Creationism in Schools

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
evolution was never a part of whether or not creationism was to be taught in schools. even our forefathers were smart enough to not intrude upon other peoples religions so that they would be able to have a strong and supported military. evolution is no where near a fact and its barely a theory and will never be seen because it franky just doesnt happen. there have been several mass conversions to christianity throught history, im sure another will come in due time and then our society will finally be taught the truth in school.

---

There have been several mass conversions to Christianity partially because people had to convert or be killed. Christians have a long history of oppressing and purposefully destroying other religions.Considering that you admit to not knowing anything about science, the Theory of Evolution, or Biology, how can you say with confidence that evolution doesn't happen. Read my sig file:------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
anymore religious strife is definetly not necessary. however most of the amendments past the bill of rights are pure bull plop. thats just my opinion but you should read a few of em, they're just tryin to take more and more rights away from citizens and trying to gain more money and power themselves.

---

Yes, it IS "pure bull plop" that:slavery is illegal
women are allowed to vote
black people are allowed to vote
black people enjoy full citizenship
18 year olds are allowed to vote
Senators are elected by direct popular vote
a poll tax may not be levied
the District of Columbia gets a presidential vote in the electoral college
we have plans for what to do if the president/VP diesLet's see, other than that, we limited term length for presidents,
changed the timing of presidential and congressional terms, we installed then repealed prohibition (they cancel each other out), and income taxes were authorized.Only the last one seems to be at all interpretable as having to do with government getting more power, and that's highly debatable.You were saying? Since you say that "most" of the amendments after the Bill of Rights were bull-plop, could you identify which of the above you were talking about?

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-17-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
that wasnt my beef. im saying that corporations have gained way too much power, just look at that exxon thing. they had the majority of the us governments senators in their pockets and they screwed over a lot of people.

​

---

What does campaign finance have to do with the amendments to the bill of rights, then?I suggest that you require a bit more precision of yourself when conveying your thoughts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by toff:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"In the Us, it is illegal to teach religion scripture has scripture. If creationism was a better theory than evo, then it would be taught in schools, as it would not be only religious, but also highly credible and therefore the closest to the truth about our origins.
if this happened, which never will, we would see mass conversions to christianity."
--Who said that we had to teach creationism? Who said we had to teach faith? Who said we had to teach religion? If you know the model of Creationism, you would know that you can teach creation science (If your going to call it that) without even mentioning the bible, faith, or religion.

​

---

​

No offense, but that is complete nonsense. To teach creationism, one MUST teach religious beliefs as fact (ie., that there is a god, that he created the world, etc.)

---

In addition, WHICH creation 'science' do you teach? YEC? OEC? ID?There is no cohesive Creation "science". Also, Creation "science" is a peculiarly American phenomena. There are not any Creation "Science"
movements in Europe or Asia that I am aware of.If Creation "science" was really scientific, why aren't there adherents all over the world, and why do Creation 'scienctists' all have to be Christian?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"In addition, WHICH creation 'science' do you teach? YEC? OEC? ID?"
--YEC basically, teach that the evidence doesn't allways point towards an old earth. To teach the Creation (as obviously there are many religions with different creation accounts) or ID would rather be more of the Teachers decision most likely. Teach anything that is scientific.

​

"There is no cohesive Creation "science"."
--Then teach it like it is braud, ie, there are many creation accounts, etc.

​

"Also, Creation "science" is a peculiarly American phenomena. There are not any Creation "Science"
movements in Europe or Asia that I am aware of."
--Well isn't that unfortunate. I think there is one in Australia but I don't know about the others.

​

"If Creation "science" was really scientific, why aren't there adherents all over the world, and why do Creation 'scienctists' all have to be Christian?"
--They don't all have to be Christian, there are muslim and buddhist creationists, a more specific approach I am looking for to what would be taught is that the earth could be young, and simply that it could have been created on top of that. Instead of the schools trying to rip everyone's faith to shreads, with first-hand experience, it is a frequent happening, a typical product of indoctrination.

---

How is NOT teaching religion in a science class room tantamount to "ripping everyone's religion to shreds"?Oh, and please provide this scientific theory of a Young Earth, complete with positive evidence, testable hypothesese and potential falsifications.Muslim and Buddhist creationists? Please elaborate.Perhaps the reason there are few/no Creationists in Asia or Europe is because there are 1)few fundamentalist Christians there, and 2) people are better educated in the sciences.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

--We dont' need to change the direction of the subject. I remember passing out fliers for my church after the 9-11 attacks, I encounterd a girl that was my age. Very sarcastic, she told me she wouldn't accept the flier because I said I wasn't a 'holy priest'. I asked her a question of why she considered herself athiestic. Wouldn't you guess that her answer was 'have you ever heard of Evolution'. Obviously there is something seriously wrong with that statment isn't there. Such is the teaching of evolution in our schools today.

---

Have you perhaps thought that it is the religious leaders who are getting things wrong, not the schools?Fundamentalist churches are telling people that in order to be a good Christian, they must reject Biology and the evidence for the ToE, because their interpretation of the Bible requires it to be wrong.It is the RELIGIONS which have set up this wall, not science. Science does not require anyone to not believe in God, or Christianity, etc.

quote:

---

"In the '20,during the infamous monkey trials,where a teacher was suspended for teaching darwinian evolution to his class,this fact became self evident,as the teacher was relying on hard science and his prosecutors were doing nothing but proletysing to the jury,just falling short of claiming in open court that the teacher was nothing less than the Anti-Christ. The judgement of the school stood,even if the teacher had proven his case and it took 40 years before someone in the legislative bodies woke up and said "hey...maybe there's actually something to this whole evolution thingy after all"."
--you take the 'monkey trial' to its extremities in sarcasm.

---

This is a comment upon the sarcastic tone of the post, but not of the content, TC.

quote:

---

"Christianity is not on the verge of disapearing in the US...far from it. But it has always fought viciously the establishement of differing points of views,which is why religion was removed from mandatory teaching in schools...Some people actually took the time to read the constitution and realized that it said FREEDOM of religion and NOT "freedom to be a christian or else..!!!."."
--As far as I am aware, it doesn't say anything about being unable to teach creation in the public schools either.

---

You can teach creation in a comparative religions class, but not in science class.Since Creation "science" is based upon a certain interpretation of a particular religion's holy book, and follows no tennet of science, it is not science, and to teach it as such would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the US constitution.I can post links to the transcripts of US Supreme Court proceedings which determine as much, if you would like to see them, TC.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-20-2002]

[QUOTE]A literalist does not believe that God is a bird when He promised to cover us and protect us with his wings.
[/B][/QUOTE]Then, by definition, he is not a literalist.He interprets, just like everyone else who reads the Bible.The problem then remains; who decides what to interpret and what to take things as literal truth?

You have no idea what your comments about geologic dating are going to unleash upon you. There are Geologists who have actually performed dating right here on this board. Get ready...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
I believe that both models should be taught in schools with the strength and weaknesses of each. Currently, evolution (macro) is the order of the day and attempts to bring creationism into the schools is challenged in court. Edwards v Aguillard is a good example. Louisiana required equal time but the statute was struck down but in the Case the supreme court acknowledge that creation science was valid. The lawyer who argued the case was Oliver Wendel Bird and he wrote a two volume set that I have recommended in these posts. It is called "Origin of the Species Revisited." It is a thorough exposition of the matter (except a young earth) and prominent evolutionists have endorsed it as being accurate.

​

To make a short reply long, yes creation science should be taught in schools but along with evolution. Then let the students make up their minds.

---

Can you please tell me what testable hypothese, potential falsifications, and positive evidence there exists for the "Creation model" (as a Scientific Theory of Creation doesn't seem to exist)?If the model doesn't have these three features, then it isn't science and should not be taught as science.I'm all ears.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Theo:
[b]When my tax money is given back to me so I can send my children to private school then I will (hypothetical I don't have any children yet). Your statement that creation is religious in nature is question begging. That's what a great deal of the debate in this chatroom is about.[/QUOTE]

​

Everyone pays school taxes regardless of their parental status because it it in everyone's best interest to educate ourselves.

​

quote:

---

As well just because something is religious does not mean that it cannot be taught in schools.

---

​

You are correct. However, since Creation 'science' is based in religion, not science, it has no place in science classrooms. I have no problem with it being discussed in a comparative religion class.

​

[QUOTE]In two different strings I have referenced Wallace v. Jaffree wherein Justice Rehnquist gives the historical analysis of the first amendment demonstrating that separation of church and state is an artificial construct of the Court starting in 1947 in the Everson case. His arguments are clear enough and basically unrefuted by any legal argumentation to date. So creationism, even if it were only religious in nature could be taught in public schools.
[/b]

---

But not as science, because it is not scientific in the least.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"