Looks like it's a done deal

[sctmom]

LISTEN!

 

Where I live the schools DO celebrate Christmas. They decorate for Christmas -- trees, angels, wreaths, etc. They have Christmas spelling words.

 

My son's social studies book talks about the believes of Christians. This is a book used throughout the nation. (don't have the name and publisher handy).

 

Is that not equal time to Evolution???????????

Why do you believe it is NOT taught in schools? Maybe some schools, but it is taught in many.

 

The school has the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. If the school systems are so anti-Christian wouldn't they say "no" to that group?

 

[SR540Beaver]

Robk,

 

In a post to me on Saturday 11/16, you said this:

 

I am amazed at your inablity to see that evolution, while not a teaching of any religion, because it directly contradicts the teachings of certain religions, is de facto a religous teaching.

 

This is where everyone says you are calling evolution a de facto religion. While you said it is not a teaching of ANY religion, it is de facto a religious teaching. I think many people have a problem seeing how an teaching can be religious while not being part of a religion. As I've said in the past, to a Creationist who views it in light of their religious teachings, it is a religious issue. To a scientist viewing it thru science (not even considering religion) it is purely scientific and not religious. It is a matter of perception depending on which side of the fence you are standing on.

[littlebillie]

Why is it some folks just autoamtically asume that it's the OTHER person at fault if there's been a misunderstanding? You know, the ones who never stop to say, hmmm, I may have been unclear, let me rephrase that?

 

It must take a load off your mind to know that you always express yourself flawlessly, eh? At least knowing you're a perfect communicator means you can get on with other things. And even if your every third posting has to begin with "you misunderstand" or " improve your reading comprehension", well, despite the annoyance of never being understood by lesser minds, there must be an offsetting comfort in knowing that you yourself are never at fault in confusion!

 

Now, let me get this straight - modern astronomy would have to be a religious teaching, right? Those pillars, that giant turtle? Health ed? Oh, and saying the pledge impinges on certain groups as well.

 

Ok. Um - btw, where did I ever write that YOUR religious beliefs are contradicted by the theory of evolution? just outa curiosity? um - if I'm making myself clear?

 

 

[firstpusk]

"Let me try to restate my point for you in a simple way using simple words: Some church teaches that God created the Earth and everything else in six days of twenty four hours, and if you don't believe it, you're going to hell. The public school teaches that man evolved over millions of years. These teachings conflict. The public school is teaching something that contradicts what that church is teaching. Can you agree that what the school teaches contradicts what the church teaches?"

 

Okay, according to your reasoning, we need to shut down publicly funded medical schools because they conflict with the teachings of Christain Science. We need to eliminate federallly funded inspections of pork processing because it conflicts with the teachings of Orthodox Judaism. And of course, the central theory of biology, the one that does more than anything in intellectual history to explain the development and diversity of life has got to go. Your theology simply can't handle it.

 

The problem is not the science or the scientists. They both are doing the job they are supposed to do. They are explaining the world we live in. The problem is your theology can't handle the reality of an old earth, of changing life over time and the ability of evolution to explain it and the inability of creationists to explain anything other than their belief in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

Earlier you asked a question. "How can one theory of the origns of man and the universe be a religous belief, yet another mutually exclusive theory of those origins not be a religous belief?" The answer is that creationism actually is not a theory, at least not in the scientific sense of the word. It has no support other than an acceptance of one specific interpretation the first few chapters of Genesis. This interpretation is one held by specific Christian sects. Evolution instead is a theory derived from observation and experimentation. The evidence for the theory of evolution has been mounting for nearly a century and a half. No substantial scientific work has controverted the theory of evolution. It is science. Your "theory" is not. An important part of the test for unconstitutional entanglement with religion by the state is the intent of the governmental action. Those that support creationism do so to further religion and these very specific, Biblically literalist religious beliefs. Those that support evolution in the schools do so to provide a quality education.

[Rooster7]

littlebille, firstpusk, sctmom -

 

What you seem to be ignoring - IS - evolution is a theory. This makes all the difference in the world. It is not fact. It's a conclusion based on fact, but those facts do not prove evolution conclusively. No matter what you think of creationists or any other religious faith, the government has an obligation to remain neutral until your theory becomes fact (beyond doubt). As for evolution not having any holes, there are many men (and women) who are very knowledgeable in the sciences that disagree. As to who supports "quality education" and who does not, that's not really worth debating since it's all a matter of opinion.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[sctmom]

Scientific theory is based on facts. How many things do you believe that are "beyond a doubt"? Very few things are "beyond doubt".

 

The Genesis story doesn't have any fact proved 'beyond doubt'. It is something you have choosen NOT to doubt. That's your choice.

 

"As for evolution not having any holes, there are many men (and women) who are very knowledgeable in the sciences that disagree."

 

As for a literal translation of the Genesis creation story not having any holes, any men and women who are very knowledgeable in religion disagree. I'm talking about men and women who are well-respected by many religions, not just some wacko on the street corner who made up their own "religion".

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

Rooster,

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that anyone in this thread has presented evolution as a fact. Actually, I've gone out of my way repeatedly to say that it is a theory and not a fact.

 

MOST science is theory! It is always being reviewed in light of new discoveries and evidence and the theory is tested. Each time the test results are known, the theory is either farther substantiated or further questioned. By your argument that it should not be taught until proven a FACT, then hardly any science should be taught in school.

[RobK]

kwc57,

 

Since you think it's a science issue, and not a religous issue, it's alright for the government to force your beliefs on others who do think it is a religous issue?

 

littlebillie,

 

While you did not write that my religous beliefs were contradicted by the theory of evolution, firstpusk did, and my reply was addressed to you both. Pardon me for confusing you. Forgive me also for expecting a reasonable level of reading comprehension on the part of my audience.

 

firstpusk,

 

Okay, according to your reasoning, we need to shut down publicly funded...

 

No, actually those things need to be eliminated because the Constitution gives the government no authority to do any of them.

 

Why do you keep refering to my theology? My personal theology has no problem with an old Earth or change over time. Is it so incomprehensible to you that someone might believe one way, but argue for the rights of others who disagree?

I'm simply saying that the government doesn't have the right to force the teaching of evolution on anyone. Are you arguing that it is fine for the government to coerce others to learn about evolution because you have the word of scientists to back you against their religion? Why do you think it is alright to force others to learn this against their will?

This is the very reason that the Constitution was written to give the government only very limited and narrowly defined powers. If the government wasn't running schools there would be no debate. Those who want their children to learn about evolution would teach it and those who do not want their children to learn about evolution would not teach it.

 

Your way forces things on people. My way forces nothing on anyone.

 

[ScoutParent]

"To a scientist viewing it thru science (not even considering religion) it is purely scientific and not religious. It is a matter of perception depending on which side of the fence you are standing on."

 

Darwin knew it was a means of attacking religion without doing it obvertly. All of the scientists I've previously quoted do as well.

[firstpusk]

"littlebille, firstpusk, sctmom -

 

What you seem to be ignoring - IS - evolution is a theory."

 

Rooster7,

What you are ignoring is that creationism is not a theory. It is a set of religious tennets that is not supported by any scientific evidence. It is an article of faith not a scientific explanation.

 

"This makes all the difference in the world. It is not fact. It's a conclusion based on fact, but those facts do not prove evolution conclusively."

 

Many of these theoretical conclusions are about as solidly established as is possible. Darwin proposed descent with modification by means of natural selection. The word evolved only appears once in "The Origin of Species" and it is indeed the last word in the book. It is curious that the Theory of Evolution became how it is known. Evolution therefore becomes an equivocation. It is both the occurance of descent with modification and the explanation for its occurance. Theories are never "proven". They are accepted tentatively. If the evidence were to point to another explanation, evolution would be abandonned or modified. There are aspects of Darwin's theory that have been modified, i.e., gene transfer recently.

 

"No matter what you think of creationists or any other religious faith, the government has an obligation to remain neutral until your theory becomes fact (beyond doubt)."

 

The schools have an obligation to teach science in science class. Evolution is science, creationism is not.

 

"As for evolution not having any holes, there are many men (and women) who are very knowledgeable in the sciences that disagree."

 

There are certainly questions that have not been answered. However, there are very few trained scientists that disagree with evolution. You would have a much easier time finding ministers that disagree with creationism. As a matter of fact the among plaintiffs in the suit against the Arkansas equal time law were many church officials and ministers.

 

"The individual plaintiffs include the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy, as well as several persons who sue as parents and next friends of minor children attending Arkansas public schools. One plaintiff is a high school biology teacher. All are also Arkansas taxpayers. Among the organizational plaintiffs are the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the American Jewish Committee, the Arkansas Education Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers and the national Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty, all of which sue on behalf of members living in Arkansas " McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education - Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton

 

 

"As to who supports "quality education" and who does not, that's not really worth debating since it's all a matter of opinion."

 

It is not a matter of opinion. I want my children to get there religious education at home and in Sunday school according to the tennets of my church. I want them to get science in science class not the warmed over lessons from someone else's Sunday school.

[SR540Beaver]

Robk, you said: Since you think it's a science issue, and not a religous issue, it's alright for the government to force your beliefs on others who do think it is a religous issue?

 

Rob, let me throw something back at you. If an orthodox Jewish child goes to the school cafeteria and they are serving hotdogs for lunch or canadian bacon pizza, isn't that a violation of his religious beliefs? Since they are serving something that his religion allows him to eat, shouldn't they quit forcing their "religious" belief on him? I mean after all, the eating of pork is a "religious issue" for a Jew. The fact that the school would blatently serve food not allowed to him is a violation of his religious beliefs and the school has no right to do this. Right? It is the same argument you are using. What about the Muslim kid who goes to school and actually has a "woman" in a position of authority teaching him? And to top it off, she isn't covered from head to toe with just a mesh panel to see out of. How offensive to his religious principles! Having a female teach him and wearing a pair of pants is a forcing a religious belief on him against his will. Darn it, The government has NO right to do that to this poor child. It is a religious teaching contrary to his beliefs. How can the government actually get away with pushing this agenda on these kids? I'd be willing to bet that most people fighting for giving creationism equal time to evolution in school would laugh at the Jews or Muslims who would think of the food and clothing as religious issues.

 

[Weekender]

FirstPusk,

 

If evolution is the accepted belief in your church why don't you just have it taught there. Why force it on kids whose church teaches creation. Seems to me forcing a captive school audience to listen to and even study a principle that directly conflicts with their religeous belief in a PUBLIC school is a violation of separation of church and state.

 

By the way...Separation of church and state was intended to keep the state out of church business not the other way around. And yes, maybe I'm claiming to know what the founders had in mind when they wrote it. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of people who do the same on this board, especially those who think the founders would have been fine working with gays and atheists...Personally I think the founders would be very intolorant to such people.

[firstpusk]

Nice try Weekender. That argument doesn't turn back, evolution is not a religious tennet of my church, it is science. Evolution is not preached in my church. Teaching evolution is not an issue for most people of faith. It goes to the issue of intent. The intent of the school is to teach science and evolution is the best science we have currently. You may personally disagree with it, but that is as it is.

 

The 1st ammendment was crafted to keep the state out of the church and the church out of the state. The founders had a more vivid understanding of religious wars than we do.

[littlebillie]

"While you did not write that my religous beliefs were contradicted by the theory of evolution, firstpusk did, and my reply was addressed to you both. Pardon me for confusing you. Forgive me also for expecting a reasonable level of reading comprehension on the part of my audience."

 

So let's see how this works - you address TWO people, ACCUSING one of them - and the confusion is based not on the resultant inaccuracy - caused by YOU - but by my own lack of ESP and resultant failure in recognizing that what you say is not waht you mean - and it all boils down to MY problems in reading comprehension?

 

Ok, you got a gold star on that one, you bet!

 

(Imagine Bill Cosby's voice from the Noah bit) RIGHT!!!!

[Rooster7]

I'll make a deal with you all. I'll admit to being so arrogant as to believe in the possibility, per the literal translation of the inspired Word of God that God created the world exactly as he said he did. I'll freely admit to this, if you admit to being so arrogant as to believe in a man-concocted theory about how life evolved on earth from the non-living to the living, including the "scientific" observation that the origins of man is rooted in some swamp water, whereas fish-like beings decided it was time to come out and explore the rest of the world. Gee, now that I have written these ideas out on paper, I can understand why some evolutionists view creationists as superstitious and ignorant.

 

(Imagine Bill Cosby's voice from the Noah bit) RIGHT!!!!

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)