Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

The original framers of the constitution didn't have the intent to give the vote to women or to outlaw slavery, thankfully times change. Anyone who quoted the establishment clause of the first amendment addressed yout arguement.

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

I'm afraid that your argument is based on ignorance concerning the law.Under the U.S. constitution the state is permitted to take actions that hinder or advance religion PROVIDED these actions have a valid secular purpose. Educating children in science is a valid secular purpose. Therefore it does not matter if science happens to contradict your religious beliefs, the state is free to teach it. This is the reason why polygamy, for instance, is illegal (and some drugs, too).Creationism, on the other hand is a religious position. The only reason for teaching it is to advance religion. Therefore teaching creationism is unconstitutional.

Either that or you missed reading it. One fairly essential legal point that you seem to have skipped over is this: Perhaps you would like to think about that, maybe even address it? Again, you have missed an important point, which I will restate. Got that? I'll add math and logic to my list of things I don't want you to write the curricula for. And yet creationists' "devastating" blather about the law has failed to sway judges just as your equally "devastating" blather about science has failed to sway scientists.Has it occurred to you that maybe they know something you don't?

No its like thisEvolution = Scienece
Creationism, id .... = not science and if it is not science it is religion in essence ANTI-SCIENCEThe state cannot teach religion period.

The founding fathers meant for us to interpret the Constitution to fit our current society. They even included a process where the Constitution could be changed if we saw fit, and they included a branch of government (the Judicial Branch) that was put in charge of interpretting the Constitution. That interpretation clearly states that teaching creationism in a public school science classroom is unconstitutional. Yes there is. It is found in the First Ammendment. It is only the creationists who claim that evolution contradicts the Bible. Science teachers in public schools are not claiming this. The ban is due to the religious nature of the conclusion and the absence of any scientific content. If you don't like the ban then gather up the scientific evidence needed to support it and get rid of the christian apologetic arguments. You know, actually do some science.

There is nothing that bans religion being taught, when it is taught in the right place ie: Ancient history. There Genesis is taught the same way as other creation myths from the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks & Romans and the Judah/Israel myths also.
The ban on Creationism in science is lawful since creationism isn't science for the same reason that Astrology, Alchemy and Magic are not taught in science classes.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

​

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

​

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

But the state does not ban creationism. Nor is it making any statement on religion except to identify creationism as religious in nature and to reiterate that it cannot promote nor hinder religion.And in teaching science, the state is not making any statement on religion. Rather, it is certain religious idiots who are making their ill-conceived pronouncements about religion with regard to science, such that they preach that the truth of their religion depends utterly on false and contrary-to-fact claims about the physical world. It is unfortunately that those religious idiots make such false pronouncements and preach such self-destructive nonsense, but they are perfectly within their rights to do so and the state does not interfere with them.Creationism is not banned. Rather the state bars itself from promoting religion and hence also must bar itself from allowing those religious idiots to use the public schools to preach its self-destructive nonsense. Those religious idiots have plenty of other non-state venues to preach their self-destructive nonsense. You can say whatever you want. In the real world, just saying something does not make it true. That only works in magic, theology, philosophy, and demogoguery. Reality trumps what you say. You're still wrong.The state is not making any opinion on religion. The state is not banning creationism. The state is only abiding by the wall of separate, AKA "The Great Barrier". You are the one who keeps insisting that the state violate the Great Barrier. Why? If you honestly and truly believe that the state is making an opinion on religion, then quote the governmental sources where such an opinion is being made. If you honestly and truly believe that the state is banning creationism, then show us the evidence. The state's refusal to violate the Great Barrier in order to accommodate your narrow sectarian religious beliefs -- over the beliefs of all others, I might add, though that is legally immaterial in such matters -- doesn't count as such evidence. Instead, you need to show us that creationists are no allowed to speak in public non-state-run forums. That they are not allowed to publish any literature. That their books are not allowed to be sold. Those would be examples of the state banning creationism. When and where have such actions occurred? No, rather it is you who is missing "the actual reality" of what is being taught. I gave you government resources for learning what goes into science education. Did you read any of those official government documents? No, I didn't think so. What point? You haven't presented one. Instead, you keep making the same false and nonsensical accusations against all the facts. Then you're wrong about that, too.

And we all know who that is, save one of us. Go to a mirror, identify that person, and take corrective action. Sorry, but you didn't make any case. You kept prattling the same false nonsense repeatedly, but never actually made any kind of a case. Nor an actual point. Except perhaps the bizaare idea that in order to for the US to preserve and observe separation of church and state, then the US must directly violate that separation by presenting creationism, which has been proven to be religious in nature!Honestly, do you have any idea what you are talking about?Though interestingly, I keep finding certain odd and tortured phrases crop up repeatedly in your posts. It appears to follow the same kind of pattern I've seen many times in the past, where a clueless creationist just regurgitates the nonsense that other creationists had been feeding him. One of the symptoms of that situation is where that creationist cannot engage in discussion of the subject matter, but rather just keeps ignoring all replies and "responds" by just repeating the same nonsense over and over again.Robbie, you didn't come up with any of this yourself, did you? You're just repeating what you've read or heard from somewhere else. What's your source for these "arguments"? Who's the creationist who's been feeding you this nonsense? Time to come clean now, lad. What is it about creationists and false claims of "logic"? True, they have a very long and colorful history of prattling on and on about subjects of which they are completely ignorant -- "Creationism is more fun than science!", purportedly said by Michael Ruse. But it's as if they believe in word-magic and believe that all they have to do is use the word "logic" and it will magically become so. And on top of it, you also invoke the magical name of "math" and expect to not have to show your work. Haven't you ever taken a math class either?You want to present a logical argument for your position? Well then do so! But you will have to present your premises. And you will have to show those premises to be true. Not just assert that they are, but actually show them to be true. Because, logically, if your premises are false, then your conclusions cannot be shown to be true.You really should try to learn something about logic before you try to invoke it. I don't know why you and other creationists believe that ignorance is so much superior to knowledge. It isn't. Ignorance is something that needs to be remedied, not embraced and glorified. That is because you are blinded by your own ignorance. We have patiently tried to explain it to you, but you block out everything that does not agree with the false little world that creationists have built for you. You are so wrapped up in those lies that you are incapable of seeing the truth. Pearls before swine.A friend at church used to be in the same condition. A fervent fundamentalist for many years, he had to filter everything around him through his theology. That included blinding himself to everything that did not agree with that theology. The constant and ever-growing self-deception that his theology required of him finally proved to be too much for him. He applied the Matthew 7:20 test on Christianity and found that it failed that test. Now he describes himself as "an atheist and thorough humanist" and he finds that he is immensely more spiritually fulfilled now than he ever was as a fundamentalist.Ooh! Self-deception vs truth. Gee, why should that be such a tough choice for some people? Devastating only in your delusions. Sorry, reality trumps your delusions. And you demonstrate that you cannot deal with reality.So that's 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.

What secular reason could there be for the state to advance religion? No it's the state saying its a religious position and therefore it can't be taught in a science class. If truth is the goal then why are you advocating the teaching of christian creationism?

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

Yes, we concede the point. We have conceded it several times. I myself have conceded it frequently. The reason you can't teach creationism is because it is religion and because it would serve no secular purpose to do so, because of it being trash.But what else are we to do? You should address my question about Flat-Earthers. If some sect teaches as a religious dogma that the Earth is flat, does that really mean that we shouldn't teach that it's round? You speak of the intent of the Founding Fathers --- well, is that really what they intended?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.

There are facts that confirm some people's religious views. For example, the Big Bang confirms that our universe had a beginning; it was thought up by a Catholic priest, and was hailed by the Pope of the time as confirmation of the Bible. But that doesn't prevent us from teaching it.Similarly, if the evidence showed that the Earth was ~6000 years old, this would be confirmatory evidence for YEC, but that wouldn't be a reason not to teach it. No, he has a point so far as it goes. Because under the doctrine of "secular purpose" you could teach creationism if it was true, the decision that you can't teach it implies that it's false.

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.