Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

I'm not wrong.
Science class is mostly about the history and conclusions on big things discovered by thinking people. Then they bring up the thinking is by a special methodology called science.
Yet its not just the science process that is examined and they bump into a few origin subjects. in fact science class is as much about history of achievement as doing anything.
The conclusions in science class on origins has little to do with processes.
its mostly a history lesson of former investigations.
Nevertheless its the conclusions creationism must have equal right to deal with.

If they teach evolution and ban Genesis in a subject about discovery of truth then they are saying in both points Genesis is not true.
Its a clear statement if anythings clear.The difference with banning the teaching of the trinity is that the state does not teach the trinity is false.
It just doesn't talk about it. neutral.
Banning creationism would only be neutral if conclusions about origins was not discussed.
If the state taught the trinity was false it would be breaking the very law it uses to ban teaching the trinity is true.
Same equation as in creationist censorship.

No. They don't admit the state is making a official opinion creationism is a error and a religiously motivated error.
In fact i try here to make just case that in fact the state is saying its a error.
So its saying religion is false on some doctrines for many.
So breaking the law it invokes to censor God and Genesis.it doesn't work for the banning because its impossible to assert a subject is about truth discovery and then censor a opinion without saying directly that opinion is false.
Further it doesn't work because nobody centuries ago thought up such a legal contrivance to censor God/Genesis in schools.
An absurdity of intentions.

I didn't dodge. you didn't like my answer.
Its up to the people to decide through the legislature what is worthy for serious conclusions on origins or if just out of respect.

Nope.
remember there is a clear purpose to why the state should make no establishment about religion. Simply so no faith is made over others and no faith is made under.
A excellent purpose.
There is no need for the state or the church to interfere with each other.Then the subject of origins comes up and the state teaches ideas that mean religious ideas are wrong.
It breaks the separation. its teaching against religion in its foundations. its doctrines
So religion comes up to defend itself and its told CENSORED.
Why/ Then told the state can't teach religion. right or wrong.
can't say its right. can't say its wrong.
Creationism answers YOU ARE TEACHING ITS WRONG.
Your banning is a second teaching since you claim the subject is about the truth of origins. A right and a left.The state therefore has a opinion on religious doctrines. its pushing its opinion onto the kids etc.
Its brwaking the very law it invented in the 1900's.Where is my reasoning wrong here???

Well it comes down to once again if IS the state in banning creationism making a statement its false and if in teaching contrary ideas , evolution, is it making a statement on religion.IN both cases i say the state is making a opinion on religion by its own line of reasoning and so breaking the very law it invokes to ban creationism.Your still missing here the actual reality of wjhat is being taught and ot taught on conclusions about origins.You can't get around my point here.If your teaching a subject with conclusions and a intent to establish the accuracy of those conclusions and THEN ban a particular conclusion then clearly the banned conclusion is being said to be false.
So a state opinion. so a breach of the separation wall.I think i'm right.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.

Well everone we've been around the block on this point.
someones wrong here.
i made my case and watched to see how posters could handle it.
I said the founding fathers never, but never put in the constitution anything banning God or Genesis as the truth or a option for truth in origins in the schools. they were a very protestant people. in fact they might of banned anything opposite to the bible.
You did not and would have to demonstrate the American public back then when making their constitution had o their mind a intent to ban God/Genesis in origins in school education.
no one showed here that intent or even addressed it.
Obviously its impossible and to find no intent would destroy any constitutional claim.
Even the most sceptical on religion as as being accurate on origins would want a freeplay on ideas . A free conscience of all and free discussion about conclusions.
You guys here missed making a essential legal point that you need.Then with confidence there is no prohibition of creationism in the constitution I simply address the process of the present censorship.
They try to say they are just neutral on religious ideas on origins and simply presenting secular investigations of origins.
WELL. I say that if one bans religious ideas, as they score it, on origins and teaches opposite to those religious ideas, by evolutionism etc, then the state is teaching religious ideas are false. Since they are claiming they teach the truth on these origin subjects.
This is my logic. Its simple math.
tHe state clearly is breaking its own law of separation. It ain't separate about conclusions. its coming down on one side indeed.
One can't ban a conclusion without directly saying the banning means the conclusion is false. Otherwise it would be saying its forced to ban a conclusion regardless of its truth. BUT they are demanding indeed in these subjects they are teaching the truth and process to discovery of the truth.
I have not seen the posters here articulately and logically answer my big attack here.I think its because you can't.
The logic is devastating.
Thats where we stand right now.

Amen. (Accepting that this is a state/church issue for arguments sake) the state can ADVANCE religion for a secular reason.
the reason it can advance creationism is to discover and teach the TRUTH on origins.if creationism is a religious position and its banned then the state is saying its not true.
A state opinion on religion.
Another break in the wall .
it doesn't matter if creationism advances religion.
The truth is the goal of education.
you made my case here.

The founders are the American people. not a small group of men.
Again. tHe people or even a few decision makers in putting in these things in the law did not have intent to ban God or Genesis in education of origin issues.
Prove they did! it would be quoted constantly.i dealt with your trinity point.
it fails as follows.
No the state need not or should not teach the trinity is the truth of higher beings.
yet it must not teach directly its not true.
So if the subject of higher beings comes up and the trinity claim is banned or its taught the being are a dual or quartet or non existent then in two ways has the state made a official opinionb on religion.
you can't get around it and you guys didn't.
If you can't teach the bible is true is origin issues , on a separation concept, then you can't teach its NOT true.
Thats your law.

AMEN. the ban is due to the religious content. so the state is saying the content is false since the subject its banned from is about the truth and processes to discovering truth.
Religious banning + claimed intent of accurate conclusions in subject =state opinion. state opinion +rejection of religion =breakage of separation law.
This is not calculus.

The state is not teaching science but is teaching conclusions on a claim of scientific investigation.
No matter.
the conclusions being taught are illegal.
Thats my point.
its not idiotic!!!
Show why in a articulate way!
Everyone else has come up short.

The law is the law.
If teaching the earth is round is against some religion then it must banned.
If teaching the earth is round but the state teaches its flat then likewise it must banned.
The law is now invoked to censor God/Genesis on origin issues.
Your the ones advocating censorship. Not us.In fact my big point here is that its illogical, impossible, to say one must censor Genesis because otherwise its an opinion of the state on religion and then discuss the origins issues from a position of truth discovery and it not be likewise a state opinion on religion in banning Genesis and teaching ideas against it.
The whole "law" is a sham invented in the 1900's to get rid of Christian teachings in origins on legal points that no one was actually paying attention to.

Nothing to do with ideas about science. Creationism is banned as the truth or a option for truth because of a law against the state supporting a religion.
My point is that in the censorship, logically, the state is supporting a opinion on religion. its saying its false. This because its saying its teaching the truth on origin subjects.

James Madison himself strongly said the people through their delegates were the only authority on meaning behind the constitution. not a few men.
The constitution was accepted by the people after their understanding of it and consent.
Its impossible the very Puritan and Protestant Yankees and sotherners in any way intended anything in their constitution, much less regular law, to ban the bible in subjects dealing with origins.
Your side has got to prove this.

No. Your quite wrong. Its illegal to teach God/Genesis as options for origins in subjects seriously dealing with origins.
The law here and nothing to do with ideas of science or anything else.
This is about the constitution from the 1700's.
Your side uses it to justify the present censorship.