Support for Louisiana repeal effort

No question that this (like Dover) is/will be a battle of special interests from both sides. And the big money will be on the evolution side. Some of it will be public money, while the creationist money will be all private. There is a controversy regarding evolution among the general public, and the general public is who the schools are for. I know the standard retort to that is if some in the general public don’t believe organisms change over time, then their beliefs don’t matter, but the controversy is largely how the word evolution changes definitions so easily. Does it mean change over time, or does it mean common ancestor Genesis is wrong? It can never be identified - it can switch definitions within one sentence. Science can seamlessly transcend into philosophy (worldviews), and if common ancestor evolution is the only game in town in science classrooms, then there’s nothing that keeps Genesis is wrong from being the topic of the day in science classrooms, and parents have a right to object to it. An anti-evolution law doesn’t only have to be about promoting religion, it can also be about lessening the promotion of the religion of atheism, which also violates the constitution.It’s always interesting how religion/ID must be kept completely out of science classrooms, because, we’re told, it will lead to all sorts of cheapening of science, of establishment of religion, etc, yet if someone claims that studies of only evolution will lead to atheism, the slippery slope fallacy bell is clanged. When one side has more political clout than the other, free passes for double standards seem to come easily.

quote:

---

Federal investment in research and education is essential if the United States is to remain a global leader in the biological sciences. The National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Energy Office of Science, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are among the federal agencies that fund intramural (e.g. government scientists) and extramural (e.g. university scientists) biological research, as well as programs that recruit and train the next generation of scientists.

---

Science Policy & Advocacy Services | AIBSThis is from the website of the first organization that was mentioned in the link in this thread’s opening message. Federal investment in research and education , and a listing of government agencies such as the EPA being among the federal agencies that fund intramural.biological research always seem to be instrumental in all these various agencies that take sides in naturalism v religion political battles. It’s easy to see how public money could be used by them for their political battles, and it’s difficult to see where any ID or religious organization would get any public funding, since separation of church and state, would obviously prohibit all, or 99% of it. My question is, why am I challenged on this? Why do several of you find that objectionable? Don’t you believe that it’s only an innocent, scientific interest that seeks to overturn challenges from religious special interests? What would be wrong with using public money for it? Should it only be special interest atheist money? It would have to be one or the other. If religious special interests are opposed, it would have to be either with public money, or private anti religious money. If a person is studying chemistry, he should have an interest in the origin of the elements, as well as the laws that govern chemical reactions. If he’s studying English, a basic would be to study the origins of the language. The curiosity of origins are present in science/evolution, they can’t be kept out. Evolutionists always publicly claim that the origins of life don’t matter to evolution, while they’ve been privately trying really hard to find proof and theories about how life originated in an evolutionary type of gradualism, with almost no success for 150 years now.All humans, including children in science classes, are curious creatures. It’s not possible to teach them evolution, and expect them to have no interest, ask no questions, about origins. As I mentioned in one of my past discussions here, I looked at a 9th grade biology textbook, and it said that little progress has been made thus far concerning life from non-life through naturalistic processes, but it was only a matter of time before it’s found. That’s not science, that’s atheism. Many people in Louisiana, (and the entire U.S) understand that. It is organized like religion, it has unchangeable beliefs like religion, and it seeks political benefits like religion can. It has every social danger that the founders feared that any religion would have. I can, How about a ‘great debate’ on it? If you can’t or don’t want to for any reason, maybe somebody else will, I don’t care who, as long as it's just one, and not an angry gang of 10 or 15. I’ve looked at the basics of how the Louisiana law originated, and the reasons for it. It was passed in 1980 by a State Senator named Bill Keith. From the Wikipedia description;

quote:

---

Keith's act required that scientific evidence for creation-science, the view of abrupt appearance of organisms in the fossil records, whenever related material on evolution was presented in classes. A panel of seven creation-scientists, appointed by the governor, would advise local school districts on the appropriate curriculum. The act did not specifically require or allow instruction in any religious doctrine.

---

Great debate? Are you really serious? Do you really want detail?

Were there any atheist plantiffs, or did they all take a vacation when they found enough "Christians" to carry their water for them? The ACLU can do some amazing things, can't it? No, I had it explained to me in another discussion here, a year or so ago. I was told that "different people/scientists" in different wings/laBORatories of the universities are doing abiogenesis research. It doesn't make the headlines, get near the detail in science books that evolution does. (obviously because it can't meet the criteria to be considered science, that is set for ID) Then your question was OFF TOPIC. This thread is about the Louisiana law. To pertain to this thread, your question, how religion could possibly be integrated into science would apply to your beliefs about how the Louisiana law attempted to do that. As you secretly know, the Louisiana law doesn’t do that, NO law in recent U.S. history attempts to do that. That's the reason you fled from the one on one challenge. All the evolutionist questions about attempts to teach religion in science classes are straw man arguments. While there may be a few unknown religious extremists who desire it to some degree, it will never see the light of day in the U.S. The Louisiana law was intended to balance the atheism that’s present in today’s science education, nothing more. That’s how clever attorneys work. They condemn something on a far removed thing they claim it’s based on, not what it actually says, or is intended to do. Yet evolution is never criticized for being based on the 19th century imaginations of not only Darwin, but Charles Lyell, Alfred Wallace, Herbert Spencer and Thomas Huxley. None of them knew anything about the simplest forms of life. That has nothing to do with the Louisiana law, which is the topic of this thread. So you try to bait me at a 4 year old, 16 page long thread that has nothing to do with this thread, then accuse ME of trying to send YOU down a rabbit trail? Evolution/atheist forums are interesting places. Also not explicitly stated, funding for political actions, as well as atheistic pseudo-science, like abiogenesis, and claims that Genesis is mythology. The initiation, and attempted repeals, of laws like the Louisiana law. It's what this thread is about, you know. Like naturalistic processes of life from non-life? I never said that. My problem is with atheist organizations that receive public funds to support their big government, anti religious agendas. No, I'm advocating that atheist indoctrination removed from their subjects. Since that's not possible, the next best thing is balance.Like when a science book declares that life naturalistically arose from non-life, and we're going to find out how someday? That kind of different perspectives and other ways of thinking? So they can turn up the ~license, regulate, restrict, and prohibit~ agenda that delights atheists and liberals. Because the EPA wants to be God. If it's going to make commands to all the peasants about how to take care of IT'S Earth, it doesn't need the real God getting in its way. No, just aware of what's going on in today's society.

quote:

---

Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison — 2008
Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins — 2008

---

Only the ones science can't explain, yet presents its atheist opinions on. Like science textbooks do about life from non-life.

Anything in a natural system that indicates a beginning specified complexity. And so are the Ten Commandments, right? Research that is not science, yet is favored by atheists. They don’t want naturalistic abiogenesis research to go to court like ID did, because they know that it just may meet the same fate that ID did. No, since no best-selling books have been written entitled How Calculus shows that God does not exist, How English shows that God does not exist, How drivers ed shows that God does not exist. They are thousand-fold multiples of the Wedge Document, with identical, reversed intent. You know, the only document needed in court cases to help a bent judge determine that ALL of ID is contained in that one writing. Education and environmentalism, as only two examples. My other responses this evening may detail that better for you. Christianity is a belief, a religion, so it makes sense that books are written to describe, explain, and promote it. I’m told that atheism is a lack of belief, and not a religion. How can so much material be inspired by a LACK of something? Growing and spreading, yes. Largely because of its public establishment in science education. I know you say that creationism inspires atheism. I'm not interested in a gang-on-one discussion of it. It's not really on topic anyway. People convert both ways. Noted Christian authors C.S. Lewis and Lee Strobel converted from atheism to Christianity. Not everyone thinks science is the only, or most important, source of knowledge. If Mr Barker, when looking around at all those wonderful atheist books would have seen only a few others of a different type, like A Jealous God; Science’s Crusade Against Religion, it could have been enough to jolt him out of his trance. Billions of dollars hang in the balance concerning bioethics, and the scientific interest in it. A few of paragraphs from that book;

quote:

---

Most of modern bioethics is clearly subversive of the tradition of common morality. Rather than promoting respect for universal human values and rights, it systematically seeks to subvert them. In modern bioethics, nothing is, in itself, either valuable or inviolable, except utility.

​

In order to forge ahead with the new utilitarian approach to ethics, it was necessary to do away with religion altogether, an agenda that secular bioethics was subtly and not so subtly accomplishing. In his book Rethinking Life and Death, Peter Singer announced that ten new commandments would have to replace the ten commandments of the Bible. Thou Shalt Not Kill and others are replaced with conditional commandments that humans should be killed under certain circumstances, that animals may at times be more worthy of life than humans, that not all human life is of equal worth, that a newborn infant has no greater right to live than a fetus, and so fourth.

​

In Germany and Austria, with their collective guilt about the Holocaust, Peter Singer is considered so repulsive that his writings are banned. But the academic elite in the United States welcomed him with open arms.

---

What the academic elite in the U.S. realizes, is that its job of indoctrinating students into atheism already has one big hurdle for them automatically taken care of, and that’s most young people, (whether 6th grade or college age) are very open to a personal release of an adherence to the ten commandments. Barker didn’t mention that in your c/p, but there’s little question it entered into the equation for him. That and his woeful lack of Christian knowledge about avoiding being deceived, about "leaning not on thine own understanding". Some representative of Christianity he was.To anticipate the next question I’ll see; Duh, who is Peter Singer?, Peter Singer comes in 8th on a list of The 25 most influential living atheists. Barbara Forrest, (quoted in the link in the opening message of this thread) is 19th. Their work and influence makes the Wedge Document look very microscopic. This from one of several of my opponents who make their points with vulgar language. This O/P of this thread didn’t clearly specify which law it was. But it makes sense there are more than one for one state over a period of only a few decades. It’s a pattern, one child who happens to have an influential politician for a parent comes home one day and says; F.U. mom and dad, I don’t have to listen to you anymore, I just learned in science class that Genesis is mythology, so the 10 commandments have to be too. Then dad gets a law passed so there can be alternatives to these kinds of discussions cropping up during science class, and a few years later George Soros and the ACLU buy a court and get it repealed. A few more years go by, and the process repeats. Where did I insist that? I think the problem you have is that your definition of religion is different than the actual one. To question compete atheism with indications that complex systems may have origins that are unexplainable isn’t religious ritual. It’s open inquiry, that falls between religion and militant atheism. Any links to examples of what they actually said? I’d like to see how they compare to science textbook claims that naturalistic origins of life will be discovered some day. The example is in the beginning of this thread (before I joined in) Message 2 stated; Shouldn't this be a state issue and left to the Louisianans determine for themselves? He was hammered on by about 6 posters, became apologetic for being wrong, then got it from about 6 new different posters, including administration. (an equivalent of the teacher) When a Christian science student raises his hand and asks a question about a conflict between Genesis and evolution, the same thing can happen. He’s made to feel wrong, and can be reduced to tears. You don’t have to believe that it happens. But it’s documented that it does. What was the definition of evolution at that time? Did they want the photosynthesis, organisms changing-to-adapt-to-disease-resistance kind of evolution forced out, or was it common descent, we’re-going-to-find-proof-of-atheism-someday evolution? It was obviously the latter, not the former. But definitions are often switched by evolutionists when the need arises. I’d say the tears came about because he knew he would have a harder time indoctrinating students into environmental radicalism, and other liberal political ideology.

I'm not a bull. So that rant was all you've got for my first 7 lines of message 96? Okay. I know it’s politically correct to claim that atheism isn’t involved in science. But political correctness isn’t always regarded by the majority as the truth. Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) said, "Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous." Michael Ruse (evolutionist, former Christian) agrees. So do the authors of all the books I mentioned. We see it in forums such as these. We see it everywhere. Putting 2 and 2 together involves watching the scientific community add one fact, two theories, three hypothesis, four guesses, five atheist wishes, and finding the sum total to be a fact. Kids need to learn that science isn’t the only source of knowledge. Well you win that one, I did miss that, though it wasn’t in the O/P as you claim, it was in the link from the O/P. At that time I just did a search on Louisiana laws that cause atheists to go ballistic, and found the 1980 one first. It is interesting that Louisiana had more than one law on the subject. I wonder if people like Barbara Forrest would prefer to not make that clear? I wasn’t trying to describe exactly what happened to Bill Keith, you know that. I was providing an emotional generalization of what I believe people see from their evolution/atheism indoctrinated children. If you’re going to cry foul when I emphasize something with a little emotion to make a point, I’d have to ask you to stop referring to bulls. So evolution "really is" atheistic then? Amazing how you switch it from paragraph to paragraph. But you make it all too complicated - teenagers (sometimes subconsciously) are looking for ways out of the 10 commandments. Science wakes that subconscious right up!It’s all about worldviews. Many parents don’t like it when their kids are lied to about naturalistic origins of life being a fact, and that science will prove it someday. Or the lies that one time dimension, or three spatial dimension are all that can possibly exist, because the scientific community considers themselves little gods. They don’t like their kids being lied to about the scientific fantasy that humans can understand all of reality. As one example, the human mind can’t fully comprehend infinity. Why not do those things for state laws about ID? Why the double standard? Why must ID be met with shouts of conspiracy theories, and hauled into federal court? You still haven’t shown where I insisted that religion be integrated into science. You showed your straw man, but that’s still not near the same. Again, your definition of religion isn’t the same as the real one. So when something is blatantly religious according to atheists, it all must be eliminated, yet when something is blatantly atheistic according to most students parents, it must be locally, slowly, dealt with by due process? Double standards. Yes! If some were "blatantly religious", I'd expect you to be able to highlight them. But I'll check that out when I get time. Don’t bother, I’m not interested in the name of another girly man. We already have one as House Speaker. I’ve already presented it, with no responses. It’s in science textbooks, where it is taught as fact that naturalistic origins of life will be discovered someday. If it’s believed to be happening often enough, with enough students bullied into keeping it quiet, then all of science education could very well be culpable. But something in science is taught dogmatically. It’s called abiogenesis — naturalistic origins of life. It will never be possible to test or refute it, despite science textbook claims. So you claim that there is one and only one definition of evolution?