AntiGod education should not be compulsary (even for non wealthy)

Couple problems we run into with you line of thinking in post 153.

quote:

---

I think the evolution thing I outlined. And challenged someone to show how it isn't.

---

I explained that evolution is not anti-god, it is areligious. It makes no claim on anything supernatural. Evolution is good science. As good science, it limits itself to nature and natural phenomena. It says nothing about god. Someone else also stated that evidence in evolutionary theory contradicts what is written in the bible. It does, but the bible is not an inerrant text. Claiming that it is undermines its message. I don't dismiss the messages in Aesop's fables just because I know animals don't talk or consciously set up competitions against each other.

quote:

---

Well, in the sense that God wrote it, and it covers things right up to the point where there is no such thing as PREhistoric! Dinosaurs, planets, you name it, man also!

---

Prehistoric is a relative term to categorize events that happened before copiously recorded history. If we are talking "in the sense that god wrote it", then how can you say that evolution is not the way god decided to do things. He/she/it could have wrote the history of life in the genome or the entire history of the universe in natural processes. Just b/c you decide to limit your idea of god, doesn't mean the rest of us have to follow suit.

quote:

---

is not a big issue for me. Like I said, if you know of one, share it. It really does not matter to me. So if you want to get hung up on it, that's your problem

---

Actually, you made the claim so it is your problem to back it up. I really think that you are hung up on this. Why else would you be arguing? The validity of a claim needs to be supported by the person making the claim. Making a claim based on ignorance of the subject you make the claim against is really no claim at all.

quote:

---

The fact that they go right to the beginning is what I was really trying to get at there.

---

Really? How do you support this "fact"? With testimony from the very book that you are trying to validate?

quote:

---

then again maybe .000001 %, either way I can show so called evidence for a lot of things, not all important enough to make the case for stealing a child's faith.

---

If you can show evidence for a lot of things, then why have you not shown how evolution is anti-religious? You keep saying it is, but you haven't explained why. You try to explain that evolution is anti-god b/c it doesn't acknowledge a creator/god! That is not evidence for anti-god. It is evidence for areligious (no religious viewpoint). Evidence for anti-god would be statements that say that there is no god. Since evolution limits itself to nature and natural phenomena, it cannot deal with anything supernatural. Therefore, the theory of evolution has no claim on a supernatural god/creator.What do you mean by "then again maybe .000001%"? You have to understand that scientific theories are tenative--we have to leave a little room for expansion of our understanding. One clear way to see that something is not science is that it claims to be inerrant, unfalsifiable, absolute, proven, etc. In science we support or falsify. The only thing we can be sure of is that we can always gather more information and never stop asking questions. Claiming you know that "evilution" (as you call it) should not be "pressed" on children in public schools b/c you think it is anti-god, evil, destructive, or not science only shows hubris on your part.

quote:

---

Apparently some people think we were created as well as the moon, and stars the same way, by ourselves. Think what you want, don't touch my kids with it.

---

I touch your children with the principles of honest evaluation, critical thinking, scientific rationalism, skepticism, and peer review. I teach them how to think; not just regurgitate information or blindly follow myth, dogma, or folklore. If some people think something and cannot support it with scientific evidence, then it is not scientific. You are confusing good science with personal belief and comparing science to religious dogma.

quote:

---

sounds good it's not a regular theory, or just a utterly godless one, or just an unproven one, but it'a "robust"

---

You can try to be clever and cute by trying to mock real science, but a robust theory in science is called "robust" b/c of the shear weight of evidence that supports it.

quote:

---

that you see is a big part of the problem, not all things are good for us, or our children, just because it is knowledge!

---

Ah, finally you said what I suspected all along--you fear knowledge! You fear the learning process b/c it undoes your hold on absolute truth. Look out, people are starting to think for themselves! Are you afraid that one day your children are going to find out that you were wrong? Why is that such a big deal? Do you want them to be individual Christians or brainwashed "dogmanites"?Good quote from Saint(?) Augustine--"Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight...know nothing but the Word of God." You seem to agree with this provision of suppressio veri, which calls for the suppression of truth for the sake of Christian edification. If people like you still had their way we would still be in the Dark Ages.[This message has been edited by hitchy, 02-10-2004]

quote:

---

I explained that evolution is not anti-god

---

You said,

quote:

---

But it is, guess it was a feeble explanation.

---

What do you think your dictionary says about the prefixes a- and anti-? You suggest that evolution is anti-god b/c it doesn't acknowledge a creator or

quote:

---

is a concept that rules out the Savior! So that is not good for children!

---

Millions of muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, shintoists, etc. have a different opinion on this matter of a Christian saviour. Is their opinion as legit as yours? Sure. Is it scientific, no! Is it verifiable, falsifiable, and subject to extensive peer review? No, and it doesn't have to be. Your ideas on god rely on faith. Evidences that support evolution do not rely on faith. They are true no matter what your viewpoint is. (Refer back to my post on the theory of common descent for an example.)What does everyone else think? Have I won the case for evolution not being anti-god? I know people on this post and I have said the same things concerning this topic. So, if we agree that evolution is not anti-god, then I haven't won the case, everyone has! Except, of course, gipper and jazzlover who will argue against anything that threatens their "truth" (or ego)...

quote:

---

So as long as the education is reflective of, and servant to the Christian majority, then fine. When it becomes oppressive, and tyranical, not honoring God, ot His people, then it must be fought.

---

This above statement is a great example of why we have civil rights. The framers of the Bill of Rights realized that there were no provisions in the Constitution itself for specific individual civil liberties. In order to make this country truly democratic, our individual rights had to be gauranteed. What you want, gipper, is a society where the majority has absolute say over what happens. This is truly frightening. The majority could be, and in your argument against evolution, would be wrong. You want your viewpoint pressed on everyone else regardless of the consequences. Our country's heritage is that of Christianity. But which denomination? In order for you to continue to flourish under our current system, your rights have to be gauranteed regardless of the majority opinion. What you are advocating is tyranny by proxy. Our current educational system may be flawed, but its greatest tenet is that education is available to all children regardless of majority/minority background. In order to be fair to our civil rights, we must be areligious. To espouse a certain religious viewpoint--whether it be from the majority or not--would endanger the freedoms gauranteed to that viewpoint and the viewpoint of others. How far would you be willing to go?

What a great quote you have holmes! So fitting for this thread. When we say the pledge in school every morning, I go silent when we get to "one nation under god". A student asked me why I didn't say the "under god" line. I used a quote from George Carlin--"well, I don't want to be presumptuous about our [god and I] friendship!"Robin Williams and Bill Mahr (sorry if I mispelled that) also have great ideas on the relationship between "god" and humans.

As I write this there are 214 messages on this thread. How did we get this far? Let's recap...gipper says that evolution should not be taught in schools for several reasons--b/c1)it is "anti-god education"2)"I might feel better if evolution was taught as supernatural, as it is a faith based religion of unbelief in God"3)"hatching, an agenda to paint God out of the picture. That's not "biology" it's well called "religion" It's not based on science, but science falsely so called, some would say."4)"the vast majority of Americans believe in a Creator (Yes Jesus as well, most of them!) That any compulsary education reflect that."5)"The problem is not in belief but in unbelief here. Stick to the facts in all sciences, none of which include evolution at all."6)"Results of a godless public school system. Drugs, suicide, murder, lack of faith, violence, etc."7)"But they don't share a common ancestor, thats rot. Your scientific offerings have been weighed and found wanting. If you really believe that my condolances."8)"'in gunk we trust, we all crawled out of it and this worship shall be enforced by force of law, whether you and the children like it or not -(salam) science tells us so, or at least suggests it in what we like to try to call more than a theory' Keep it pal, it stinks"9)"mutations eh? all beneficial right? ha. don't think so"10)"There's evidence to interpret either way."11)"I can have an opinion on the education system, without accepting any theory."12)"Perhaps it is you who do not understand? Now if it was a fact, that would have some bearing! And I can see many of you don't want to let that stop you. The evolution theory has suffered a number of known setbacks, especially Darwinism. I'm not wanting to dig it all up."The last quote was from Post 72. I stopped there b/c we have more than enough to stop this madness. By the way, this is my last post here b/c the gipper bores me in the sense that he/she has offered no counterarguments to mine (or anyone else's). Gipper has also not supported his/her arguments with anything besides hubris, innuendo, a misunderstanding of science, and a misunderstanding of public school education. I am sure there are more problems, but I digress.1, 2, and 3 all show that gipper cannot tell the difference between something having no say what-so-ever on the existence of a god/creator and something that is antagonistic to the idea of the existence of a god/creator.4 shows that gipper does not understand how freedom of all religious viewpoints (or lack of a viewpoint) protects his/her own ability to profess whatever faith he/she wants. (This is one reason why we must fight against infringement on the first amendment. Gipper's ideas here smack of fascism.)5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 all show that gipper is ignorant of scientific methodology.6 shows that gipper is using the reductio ad absurdum argument used by many creationists before. Like these things needed the teaching of evolution to occur!?!11 just smacks of hubris.I also received no counterarguments against my post on common descent except for 7, which is not an argument or rebuttal, but merely a "they don't b/c I said so".Many other good posts were put forth by others with more knowledge, better debating skills, and quicker wit than me. I thank you all for enlightening my grossly limited understanding of science and evolution.Jazzlover and gipper can go suck it

Thanks, holmes. What I learned about a reductio ad absurdum argument is that it disproves a position by showing the consequences of that position to be impossible or absurd. I should have said that I was using this type of argument against him, since it is his position that the consequences of evolution are absurd. Thanks again. Sorry for lying to everyone about staying away from this thread.