Alas, poor Ohio .... EvC related news

Just what office are you running for?That is as good a set of contentless non-answers as anyone has managed to produce in any of the electoral races going on. Why bother typing if you have nothing whatsoever to say?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-21-2004 01:37 AM

Well, ya see, the science classrooms don't teach that the Christian orgins doctrine is not true. It seems that a minority of Christians have an interpretation of parts of the Bible that is contrary to our current understanding of the origin of the Earth and the diversity of life on it. We are not about to start teaching a minority position of only one of the religions that are held to in the over all population are we?Since the various religions don't agree on origin issues teaching any one would be teaching the others as wrong. That we can't do since that would be favouring one of them.So how do we decide what to teach? We go with the evidence. We go with that which people of many different religions all agree on. That is what is taught in the science class.It is unfortunate that a few religiousists insist that if some physical details of the natural world contradict some of their ideas then the whole religion is wrong. There are a number of people here that had their faith damaged or destroyed by such an odd theology.It is not a problem for the 40 % of scientists who are also believers. It is not a problem for the majority of the religious. It is your problem.(added by edit)
There are a few theads in the Education forum that you might want to read and add to. You will note that some of us (me ) would love to see enough time available to teach the details of creationism in the classroom. It would be ripped to pieces. You may forget that it was researchers who believed in a literal genesis that found the data that forced them to drop that idea.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-28-2004 04:40 PM

That is NOT what I said. I said they don't attach the Christian doctrine of the majority of Christians. Of course, they teach that the creationist view is wrong. There is no choice. It is wrong but that is the fault of the creationists.I can't believe that you could type approximately correct English and still not be able to read what I wrote. What "equation"? You said that we if we teach that creationism or any religion isn't true then we must also offer some time to teach that it is true. That seems to be the whole of your arguement, right?You have then had a bunch of post that deal directly with your so-called "equation". Now you declare victory without commenting on any of those posts?? I'm afraid Robert that you'd better slow down. You're not going to do well in the real tough science fora with that degree of logical capability.Prohibbiting rebuttal? Please go to the appropriate threads and supply the scientific rebuttal that you think should be allowed.I recommend Dates and Dateing, the Fossil sorting one and whatever others you think you have expertise in. There is no scientific rebuttal available unfortunately for you.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-29-2004 04:01 PM

The state when responsible for education must teach something. If the religious views are used then it must, since they conflict, reject some and support (to some degree) others. In a diverse, pluralistic society that recognizes the danger of having the state set and prefer any religion what can be done to be as fair as possible?The choice is to teach that which is not derived from any religion but is derived using methods that do not depend on any ones belief system.The fact that the results are acceptable to some members of all the major religions demonstrates that this is a pretty good way to achieve the desired separation of church and state and be as fair as possible and avoid endless religious arguments. The results are also acceptable to the majority of all the world's major religions as an added bonus.There are a minority few who adopt a different view of this. That is unfortunate but not a good reason for doing anything different.We use a system both here in Canada and in the US where impartial courts are used to sort out issues like this when they arise. Those courts have decided on more than one occasion that your argument is not valid.The scientific consensus does not "reject the Christian doctrine of origins". A cult-like sub group of Christianity says that their particular interpretation of Christian doctrine is false if the consensus is correct. Most Christians are not so theologically foolish and have no problem. The scientific process allows for belief in a creator if one wants to believe. It does not allow one to dictate the details of how the creator acted. That is determined from the evidence left behind from the created things themselves.Your "equation" starts with the assumption that there is only one religious story of creation. That is false.Your reasoning presumes that all Christians agree with your interpretation of what is "doctrine". That is false.You implicitly assume that the scientific approach to determining things is equivalent to a religion. That is false and has been shown to be so before various courts.That is why you are declaring victory prematurely.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-05-2004 02:55 PM

Thanks, Crash, I'll remember this one. And this one. In fact, it is a clue that you might be wrong.