|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism in Schools | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Darwin Storm Inactive Member |
Creationism is religious by its very nature. In fact, an Arkansas law requiring the teaching of creationism was ruled unconstitutional in 1981 for that very reason. If you want a religious indoctrination for your child, send them to a private school. You do have that right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theo Inactive Junior Member |
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.
As well just because something is religious does not mean that it cannot be taught in schools. 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. ------------------theo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
LudvanB Inactive Member |
quote: No its not lazy Theo...its merely to make a point...if you dont takes the circle/tree/quotation to mean anything more than poetic liberties,i'm ok with that. But then,you just introduced an element of uncertainty in the mix. If you take those quotation to be figures of speech,then why go with the 6 day creation and the global flood and takes those in the literal sense....why not recognize them for what they obviously are...paraboles made up to make a point. Jesus constantly taught using paraboles,so there's clearly nothing wrong with that. Many fields of science tells us that those biblical legends dont make any sense in real life and just couldn't happen. You can reply the usual "godidit" using miracles but thats just an unsubstanciated mythological belief and it has no place in a scientific discussion....and certainly not in a science class in school
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2196 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
In message 106 I provided a link to the text for the Edwards v. Aguillard ruling and asked that you show us exactly where it calls Creationism valid. Since this does not require you to present a reference (I'm giving you the reference) I figured it would be an easy response. Of course, messages at the bottom of a page are sometimes overlooked.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html [QUOTE][b]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] [/b] That happens to be one of the conclusions from E v. A. If the Court calling Creationism valid makes it valid, then the Court calling it religious makes it religious. (Are we going to use Argument from Authority or let it go? Though I still would like to see where it is called valid.)
[QUOTE][b]So creationism, even if it were only religious in nature could be taught in public schools.[/QUOTE] [/b] I need to look up your court case but I haven't had the time yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
quicksink Inactive Member |
ok theo
you have stated that creationism is a science. now go into the following threads "questions" "animals on the ark" answer each and every question. please so not give the predicatable excuse- "i don't know, i haven't studied that" or "i don't know enough about that to give you an answer" if you don't have an answer find one... i'll keep pushing this until you give an answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
--I think those questions are all fine and everything, though I would ask not to ask everyone to go there in every single thread, its a bit arrogant with its abundance.
------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024