Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×



Details

Submitted on
May 5, 2012
Image Size
33.8 KB
Resolution
99×56
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
2,265 (1 today)
Favourites
248 (who?)
Comments
248
Downloads
16
×
Stamp: Evolution in Church by 8manderz8 Stamp: Evolution in Church by 8manderz8
"So you want to teach creationism in our schools? Ok. Let us teach evolution in your church, then."

Inspired by a bumper sticker I saw on zee interwebz.

I do love poking fun at creationists, I'm sorry =P


Template: [link]



:pointr:Click here for ALL of my Stamps
:pointr:Click here for Religious Stamps
:pointr:Click here for Political Stamps
Add a Comment:
 
:iconcrazygamerchix:
crazygamerchix Apr 15, 2014  Student Artist
well actually, school teaches many religions.... chuches only teach one religion...

nuff said.
Reply
:iconexsakura:
ExSakura Mar 22, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
If they're gonna teach Christian creationism, they have to teach ALL the creationism: Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, Jainist, etc.  Otherwise, it's not fair.
Reply
:iconspetsnazkaz:
SpetsnazKaz Mar 11, 2014  New member Hobbyist Traditional Artist
"We claim that the defendant is not guilty, but as the court has excluded any testimony, except as to the one issue as to whether he taught that man descended from a lower order of animals, and we cannot contradict that testimony, there is no logical thing to come except that the jury find a verdict that we may carry to the higher court, purely as a matter of proper procedure. We do not think it is fair to the court or counsel on the other side to waste a lot of time when we know this is the inevitable result and probably the best result for the case." -Clarence Darrow, Scopes Trial, 1925
Reply
:iconlolipop01:
Lolipop01 Feb 22, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
You're implying Creationism is not scientific whereas Evolution is and that's why it's taught in school. That's getting quite old by now.

Both Evolution and Creationism are both theories that cannot be tested or observed in a lab. Every fact and evidences used for either is based on interpretation and can be disputed. Evolution is the BEST theory so far and that's why it's taught in schools until a better one arrives.

Evolution which is oh so scientific goes against the laws of Thermodynamics and the idea of life arriving from non-life and making relatives of rocks and fish also goes against the Law of Biogenesis. Science should show we're not getting better as time goes one, we're actually degenerating. Think about mutations. Evolution calls for mutations, but mutations are more bad than good, even neutral mutations can eventually build up to cause a negative impact.

I personally think Creationism should be briefed as an alternative alongside evolution in a course in biology, but not have it's own course unless it gains more attention from students or staff. Isn't that what all of you atheists wanted? A choice and not have one forced on you? Well, this is it, to have the children choose their beliefs of either the Creationism Theory or Evolution Myth (see? I can be biased like you too!)

Hopefully nobody takes this as "uneducated" and supporting "brainwashing" (and evolution isn't?).
Reply
:icon8manderz8:
8manderz8 Mar 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Creationism isn't scientific. It's based on religion, on faith.  Faith and religion are not science. They cannot be tested and observed. 

Evolution HAS been tested.  It's been observed.  We can make predictions based off of our knowledge of evolution. 8 Examples of Evolution in Action, Observations of Evolution

Creationist claims have not been tested, have not been observed, and cannot make predictions.  


Regarding mutations -- Mutations are not always bad things. A mutation is a change in the genetic material of an organism, simple as that. Mutations can be neutral, strictly harmful, and strictly helpful. Their helpfulness depends on the environment they're in.  Here's a great example: 


Finally, I think Neil DeGrasse Tyson said quite simply what I and most other people who oppose creationism think on the idea of creationism being taught in biology: 

"I object to religion in science classrooms not because it's religion, but because it's not science." 

Creationism (and by extension, Intelligent Design) is religion trying to masquerade itself as science, which it simply isn't.  


That all said, please explain evolution to me as you understand it. 
Reply
:iconlolipop01:
Lolipop01 Apr 1, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
I know evolution can be tested and observed. Red and white flowers producing pink flowers (acquired characteristics). Polar bears adapting to the cold climate (adaptation). I actually accept all that.

What I don't accept are the assumptions, GUESSING how life began, filling in the gaps, and ultimately rejecting the Holy Bible. It is based on beliefs, it is based on faith and it cannot be tested or observed and has absolutely no scientific basis. That's what evolution is! Nobody has observed a lizard turning into a bird.

Creationism and ID shouldn't be taught in school, you're right, but it's because other religions will want in too. But it should be mentioned at least, get rid of that oppressive barrier that's building in the scientific community that fires their own for merely saying the words in a classroom setting or article. Literally.
My standing on evolution is it's mixed with known scientific facts with a bunch of thought up nonsense and calls the whole thing fact, and anyone against evolution is against the known scientific facts.
Also, it has been established the human race has been degenerating regardless of the number of good or neutral mutations.

Have you seen the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate? Ken Ham has a website answering questions he couldn't do during the debate and has other articles on the subject of Creationism and the Bible too.
www.answersingenesis.org/
Reply
:icon8manderz8:
8manderz8 Apr 2, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Do you understand the difference between the way we use the term "theory" in casual conversation, and the way that the term "theory" is used in a scientific context?

If not, let me clarify:  A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it becomes known as a theory, and is accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon. What is a Scientific Theory? - LiveScience

When scientists say that we evolved, they're not just making it up. They're not guessing, or trying to fill the gaps. And they're certainly not doing it to spite what is taught in the various holy books of ancient religions.  What they're doing is looking at the evidence, forming a hypothesis, testing it, and coming to a conclusion.  You know all this already, so I have a few questions for you.

Question 1: If you accept evolution as being tested/observed in the first sentence, why are you saying it is based purely on faith, and cannot be tested/observed in the next paragraph?

Question 2: You do realise that in your second paragraph you are rejecting evolution because you claim that it's "based on faith," "cannot be tested or observed," and "has absolutely no scientific basis," right?  What, in your mind, makes that so much different than the Bible's claims of how life began? If, as you assume, they are both based on faith and cannot be tested/observed, how do you know which is correct?

Yes, I have seen the debate between Nye and Ham, and yes I have been to AIG in the past. 

Here are some relevant links:

-Evolution: It's a Thing - Crash Course Biology #20 (Evolution Evidence)

-How Evolution Works

-What is Evolution?


Side note: Evolution doesn't claim to explain how life began, but rather how life came to be as it is today. 
Reply
:iconaurorablix:
AuroraBlix Jan 13, 2014  Hobbyist Writer
Two-way street, babe! :D They want religion in school? Well then, we want evolution in Bible study! Everyone wins! (In that everyone is pissed off ;))
Reply
:iconhappy-cat-graystripe:
Happy-Cat-Graystripe Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
We have both in our school :D 
Reply
:iconlolipop01:
Lolipop01 Feb 22, 2014  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Awesome!
Reply
Add a Comment: