Creationism, Evolution and the Public Schools

"Creationism" is just a euphemism for Biblical fundamentalism and as such has no place in the science or biology classroom. Suppose evolutionists were to propose a law that required that all of the Sunday and religious schools teach the Biblical account of origins only as a theory and give equal time to the the evolutionary point of view. There would be such an outcry that it could be heard halfway to the Horsehead Nebula, even though sound cannot travel in a vacuum...And yet the Creationists universally support the reverse of this, and there is far more valid, scientific evidence for evolution than there is for the Old or the New Testament. For centuries it was believed that man was the center of the universe, the crown of creation, and that everything in it was made for him. Centuries of scientific development, from Copernicus and Galileo to Darwin, Hooker, Lyell, Freud and Hubble have demonstrated, in the words of Santayana that the Bible is literature, not dogma, that the universe is a lot larger than the writers of Genesis thought, and man a lot smaller and less important. "Creationists " who cling to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible do so because they are unable or unwilling to part with old and comforting myths and to accept the universe that modern science reveals to us. If they wish to ignore the real world, let them, but please don't expect the rest of us to hide our heads in the sand along with them, and do not dignify their religious ravings with a place in our educational institutions. I am for eliminating religion from the schools, I am for eliminating religion from the churches and I am for eliminating religion altogether as a reactionary force that has done nothing but hold the human race back for thousands of years and contributed to war, violence, bigotry, hatred, fanaticism, intolerance and the very opposite of understanding, reason, compassion and brotherly love. The place for fundamentalism is the insane asylum, not the biology classroom.

The reasonable thing to do would be to insert some evidence for biological design and rapid generation of the geological column into to public courses to dismiss the 'appearence' (ha) of bias. If you personally don't believe there is such evidence why not check out my new thread which shows just how such evidence could be incorporated and be competely reasonable.

Why? I don't see any controversy in the mainstream journals.

^ Read my post to Percy today in my education thread. I give the reason why we don't publish mainstream often. The gist: even the most obvious arguemnts for design cannot be made mainstream although a good proportion of publishing scientists would agree that design is evident.

Ed this does not seem to be my understanding of the LOCAL LA LousyAnna use of the resources. And I spent some time in New Orleans. To say as you do means that one would generally have to have a pretty good demoninational knoweldge and yet in fact when comparing Lutherns and Presbyterians neiter allow much association with Fundamentalism and yet I can be in the presence of both. So from my own demoninalization knowledge I can not even say that you mean BAPTIST fundamentally! I know what a Petacostal Service is like. They even paid me to talk to them about evolution outside jackson Square New Orleans on the river walk near the Aquarium!!

What happened Ed? Running from the debate, hiding from the truth, perverting naturalistic science? Even the Evo's here (to their credit) aren't defending what appears as communistic bigotry?

[Deleted text that was just a copy of post 1. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 12-05-2002]

This article was very emotionally disturbing. Yes, everyone is titled to their own opinions, but to say that ALL religion should be abolished along with all the churches and beliefs that trillions of people have all over the world is a bit harsh. You don't have all that facts about how the world and universe were created. True, there seems to be more hard evidense in evolution, but faith is what keeps the world the way it is. If you take faith away from all people, then what is life for? Why should a person be good in life and work so hard? It is that faith in a "higher being" that makes the world what it is. True, religion does seem to cause many wars in this world, but face it, even without religion, people would find something to fight about or for. It is human, animal instinct to fight. We may not have all the facts yet about religion, but everyday people are learning more and more about it among other things. Don't give up hope on religion. I believe there is a God, and because of my beliefs, I do not question the origin of earth and people...

Fear not - probably even rabid atheists didn't take that post too seriously. Even those of us most upset about fundamentalism's involvement in public education have nothing against religion, and in fact many of us are quite religious ourselves.--Percy

I agree completely with outlawing religion. It claims to be a force for good whilst carrying out some of the most unspeakable acts the human race has ever known.The main reason I am an atheist is because the god you claim exists would not tolerate the things done in his name. How can an almighty allseing allknowing deity stand idly by whilst religions worldwide and throughout history torture maim and kill in the name of "morality".

Neither creationism nor evolution should be taught in schools. Period.But according to Metatron:

quote:

---

I agree completely with outlawing religion

---

And... just HOW would you go about that? Moreover, just how would you enforce such a law "outlawing" religionJ I would love to see your attempt to draft a law Metatron. Go ahead and put your thoughts in writing if you dare.You evos get more and more scarey every day. Some of your ideas are off the Richter scale of reason.

You outlaw religion by declaring it to be an act of bigotry (like racism,sexism homophobia) religions by their very nature are "holier than thou" suffer not an unbeliever. Then simply use existing equal oportunities law to prosecute offenders.Heavy fines should suffice.If we were feeling intolerant we could always follow the example of the christian church and burn transgressors to death, confiscate their property, murder their families and invade countries that refuse to comply.[This message has been edited by Metatron, 12-07-2002]

quote:

---

I know what a Petacostal Service is like. They even paid me to talk to them about evolution outside jackson Square New Orleans on the river walk near the Aquarium!!

---

I wouldn't ask this question of anyone else of the evo side, but this statement was made by Brad.Brad - Could you possibly give us a brief summary of the points you made, at the above mentioned evolution talk?Moose

quote:

---

You outlaw religion by declaring it to be an act of bigotry (like racism,sexism homophobia) religions by their very nature are "holier than thou" suffer not an unbeliever. Then simply use existing equal oportunities law to prosecute offenders.
Heavy fines should suffice.

​

If we were feeling intolerant we could always follow the example of the christian church and burn transgressors to death, confiscate their property, murder their families and invade countries that refuse to comply.

---

Hey Metatron, how about a definition of "religion"? Preferably a definition of religion a Court of Law would recognize, that is, legal precedent on the definition of religion (cite case law).While you're at it, give us a legal definition of "bigotry". Reminding you, of course, it was your idea to engage legal process against your neighbor on grounds of "religious bigotry". If you wish to confiscate life, liberty, and property based on what YOU subjectively believe to be "religious bigotry", noting in aside you are a self proclaimed "atheist" (religious motive/bias here?), it is only fair you provide the potential violator with due process and notice by clearly defining those limits of behaviour you wish to control.I did note that you pointed out bigotry to mean "sexism, racism, and homophobia." Without a definition of religious bigotry, however, the comparison is meaningless. A legal definition of sexism would be cool too if you find the time to get around to it. I'd be interested in what you thought "sexism" was..."Racism" is another interesting term. Cite a legal definition there too."Homophobia", however, is the most laughable. Legal definition?If you want the power to hurt people who don't embrace your personal beliefs about God, you better make a more compelling argument than you've made Metatron. Thus far what you've said is s-i-c-k; I've noted the comment about your interest in midevil torture practices. Please stay in the UK.Thanks,Ten-sai

I notice ten-shite that you are trying to bog us down in pointless ranting over the grammar and wording of a hypothetical legal definition, whilst blatently ignoring the moral questions behind my belief in the creation of one. Are you afraid to deal with moral questions due to your unspoken knowledge that any religious moral high ground (buddism may be the only exception) is soaked in the blood of innocents (read infidel/unbeliever if you are religious.