"no discernible pattern"
Let me ask you, was there a time when the average person believe there was no discernible weather pattern?
I think you will find if you study history and science, that it is progressive movement away from superstition of chance, to an understanding of a very ordered universe.
It was practical for people thousands of years ago to believe what about earthquakes, weather patterns, etc?
Bottom line, chance may appease the scientists atheistic bent, but that first assumption, unproved assumption, factually unknown assumption...is not scientifically derived.
It may provide a warm stupid feeling to the atheists just as much as theism provides a warm stupid feeling to some theists, but neither is factually supported or known as a fact.
Studying the facts, i.e. what we actually can observer, test, and know doesn't require a first assumption of chance or non chance.
So why is it so necessary to teach chance?
It is a political decision, not actually a scientific decision. The true starting place of "we as scientists don't know" is agnostic. It equally assumes that that chance or design are possible. It can't generate a probability of either chance or design...but make no mistake that the universe does look designed.
So again, why is there such a bristling by the atheistic scientists to suggest the equal possibility of design as chance?
Why indoctrinate children to believe in chance, when design is just as likely.
Let me ask you, was there a time when the average person believe there was no discernible weather pattern?
I think you will find if you study history and science, that it is progressive movement away from superstition of chance, to an understanding of a very ordered universe.
It was practical for people thousands of years ago to believe what about earthquakes, weather patterns, etc?
Bottom line, chance may appease the scientists atheistic bent, but that first assumption, unproved assumption, factually unknown assumption...is not scientifically derived.
It may provide a warm stupid feeling to the atheists just as much as theism provides a warm stupid feeling to some theists, but neither is factually supported or known as a fact.
Studying the facts, i.e. what we actually can observer, test, and know doesn't require a first assumption of chance or non chance.
So why is it so necessary to teach chance?
It is a political decision, not actually a scientific decision. The true starting place of "we as scientists don't know" is agnostic. It equally assumes that that chance or design are possible. It can't generate a probability of either chance or design...but make no mistake that the universe does look designed.
So again, why is there such a bristling by the atheistic scientists to suggest the equal possibility of design as chance?
Why indoctrinate children to believe in chance, when design is just as likely.