… Pierre Teilhard de Chardin …….. stolen by A-theists …..

            Big bang theory ….. came from a Jesuit PRIEST …… Georges Lemaître ….. stolen AGAIN by A-theists …….

            they are all wrong …… but A-theists cant even steal properly ………….. nor do they have even one answer to anything ………….

          • MCrow

            Fun fact: Jesuits are rarely creationists. Catholicism views Genesis as the Jews generally do. It’s a parable. Told by a people who used parables as a way to teach religious truths.

            Like Jesus did.

            Tell me, if the Good Samaritan was just a story that didn’t actually happen, does that invalidate all of Jesus’s teachings?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            fun fact … they both are wrong so it matters not …….. and a-theists still stole the idea ………

          • MCrow

            Proof offered is still 0. You’re insisting you’re right because…well, gosh darn it, because you think you’re right! Just like everyone with a religion believes about theirs with just as much evidence.

            You ever wonder why the Jews, who only have the Septuagint as their holy text, are not heard more in the Creationism debates? It’s because the text that you Christians stole from them is misinterpreted by you.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again … not my job to convince you of a truth that you want to reject ….. so i do not care …….

          • MCrow

            If you don’t care, you can stop replying any time

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            FYI … it is GODS text ….. and He cannot “steal” from Himself ….. and He gives it freely to any who want the Truth ………. and it is the exact same God ……. so nothing to steal or was stolen …. just truth you want to reject ………

          • MCrow

            Once again, you conflate “you” with “God.” I am not accusing someone I don’t believe exists of anything: I’m accusing you. The fact that you so readily associate yourself with God is something you should really examine

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            NOPE …. you conflate God with a myth and you have no evidence …….. nor do you have evidence of anything ….. at all ……. and you are boring ………

          • MCrow

            Over several threads, I’ve given you the chance to prove your beliefs definitively. Every time, you refuse. I have provided evidence for mine, which causes you to accuse me of being a thief, liar, and sinner without, I might add, actually showing how those things are true.

            So, once more, will you continue to insult me, showing that your faith really is nothing but degenerating others, or do you want to establish your positive position?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            and i have told you again and again ….. it is not my job to convince you of anything …… if you are not convinced by the truth then that is your problem …… it is only my job to PRESENT the truth to you …… there is no “proof” of the truth ……. it is self evident to those who hear it ……. and you CANT ……. hear it that is ………

          • MCrow

            You haven’t presented anything other than “submit to my interpretation of religion.” Again, you set yourself up as God: thy will be done. I do not worship you, nor will I ever.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            i most certainly have not …… i have told you to pick up your bible and READ it ……. and you are again a LIAR ………………… and you have said ….. “I cannot worship a god like that …..” …… and so you reject before you even begin ….. but i am supposed to argue with you …… to accept what you will never accept ……. is there any light in that dark dank place you have put your cranium …………….. how did you get your skull through such a tiny orafice ………….

          • MCrow

            Except that any interpretation of the Bible that disagrees with yours you disparage as being false. You have decried numerous people as having the ‘wrong’ interpretation and that yours is the ‘correct’ one on this very forum. It’s not about the Bible, it’s about you. And the fact that you resort to insults shows you have no arguments.

            You just want to be special. Which is why Calvinism is such a good fit: you get to be a super special chosen one through random chance

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            again …. whatever dewd …………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “you get to be a super special chosen one through random chance”

            was not “random” ….. i do not know why … but that does not make it random ………

            “And the fact that you resort to insults shows you have no arguments.”

            more HYPOCRISY from you as that is ALL you just hurled ….. and made everyone else HURL …..

          • MCrow

            I actually find a lot of beauty in the Bible, I just don’t think it’s a history and science document. Still an interesting piece of literature.

            And again, you blame me for something you say I have no control over but you seem intent on condemning me for it. Like it’s a choice or something

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            see …. what a mushmouth you are ……….. you cant even hold a consistent worldview ….. and as i said …… you steal your worldview …………. you have control over your CHOICES …… now you may not like one of the choices ……. it is as i said ….. YOU have a choice …. a creaturely choice ….. and you are held responsible for your choices ….. but you think you get to blame God because you do not like the choice HE has given you …… not one word in the bible is about fairness ….. LIFE is not fair …… but all you can seem to do is bellyache about the choice you do not desire to make …… you ACTUALLY like the choice you have made …….. and you STILL want to bellyache about it ……………. and that is YOUR only reason for being here ………………. bellyache …………

          • MCrow

            I think the Bible is a lovely set of stories, but I no more want to shape my life around it than I do around the Odyssey or Gilgamesh, which are also lovely stories. I do like the choices I’ve made in life. I’m happy with them. My issue comes in when people want to use those stories to justify treating others and other beliefs as less than who and what they are. My major malfunction in your eyes is that I don’t conform to your worldview.

            P.S. Stop stealing from a Jewish worldview

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I noticed you’ve moved the goal post because you were unable to refute the response I gave you, and now you are personally attacking Amos Moses for something I said. Why is that? Don’t be dishonest. Look at the facts.

          • MCrow

            Where did I move the goalposts? I asked you to prove that “the greatest scientists were creationists” as you stated. Amos has provided a list, but nowhere does he actually say they are creationists, merely religious. Not all religious are creationists, and it is dishonest to claim so.

            Are some? Sure. A nobel prize winner said Vitamin C prevents colds, which there is no evidence for. People buy into it.

            Amos has leveled numerous personal attacks at me, joined in of his own volition, and I am pointing out the flaws in his arguing. Yes, I am attacking and defending. He inserted himself in. Those points have nothing to do with you, but if you feel the need to protect him from himself, maybe tell him so

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I gave you a list, which you conveniently ignored, and then you attacked Moses Amos because you couldn’t refute what I told you. Why be insincere?

          • MCrow

            You posted a list that I had to dig around in the thread for.

            Amos replied directly to a comment I made. Again, he entered the conversation of his own volition. I’m not the one being insincere.

            Both lists are people who happen to be both religious and scientists. Again, there is nothing wrong with that, but it does not prove your statement that they were creationists. Further, not all the scientists mentioned specialize in biology (for evolutionary theory) or astrophysics (for universal cosmology), and so act outside of their specialization. And any scientist who existed before science was able to form the theories of evolution and universal cosmology must be discounted: they acted on what was available, and we do not know what they would have believed. Finally, any scientist who existed in a period where ‘heresy’ was a punishable offense must be discounted as the threat of physical violence was in play.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are mischaracterizing what I said. You don’t have to dig for my list. It is available via your disqus dashboard. You also can verify that the list of names I gave you are considered to be some of the most important scientists in history, and you can also verify, via their biographies, that they believed in God.

          • MCrow

            You never replied to me, but someone else, so yes, I had to go looking.

            Belief in god is not the same as being a creationist. Einstein believed in a god, but did not support creationism or any institutionalized religion.

            I’ve not contested their belief in a deity. Many humans throughout history have. I’m contesting that they were creationists as you claimed. You are the claimant, burden of proof lies with you

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            My statement is that yes, Einstein did believe in God and you, yourself, have just confirmed that. You also dismissed the reply that I made directly to you, not to another.

          • MCrow

            Saying that belief in god means being creationist is a false equivilancy

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I didn’t say that he was a creationist. I said that he believed in God.

          • MCrow

            Your initial, very first post, stated “creationist.” If you want to back down from that, please, feel free

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            My first post about Einstein identified him as someone who believed in God. Read my posts very carefully.

          • MCrow

            “And the greatest scientists were/are Creationists” – You

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yes, and I never said Einstein was one of the greatest scientists. 🙂 In fact, there are quite a few who think that his first wife, Mileva Maric, really did his work for him. There is some disagreement on that topic, but it’s interesting to note, he never did any physics after their divorce.

          • MCrow

            Einstein published papers on gravitational lenses and wormhole theory well after his divorce. While there is evidence they collaborated, there’s nothing to suggest she did all the work

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            He never did any physics after their divorce. That’s indisputable. There is some debate about how much of his work she did for him.

          • MCrow

            Literally listed two physics theories he published on after their divorce…

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Check again.

          • MCrow

            Ok. Post 1919, after his divorce, there are dozens of published documents written by Einstein, including papers on quantum theory, 12 books, and numerous book chapters.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Nope. He did no NEW science after their divorce.

          • MCrow

            I assume by “new” you mean “groundbreaking.” While perhaps accurate, that’s not really surprising. Most scientists work on pre-existing theories and expand upon knowledge which has been built up by doing their own hypothesizing and testing. Most scientists don’t publish papers that shake the foundations of what is known, but aid in making steady progress is the expansion of human knowledge. Nevertheless, his papers demonstrate that he was a great scientist with knowledge and dedication to his field

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            He only did new science when he was with Mileva Maric. She was the genius.

          • MCrow


          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Scroll up.

          • DrIndica

            Chardin was born one year before Charles Darwin died. Now you are just making up kooky lies.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Darwin didn’t invent evolution. He jumped on a racist theory spouted by others and mushroomed it into an even more unbelievable fairy tale. Didn’t you know that?

          • DrIndica

            The only fairy tale here is your ridiculous god hoax…good bye.

          • Samwise

            Yes, the fact of Evolution was fairly widely accepted by many before On the Origin of Species. Darwin and Wallace were the first to identify natural selection as the primary cause / driver of evolutionary change.

            There is nothing racist about Darwin’s theory. If you had read On the Origin od Species you would know that use of the term “favored races” in the subtitle refers to varieties of plants and animals. The first use of races in the book makes it clear that race was synonymous with “varieties.” Specifically, “the several races, for instance, of the cabbage” and “the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I have read Darwin’s works. They are plenty racist, as was Darwin himself. His references to Australians and other groups as “low”, “degraded”, and “savage” and other disparaging terms. Even evolutionists acknowledge such, but blame it on the times. However, there were plenty of people in Darwin’s time who were not racists and who did not build an entire fairy tale on racism.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Chardin was involved in numerous hoaxes involving “confirmations” of the theory and is credited with those …. Piltdown man and others …… and that man “evolved” from other lower forms ……

            Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ (French: [pjɛʁ tejaʁ də ʃaʁdɛ̃] (About this sound listen (help·info)); 1 May 1881 – 10 April 1955) was a French idealist philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist and took part in the discovery of Peking Man. He conceived the vitalist idea of the Omega Point (a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving) and developed Vladimir Vernadsky’s concept of noosphere.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            See my post on this thread where I name names.

          • slatyb

            You can look up their biographies. About 2/3 of US scientists today do not believe in God.

          • MCrow

            Yep. And lo and behold, advancements in science continue unburdened by the belief in a deity

        • ♥LadyInChrist♥InGodITrust♥


        • slatyb

          About half of US scientists today do not believe in a personal God.
          All the famous 20th century physicists (Einstein, Bohr, Feinman, Fermi, etc.) were atheists.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Einstein believed in God. So did all the greats like Faraday, Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Petty, Barrow, Herschel, etc. So do Damadian, Whitmore, Yee, Meyer, Shim, etc., all alive today.

          • slatyb

            Wikipedia: Albert Einstein’s religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood.[1] Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza.[2] He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.[3] He clarified however that, “I am not an atheist”,[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a “religious nonbeliever.”[3] Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding “one life is enough for me.”[6]

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            First of all, wiki isn’t reliable. Anyone can write anything there, including you or me. That said, your own citations prove that a.) Einstein believed in God, and b.) there are contradictions in your own claims regarding Einstein’s personal belief system. 🙂

            Now read my post carefully. I did not state that Einstein was a born again Christian. I stated that Einstein believed in God.

        • PumperPickle

          It doesn’t matter. Creationism still isn’t science. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Evolution isn’t science. You need to look up with “appeal to authority” means. 🙂

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      ITA. I was taught both sides in public school.

    • PumperPickle

      Yeah, lets spend more tax dollars on an already severely underfunded system.. just to teach mythology in science classrooms.

      Because student education hasn’t failed the previous generations enough already.

      • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        Evolution is mythology.

    • Samwise

      Do we let kids decide if they will be taught the earth orbits the sun?

      Do we let kids decide if they will be taught that water is a molecule consisting of 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom?

  • Steve03

    But WHICH Biblical creation account is to be taught?
    The pre-exilic account (Isaiah 27:1 and 51:9-10, Psalm 89:10, Psalm 74:12-17), Genesis 2:4b-24, Genesis 1:1-2:4a, Psalm 104, Proverbs 8:22-31, Colossians 1:15-20, or John 1:1-14?

  • James C. Robinson (III)

    Hi, Heather Clark! Furthermore, truly, I praise & thank the LORD God Almighty of creation that Alabama lawmaker & Representative Steve Hurst introduced this bill which allows Biblical Creation to really be taught in schools[!❤?

  • PumperPickle

    If I was a Biology Professor, and I was forced to teach creationism, I would flat out remind my students that creationism is just a hypothesis, and evolution is a scientific theory ;).

    • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      It’s not hard to believe that, not only are you not a biology teacher, but that you have no scientific background at all. 🙂 However, there are plenty of actual scientists who do teach and support Creationism.