NationStates Jolt Archive

I live in the middle of the so-called "Bible Belt" and there are very, very few here who actually still adhere to the "Creation" myth. Are there some? Yes, of course there are. Do they want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us? Yes, but that is a much smaller number.

I would personally oppose anyone who tried to eliminate evolution from the school curriculum and substitute "Creationism," as would the majority of North Carolina voters.

What you have to try and understand is that just because someone calls themselves a "Christian," does NOT mean they support the agenda of SOME fundamentalists'. It does NOT mean they do not accept evolution as valid. It does NOT mean they expect everyone to convert to Chrisitanity. On the contrary, even many who call themselves "fundamentalists" have no wish to impose any of their beliefs on the rest of the population.

I know a great number of those who call themselves "Christians" and a great number of those who refer to themselves as "fundamentalist," or any of a number of other synonyms for fundamentalist. By and large, these are good, kind, gentle people. Many of them are concerned that public schools ( and many other American secular institutions ) are continually undermining their faith and teaching their children things contrary to what their parents are trying to teach them.

I do not defend their beliefs, since I don't believe as they do, but based on my personal knowledge of those who call themselves "Christian fundamentalists," I do defend their rights to protect their beliefs, to teach their children their beliefs, and to defend their beliefs in the "public square." To do less would be to deny MY beliefs, which include allowing others to believe as they wish.

Absolutely. I know a freaking huge amount of Christians, including my parents, who are some of the most intelligent people on this planet; hell, my dad has multiple doctorates, including in geophysics and programming. It's a shame that we would call every Christian an evil bible-beating Republican, just as it is a shame that we lump ever Muslim together with the terrorists like Al Queda.
Now, there are some bad Christians, yes, but you've got bad apples in just about every batch, no matter what. Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Muslims, Jews, Christians, hell, whatever you want, we've all got good and bad in us. You must judge on the character of the individual alone.

I live in the middle of the so-called "Bible Belt" and there are very, very few here who actually still adhere to the "Creation" myth. Are there some? Yes, of course there are. Do they want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us? Yes, but that is a much smaller number.

I would personally oppose anyone who tried to eliminate evolution from the school curriculum and substitute "Creationism," as would the majority of North Carolina voters.

What you have to try and understand is that just because someone calls themselves a "Christian," does NOT mean they support the agenda of SOME fundamentalists'. It does NOT mean they do not accept evolution as valid. It does NOT mean they expect everyone to convert to Chrisitanity. On the contrary, even many who call themselves "fundamentalists" have no wish to impose any of their beliefs on the rest of the population.

I know a great number of those who call themselves "Christians" and a great number of those who refer to themselves as "fundamentalist," or any of a number of other synonyms for fundamentalist. By and large, these are good, kind, gentle people. Many of them are concerned that public schools ( and many other American secular institutions ) are continually undermining their faith and teaching their children things contrary to what their parents are trying to teach them.

I do not defend their beliefs, since I don't believe as they do, but based on my personal knowledge of those who call themselves "Christian fundamentalists," I do defend their rights to protect their beliefs, to teach their children their beliefs, and to defend their beliefs in the "public square." To do less would be to deny MY beliefs, which include allowing others to believe as they wish.

While I agree that they have every right to believe whatsoever they wish the “Christian fundamentalists” as you so call it tend to be the subset of Christians that tends to try to push their views and teachings on others … and that is what I have a problem with.

i tend to leave them alone until they start attacking other people or being idiots about scientific theory.

I agree for the most part Eutrusca, even though I don't believe that religious belief is a "right", but you don't live in the middle of the Bible Belt, I do, right here in Southern Illinois.

while i would normally agree with people who post something like this, eutrusca is a delusional, egotistical hypocrite and doesnt deserve to be agreed with, so...

I disagree!! *speeds off*

i tend to leave them alone until they start attacking other people or being idiots about scientific theory.
Yeah I hate when they muck around in it also (a lot of times not understanding that scientific theory is meant to be proven wrong by new info … then updated to closer approximate reality) lol and all that effort they spend trying to debunk a theory (and through it scientific method) just ends up helping it (if it is a true debunking not a false conclusion)

Silliness

I have no problem with Untwisted and Nontwisted Christians, and feel the same about Untwisted and Nontwisted Non-Christians, but I dont like T.C.'s (Twisted Christians) or T.N.-C.'s (Twisted Non-Christians), and the internet/media sure as heck doesnt (in my opinion) represent the ratio of either group, I'm certain in real life just about everyone I mean Christian and otherwise are Untwisted....yet I believe one wouldnt necessarily get that impression surfing the web or tv chanels...

I agree for the most part Eutrusca, even though I don't believe that religious belief is a "right", but you don't live in the middle of the Bible Belt, I do, right here in Southern Illinois.

Religious belief isn't a "right?"

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


North Carolina isn't the middle of the "Bible Belt?" Hmmm.

Bible belt: Those sections of the United States, especially in the South and Middle West, where Protestant fundamentalism is widely practiced. [The American Heritage Dictonary]

I live in the middle of the so-called "Bible Belt" and there are very, very few here who actually still adhere to the "Creation" myth. Are there some? Yes, of course there are. Do they want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us? Yes, but that is a much smaller number.

I would personally oppose anyone who tried to eliminate evolution from the school curriculum and substitute "Creationism," as would the majority of North Carolina voters.

What you have to try and understand is that just because someone calls themselves a "Christian," does NOT mean they support the agenda of SOME fundamentalists'. It does NOT mean they do not accept evolution as valid. It does NOT mean they expect everyone to convert to Chrisitanity. On the contrary, even many who call themselves "fundamentalists" have no wish to impose any of their beliefs on the rest of the population.

I know a great number of those who call themselves "Christians" and a great number of those who refer to themselves as "fundamentalist," or any of a number of other synonyms for fundamentalist. By and large, these are good, kind, gentle people. Many of them are concerned that public schools ( and many other American secular institutions ) are continually undermining their faith and teaching their children things contrary to what their parents are trying to teach them.

I do not defend their beliefs, since I don't believe as they do, but based on my personal knowledge of those who call themselves "Christian fundamentalists," I do defend their rights to protect their beliefs, to teach their children their beliefs, and to defend their beliefs in the "public square." To do less would be to deny MY beliefs, which include allowing others to believe as they wish.

I defend the right of Christians to worship the god of their choosing.

I defend the right of Christians to preach the Gospel, if they so desire.

I do NOT defend the right of Christians to have a state legislate that THEIR faith MUST be taught as part of every child's education.

I do NOT defend the right of Christians to be given ANY platform that shows a biased preference towards THEIR belief, over mine, or any other individual.

Yeah I hate when they muck around in it also (a lot of times not understanding that scientific theory is meant to be proven wrong by new info … then updated to closer approximate reality) lol and all that effort they spend trying to debunk a theory (and through it scientific method) just ends up helping it (if it is a true debunking not a false conclusion)

Silliness
well, a lot of young earth creationists are completely unaware of the definition of a scientific theory to start with. hence any proclamations that creationism is a theory.

and yeah, often there are simple blanket statements that they think are so great but really have been demonstrated one way or the other since the 1950s when they got their info... and often they bring up hoaxes... as though there have never been any in christianity. hell, the "blood" on the shroud of turin is plant based... if science was a human being, some young earth creationists would be tried for abuse.

My opinion on religious people(Of all faiths and denominations) is the same as my opinion of homosexuals....
I don't care what you do, just don't hit on me.
So, don't preach to me, don't try to convert me, and i have no beef with religion. Same goes for other people. People should be able to choose their religion free of bias, or weird people coming to your door in the middle of the day. The only thing that should affect a person's beleifs is themselves and possibly their raising.
Sincerely,
Icon

I know a great number of those who call themselves "Christians" and a great number of those who refer to themselves as "fundamentalist," or any of a number of other synonyms for fundamentalist. By and large, these are good, kind, gentle people. Many of them are concerned that public schools ( and many other American secular institutions ) are continually undermining their faith and teaching their children things contrary to what their parents are trying to teach them.


the problem being that what they tend to object most strenuously to is the fact that their beliefs are no longer being given special priviledge rather than that they are being taught things contrary to them. The sort of notion, for example, that if a school does not inflict a moment of prayer on their children that they will stray. Can a child not pray on their own before school if they so wish? Is their children's faith so fragile that it must be institutionalized everywhere in order for it to take root? Is telling children who don't believe in God in the same way that you do that they must daily spend a few minutes respecting somebody elses beliefs when their own beliefs are not given equal time a fair way to do things? A sign of tolerance.

For those that worry that teaching may be contrary to their beliefs, I understand their dilema even as I think that they would be smarter to let their children get a balanced view of alternate theories in school rather than sticking your head in the sand and hoping that your kids never hear the word evolution.

However it is those who seemingly are more concerned with objecting that the schools no longer are in the business of promoting their beliefs that I have no time for.

Religious belief isn't a "right?"

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That just states that the government cannot endorse nor prohibit religion. It says nothing about the government being responsible to protect religion. The government protects people rights, which are speech, assembly, property, and so on. Religion is only protected as an extension of those rights. The government has no business with religion, but it cannot keep you from practicing it in your homes and church. But I believe it has no right to protect the practice of it in public, beyond those initial rights.

North Carolina isn't the middle of the "Bible Belt?" Hmmm.

Bible belt: Those sections of the United States, especially in the South and Middle West, where Protestant fundamentalism is widely practiced. [The American Heritage Dictonary]

If you are in the mountains near Tennessee then you are in it. But if you are near the coast, you are stretching it.

well, a lot of young earth creationists are completely unaware of the definition of a scientific theory to start with. hence any proclamations that creationism is a theory.

and yeah, often there are simple blanket statements that they think are so great but really have been demonstrated one way or the other since the 1950s when they got their info... and often they bring up hoaxes... as though there have never been any in christianity. hell, the "blood" on the shroud of turin is plant based... if science was a human being, some young earth creationists would be tried for abuse.
Another pet peeve of mine is when they try to PROVE creationism they just end up trying to DISPROVE evolution

Like if evolution in its current form is disproved the default is creationism … silliness

I defend the right of Christians to worship the god of their choosing.

I defend the right of Christians to preach the Gospel, if they so desire.

I do NOT defend the right of Christians to have a state legislate that THEIR faith MUST be taught as part of every child's education.

I do NOT defend the right of Christians to be given ANY platform that shows a biased preference towards THEIR belief, over mine, or any other individual.

I think there should be an open spectrum. Put it in there that there is a belief that it was Created. Put it in there that you feel it was big bang, put it in there that it was sudden matter as appears in a perfect void. Take the most well known/believed theories on the whole start up, and let the student/child choose what one he believes in. That way no one is forceing their views on another.

Personally I think no one will ever know for a fact, people may believe that have it, but there is always some factor to bring up to counter everything. Religion is Ideas based on theory and philosophy. Science is Ideas based on Theory and Repetitiveness. Very simalar concepts, but very different too.

By law, I don't want any religion endorsed, but I would like to see religion accepted. No law against that.

I think there should be an open spectrum. Put it in there that there is a belief that it was Created. Put it in there that you feel it was big bang, put it in there that it was sudden matter as appears in a perfect void. Take the most well known/believed theories on the whole start up, and let the student/child choose what one he believes in. That way no one is forceing their views on another.

Personally I think no one will ever know for a fact, people may believe that have it, but there is always some factor to bring up to counter everything. Religion is Ideas based on theory and philosophy. Science is Ideas based on Theory and Repetitiveness. Very simalar concepts, but very different too.

By law, I don't want any religion endorsed, but I would like to see religion accepted. No law against that.

Actually, Science is Ideas based directly on observation - the theories come later.

And, there is the difference between religion and science... religion starts with an assertion, and tries to make it true.

Science starts with an observation, and tries to work out WHAT happened.

Actually, Science is Ideas based directly on observation - the theories come later.

And, there is the difference between religion and science... religion starts with an assertion, and tries to make it true.

Science starts with an observation, and tries to work out WHAT happened.
If I may amend that just a bit ...
Thories are based upon what is known at the present time, whether there are observations made or not. Observation, experimentation, statistical compilation, peer reviews, etc., are then made in attempts to either prove or disprove the theory.

Religion begins with a priori assumptions based upon "revealed truth," then attempts to explain things in light of what has been revealed.

For a concise explication of the Scientific Method, please see ...

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

While I agree that they have every right to believe whatsoever they wish the “Christian fundamentalists” as you so call it tend to be the subset of Christians that tends to try to push their views and teachings on others … and that is what I have a problem with.

Could you clarify what you mean by "push" and how it differs from the right to free speech.

Actually, Science is Ideas based directly on observation - the theories come later.

And, there is the difference between religion and science... religion starts with an assertion, and tries to make it true.

Science starts with an observation, and tries to work out WHAT happened.
Its all perspective. Scientists feel that they are observeing and understanding, yet years later they get prooved wrong by someone else. The foundation of science is theory. How do we know what an atom is? We guess, educationally guess, but still guess.

I think it all comes from man's searching of answers of how he came to be. It all revolves around that idea, and thats where the biggest arguement comes from. Everyone thinks they are right. Though I think everyone is wrong and we will all find out upon our death just how right or wrong we all are.

If I may amend that just a bit ...
Thories are based upon what is known at the present time, whether there are observations made or not. Observation, experimentation, statistical compilation, peer reviews, etc., are then made in attempts to either prove or disprove the theory.

Religion begins with a priori assumptions based upon "revealed truth," then attempts to explain things in light of what has been revealed.
Which is a lot of my problem with the wish to teach creationism as a science rather then what it is … a theology

I defend the right of Christians to worship the god of their choosing.

I defend the right of Christians to preach the Gospel, if they so desire.

I do NOT defend the right of Christians to have a state legislate that THEIR faith MUST be taught as part of every child's education.

I do NOT defend the right of Christians to be given ANY platform that shows a biased preference towards THEIR belief, over mine, or any other individual.

Fair enough, I'd say the same for evolutionists. If we can treat both the same I'd be happy to call it a day...

Could you clarify what you mean by "push" and how it differs from the right to free speech.
Rather then proposing your opinion of an open forum it is done in a closed forum not abiding by laws (by free speech I am guessing you are talking in the context of USA)

Specifically not abiding by separation of church and state. Along with attempting to pass laws that violate a whole host of other rights.

You are welcome to SAY anything but trying to influence other peoples right to be what they want as long as it does not harm others is not cool by my book

Fair enough, I'd say the same for evolutionists. If we can treat both the same I'd be happy to call it a day...
What about evolutionists … evolution is one SCIENTIFIC theory taught in a SCIENCE class (along with MANY other scientific theories)

Creationism is not a scientific theory … so should not be taught in a SCIENCE class. (not that it shouldn’t be given time … just not in science class)

I took bible as literature as a theology class (public school) because that’s where it fits.

Which is a lot of my problem with the wish to teach creationism as a science rather then what it is … a theology

Actually, creationism can be taught in the absence of a specific theological perspective and is a theory about origins, just like evolution. It doesn't have the years of scientific testing behind it and is somewhat more difficult to measure, but a good scientist would acknowledge that just because we don't have the tools to measure something doesn't make it false.

Which is a lot of my problem with the wish to teach creationism as a science rather then what it is … a theology
I totally agree. Creationism is what might be called a pseudo-scientific construct based upon what some see as "revealed truth." Where the problem comes in is in the conflicting interests between parents who are Christian fundamentalists ( who pay taxes to the school system ), and others ( who also pay taxes to the school system ). Christian fundamentalists point out that they are, in effect, paying to have their own children's beliefs undermined. Non-fundamentalists point out that, when Creationism is taught, they are paying to have their children's education contaminated with religious belief.

There are no easy answers to this, but I rather suspect that eventually most States will allow parents who object to school curricula on religious grounds to homeschool their children and get a tax credit for the expense of doing so. States which elect to do this will most likely require parents to follow a general cirruiclum, but allow leeway for teaching along religious lines.

Actually, creationism can be taught in the absence of a specific theological perspective and is a theory about origins, just like evolution. It doesn't have the years of scientific testing behind it and is somewhat more difficult to measure, but a good scientist would acknowledge that just because we don't have the tools to measure something doesn't make it false.
It is an alternate theory but it is not a SCIENTIFIC theory … (note to be a scientific theory it has to follow the scientific process)

Still don’t think it should be taught in a science class … even if not theology was just an example where it could possibly fit

Rather then proposing your opinion of an open forum it is done in a closed forum not abiding by laws (by free speech I am guessing you are talking in the context of USA)

Specifically not abiding by separation of church and state. Along with attempting to pass laws that violate a whole host of other rights.

You are welcome to SAY anything but trying to influence other peoples right to be what they want as long as it does not harm others is not cool by my book

Works for me. I shouldn't have the right to force you or your children to believe or be taught by others to believe something you believe to be untrue. You also don't have the right to force me or my children to be taught to believe something that I believe to be untrue. Perhaps we could seperate evolution from science class at teach it in an optional "origins" clase...

I totally agree. Creationism is what might be called a pseudo-scientific construct based upon what some see as "revealed truth." Where the problem comes in is in the conflicting interests between parents who are Chrisian fundamentalists ( who pay taxes to the school system ), and others ( who also pay taxes to the school system ). Christian fundamentalists point out that they are, in effect, paying to have their own children's beliefs undermined. Non-fundamentalists point out that, when Creationism is taught, they are paying to have their children's education contaminated with religious belief.

There are no easy answers to this, but I rather suspect that eventually most States will allow parents who object to school curricula on religious grounds to homeschool their children and get a tax credit for the expense of doing so. States which elect to do this will most likely require parents to follow a general cirruiclum, but allow leeway for teaching along religious lines.

So we are going back to the whole "seperate but equal" issue we have with racism. If I pay taxes and don't believe in evolution and don't want my child taught it or wish to decide when and under what circumstance they can be taught, why should I be discriminated against and forced out of the school system I pay for or paid for prior to having children? What about those of us who don't have kids, but still have a fundamental problem with paying for someone to be taught something I disagree with?

So we are going back to the whole "seperate but equal" issue we have with racism. If I pay taxes and don't believe in evolution and don't want my child taught it or wish to decide when and under what circumstance they can be taught, why should I be discriminated against and forced out of the school system I pay for or paid for prior to having children? What about those of us who don't have kids, but still have a fundamental problem with paying for someone to be taught something I disagree with?
"Forced out" seems a bit strong. I prefer to think of it as "being given the option."

As for those who don't have children in the school system not having to pay for something they don't believe in being taught ... that's the start of the slippery slope of taxpayers selecting to pay taxes only on what they wish to pay taxes for. That's one of the reasons we have a representative, elected form of government ... so they can decide where tax money should go and for what it should be spent.

So we are going back to the whole "seperate but equal" issue we have with racism. If I pay taxes and don't believe in evolution and don't want my child taught it or wish to decide when and under what circumstance they can be taught, why should I be discriminated against and forced out of the school system I pay for or paid for prior to having children? What about those of us who don't have kids, but still have a fundamental problem with paying for someone to be taught something I disagree with?
For the same reasons that someone who chose to interpret their religious beliefs as being reason to oppose the teachings of maths, would be in the same position.

Lol, as a Christian, to me, both Creationism and Evolution are great stories.

To me, doesn't really matter which one are thaught.

1) It doesn't affect my faith.
2) Who in the world REALLY knew what happend?

IMO, could have been both for all I know. But we wouldn't really know would we? Fighting over trivial matters.

Works for me. I shouldn't have the right to force you or your children to believe or be taught by others to believe something you believe to be untrue. You also don't have the right to force me or my children to be taught to believe something that I believe to be untrue. Perhaps we could seperate evolution from science class at teach it in an optional "origins" clase...
But evolution IS science ... you could say that science could be optional like whatever class creationism is taught ...

So we are going back to the whole "seperate but equal" issue we have with racism. If I pay taxes and don't believe in evolution and don't want my child taught it or wish to decide when and under what circumstance they can be taught, why should I be discriminated against and forced out of the school system I pay for or paid for prior to having children? What about those of us who don't have kids, but still have a fundamental problem with paying for someone to be taught something I disagree with?
Well most of us personally don’t mind our offspring being taught religion (though I would prefer it not to be a specific denomination) the problem comes in displacing a scientific theory with a non scientific one in a SCIENCE class

"Forced out" seems a bit strong. I prefer to think of it as "being given the option."

As for those who don't have children in the school system not having to pay for something they don't believe in being taught ... that's the start of the slippery slope of taxpayers selecting to pay taxes only on what they wish to pay taxes for. That's one of the reasons we have a representative, elected form of government ... so they can decide where tax money should go and for what it should be spent.


Yes, but in forcing me to pay for something I believe to be a violation of my religious practice aren't my first ammendment rights being violated?

If you don't allow me the same freedom to have my child taught according to my beliefs at your expense, why should you be able to have your child taught according to your beliefs at my expense?

If I may amend that just a bit ...
Thories are based upon what is known at the present time, whether there are observations made or not. Observation, experimentation, statistical compilation, peer reviews, etc., are then made in attempts to either prove or disprove the theory.

Religion begins with a priori assumptions based upon "revealed truth," then attempts to explain things in light of what has been revealed.

For a concise explication of the Scientific Method, please see ...

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

I'm a Chemist, deep down... so I am somewhat familiar with the 'scientific method'... and I'm not sure where you got your idea from - it certainly isn't supported by the article you cited... nor by my experience as a scientist.

Science always starts with observations... you MAY construct a hypothesis about what is happening, which you MAY then construct an experiment to evaluate... you may then observe evidence that gives refinement to that concept, one way or another. Your 'theory' follows on from observation, experimentation, and more observation.

You might want to go back and re-read the subject.

But evolution IS science ... you could say that science could be optional like whatever class creationism is taught ...

Evolution is a scientific theory, which, like all science may or may not be true depending on what the latest findings happen to be. Evolution is not the definition of science, or at least I hope not.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which, like all science may or may not be true depending on what the latest findings happen to be. Evolution is not the definition of science, or at least I hope not.
Sorry you are correct ... I ment more under the "umbrella" I said science ment scientific theory sorry my typing problem

Yes, but in forcing me to pay for something I believe to be a violation of my religious practice aren't my first ammendment rights being violated?
No

If you don't allow me the same freedom to have my child taught according to my beliefs at your expense, why should you be able to have your child taught according to your beliefs at my expense?
Do you have the same freedom to have your child taught according to your beliefs...

Yes, but in forcing me to pay for something I believe to be a violation of my religious practice aren't my first ammendment rights being violated?

If you don't allow me the same freedom to have my child taught according to my beliefs at your expense, why should you be able to have your child taught according to your beliefs at my expense?
Again more of an argument against science being required (though we had optional classes that covered Christianity … so tax payers WERE paying for a belief taught … just was not required)

Though I would hate to see life in the work force or the problems understanding logic if they don’t come in contact with scientific theory at some point in their life (could make all the difference when trying to problem solve)

Christianity and Christians should realize that no-one's been thrown to a lion in living memory. Stop the victim posturing. You're nobody's slave.

Though that's hard to reconcile with adhering to a slave religion, admittedly.

Its all perspective. Scientists feel that they are observeing and understanding, yet years later they get prooved wrong by someone else. The foundation of science is theory. How do we know what an atom is? We guess, educationally guess, but still guess.

I think it all comes from man's searching of answers of how he came to be. It all revolves around that idea, and thats where the biggest arguement comes from. Everyone thinks they are right. Though I think everyone is wrong and we will all find out upon our death just how right or wrong we all are.

No - once again - a fatal misunderstanding...

The concept of an 'atom' was the result of scientific experimentation, the result of observation.

Slice an element into smaller components. Slice it again. Slice it again.

When you reach a point where you cannot divide that substance further, you have the 'indivisible fraction' of that element... which is given the name 'atom'.

It took thousands of years after the hypothesis of the 'atom' for an actual observation of an atom... but the concept of 'atoms' was based on the observation of division.

Our understanding of what an atom 'is' is much different than it was a hundred years ago - because of 'actual' observation of the atom.

No - once again - a fatal misunderstanding...

The concept of an 'atom' was the result of scientific experimentation, the result of observation.

Slice an element into smaller components. Slice it again. Slice it again.

When you reach a point where you cannot divide that substance further, you have the 'indivisible fraction' of that element... which is given the name 'atom'.

It took thousands of years after the hypothesis of the 'atom' for an actual observation of an atom... but the concept of 'atoms' was based on the observation of division.

Our understanding of what an atom 'is' is much different than it was a hundred years ago - because of 'actual' observation of the atom.


Ahhh the beauty of scientific theory … the ability to change itself to fit reality when new info comes about

Works for me. I shouldn't have the right to force you or your children to believe or be taught by others to believe something you believe to be untrue. You also don't have the right to force me or my children to be taught to believe something that I believe to be untrue. Perhaps we could seperate evolution from science class at teach it in an optional "origins" clase...

I don't believe in geometry. I think we should take geometry out of the mathematics class and teach as its own optional geometry class.

I don't believe in poetry. I think we should take poetry out of the literature class and teach it as its own optional poetry class.

I don't believe the world is round. I believe we should take it out of science and teach it as its own optional "round earth" class.

I don't believe that running is good. I believe we should take running out of P.E. and teach it in its own optional running class.

Do you begin to see the problem here?

Yes, but in forcing me to pay for something I believe to be a violation of my religious practice aren't my first ammendment rights being violated?

If you don't allow me the same freedom to have my child taught according to my beliefs at your expense, why should you be able to have your child taught according to your beliefs at my expense?

How are your first amendment rights affected by someone else being able to teach science?

You are free to comment as you wish, you are free to tell your child that you don't believe in science... that is up to you.

Science, however, as a core of education, isn't taught as a faith - it only teaches observable principles, and the 'theories' created by the scientific method to provide reasons why those things might happen.

Most schools, I would imagine, ALSO teach religious education, in some form.

How are your beliefs being infringed?

Christianity and Christians should realize that no-one's been thrown to a lion in living memory. Stop the victim posturing. You're nobody's slave.

Though that's hard to reconcile with adhering to a slave religion, admittedly.

I was! Romans threw me to a lion, and it ATE ME!

*er... I got better...* ;)

Absolutely. I know a freaking huge amount of Christians, including my parents, who are some of the most intelligent people on this planet; hell, my dad has multiple doctorates, including in geophysics and programming. It's a shame that we would call every Christian an evil bible-beating Republican, just as it is a shame that we lump ever Muslim together with the terrorists like Al Queda.
Now, there are some bad Christians, yes, but you've got bad apples in just about every batch, no matter what. Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Muslims, Jews, Christians, hell, whatever you want, we've all got good and bad in us. You must judge on the character of the individual alone.


YES!

I was! Romans threw me to a lion, and it ATE ME!

*er... I got better...* ;)
(monty python geek)

Tis only a flesh wound!

Ive had worse

Science always starts with observations... you MAY construct a hypothesis about what is happening, which you MAY then construct an experiment to evaluate... you may then observe evidence that gives refinement to that concept, one way or another. Your 'theory' follows on from observation, experimentation, and more observation.

You might want to go back and re-read the subject.

If that is the case, I have observed supernatural occurances, therefore my belief in the supernatural is scientific. Is that correct?

If that is the case, I have observed supernatural occurances, therefore my belief in the supernatural is scientific. Is that correct?
Nope … because you have to take in ALL data … and they have to be done in CONTROLED environments (the number of variables in an uncontrolled environment are too many … effectively try to narrow it down to ONE variable)


Also has to be a factor of repeatability

No


Do you have the same freedom to have your child taught according to your beliefs...

Should have, but you can have evolution taught and do it at tax payor, my, expense, against my wishes, I can't have my belief system taught at tax payor expense.

No - once again - a fatal misunderstanding...

The concept of an 'atom' was the result of scientific experimentation, the result of observation.

Slice an element into smaller components. Slice it again. Slice it again.

When you reach a point where you cannot divide that substance further, you have the 'indivisible fraction' of that element... which is given the name 'atom'.

It took thousands of years after the hypothesis of the 'atom' for an actual observation of an atom... but the concept of 'atoms' was based on the observation of division.

Our understanding of what an atom 'is' is much different than it was a hundred years ago - because of 'actual' observation of the atom.


and yet, even with all that observation, we lack the means to see for sure what an atom is made of, so we base it on a guess. Its like walking through the fog and guessing what you are seeing. After awhile you get really good at your guessing, but its still guesswork based on observation.

I'm not trying to say science is wrong, I'm just saying that its all a path on understanding the world around us. Religion and Science are on the same coin, just different sides.

and its not a fatal mistake, cause its nothing that can ever kill me

Though I would hate to see life in the work force or the problems understanding logic if they don’t come in contact with scientific theory at some point in their life (could make all the difference when trying to problem solve)

Now come on UT, you know scientific method and logic can be easily taught without teaching evolution.

Should have, but you can have evolution taught and do it at tax payor, my, expense, against my wishes, I can't have my belief system taught at tax payor expense.

Two problems here:

(a) Evolution, like all of science, is taught as the best theory science currently has to offer, not as fact - and it is thus not forced upon anyone.

(b) Your belief system is not in any way scientific, mathematic, etc. If you would like to argue that we should not teach science/math/literature/etc. in schools, by all means do so - but you won't convince many others.

Should have, but you can have evolution taught and do it at tax payor, my, expense, against my wishes, I can't have my belief system taught at tax payor expense.
There are more things neither or us can have taught at tax payer expense than there are not, and there are things that will be taught at tax payer expense regardless how either of us feel about it.
Everyone else is as free to not have what they dont believe in not taught and as free to have what they do want taught at others expense, as you are...

I don't believe in geometry. I think we should take geometry out of the mathematics class and teach as its own optional geometry class.

I don't believe in poetry. I think we should take poetry out of the literature class and teach it as its own optional poetry class.

I don't believe the world is round. I believe we should take it out of science and teach it as its own optional "round earth" class.

I don't believe that running is good. I believe we should take running out of P.E. and teach it in its own optional running class.

Do you begin to see the problem here?

Actually, I see the problem here as being a lack of parental control of what a student is taught. Perhaps it is time to rethink our educational system to allow for choice of what is being taught.

Now come on UT, you know scientific method and logic can be easily taught without teaching evolution.

So we should just leave all scientific theories out of the science classroom now?

I suppose we should just stop on the page that describes the scientific method and leave it at that. Actually teaching scientific theories might step on somebody's toes.

Now come on UT, you know scientific method and logic can be easily taught without teaching evolution.
I know but it is one theory that BELONGS in the class along with all the other theory’s such as gravity and all the others. Just like if there was a class on religious theology we shouldn’t remove Christianity from it just because some people don’t agree with it. It BELONGS in that class (along with a few more besides theology I know but that’s just an example)

How are your first amendment rights affected by someone else being able to teach science?

How are your beliefs being infringed?

I'm being force to pay for something to be taught that is a violation of my religous beliefs. My free exercise of religion is thereby being infringed upon.

Actually, I see the problem here as being a lack of parental control of what a student is taught. Perhaps it is time to rethink our educational system to allow for choice of what is being taught.

*shrug* If you want a bunch of kids running around uneducated because their parents were ignorant/didn't want them taught/didn't see a use in having them taught - by all means, fight for it.

I'll be on the other side.

I'm being force to pay for something to be taught that is a violation of my religous beliefs. My free exercise of religion is thereby being infringed upon.
But really it is not reducing you’re ability to be religious or teach your kids … it is adding on top of it scientific theory (this is harder to explain what I mean by this so don’t jump on me with both feet)

I'm being force to pay for something to be taught that is a violation of my religous beliefs. My free exercise of religion is thereby being infringed upon.
No it is not.

Nope … because you have to take in ALL data … and they have to be done in CONTROLED environments (the number of variables in an uncontrolled environment are too many … effectively try to narrow it down to ONE variable)


Also has to be a factor of repeatability

Oh, so scientific theory is based on more than just observation...

Sorry I shouldn't be playing dumb, but this notion that science is the end all be all method of investigating and "knowing" things is rather bothersome, because it effectually discounts anything that is not in agreeance with a theory that, as I said before, is only true until the next set of findings come out.

I'm being force to pay for something to be taught that is a violation of my religous beliefs. My free exercise of religion is thereby being infringed upon.

You are paying for something to be taught as what it is - a scientific theory. Surely you do not disagree that the leading scientific theory is currently evolution?

No one is telling anyone that your religious beliefs are wrong, only that the current scientific theory contradicts them.

Oh, so scientific theory is based on more than just observation...

Sorry I shouldn't be playing dumb, but this notion that science is the end all be all method of investigating and "knowing" things is rather bothersome, because it effectually discounts anything that is not in agreeance with a theory that, as I said before, is only true until the next set of findings come out.

This is where you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of science.

Science does not "automatically discount" anything. It deals with any idea which is falsifiable, and has nothing to do with anything that is not - as anything which is not falsifiable is outside the realm of science.

Two problems here:

(a) Evolution, like all of science, is taught as the best theory science currently has to offer, not as fact - and it is thus not forced upon anyone.

(b) Your belief system is not in any way scientific, mathematic, etc. If you would like to argue that we should not teach science/math/literature/etc. in schools, by all means do so - but you won't convince many others.

Having sat through many public "science" classes, I can assure you that evolution is indeed taught as a fact. I recognize that this is a violation of true scientific method, but it is a reality none the less.

Having sat through many public "science" classes, I can assure you that evolution is indeed taught as a fact. I recognize that this is a violation of true scientific method, but it is a reality none the less.

Every grade school and high school textbook teaches the scientific method in (usually) the first chapter. This chapter is part of the curriculum. If the students choose to ignore it, it is their failing.

Besides, in many years of science education, I have never seen a single teacher teach science as "fact." They teach it as theory, or as theory that has been backed up by so much evidence that it is practically proven, but never as "fact."

Oh, so scientific theory is based on more than just observation...

Sorry I shouldn't be playing dumb, but this notion that science is the end all be all method of investigating and "knowing" things is rather bothersome, because it effectually discounts anything that is not in agreeance with a theory that, as I said before, is only true until the next set of findings come out.
No it is the theory to prove observable (or testable) results … hence why deities can reside in an “undiscovered” region … as we learn more and build on old knowledge though the “undiscovered” area shrinks

(this would be why I am agnostic … the deity can always survive outside the discovered region) but specific works and religions that attribute specific events to it can be disproved (hence why I said If I found religion I would be deist)

So we should just leave all scientific theories out of the science classroom now?

I suppose we should just stop on the page that describes the scientific method and leave it at that. Actually teaching scientific theories might step on somebody's toes.

Actually, there are many scientific theories I have no problem with, but evolution and big bang theory being taught as the origins of the universe has a pretty significant impact on ones belief structure and is clearly contridictory to the beliefs of many Americans.

Having sat through many public "science" classes, I can assure you that evolution is indeed taught as a fact. I recognize that this is a violation of true scientific method, but it is a reality none the less.
Same reason we cant hold fundamentalists to the total views of their religion … because it is not necessarily representative

Just because people teach it wrong does not mean that the theory is wrong

I'm being force to pay for something to be taught that is a violation of my religous beliefs. My free exercise of religion is thereby being infringed upon.

No it's not, you're just unduly playing the victim card, and you're not a victim.

There are no lions.

Grow up.

I know but it is one theory that BELONGS in the class along with all the other theory’s such as gravity and all the others. Just like if there was a class on religious theology we shouldn’t remove Christianity from it just because some people don’t agree with it. It BELONGS in that class (along with a few more besides theology I know but that’s just an example)


I suppose if you make theology class mandatory and teach creation as a fact in a similar manner to the way most science classes teach evolution then we'd at least be fair and balanced.

Quite frankly, I'd prefer that neither be taught, in which case there are no first ammendment violations.

I suppose if you make theology class mandatory and teach creation as a fact in a similar manner to the way most science classes teach evolution then we'd at least be fair and balanced.

Comparitive theology, surely? And whose creation myth do you plan to have taught as 'fact'?

Actually, there are many scientific theories I have no problem with,

So we should only teach scientific theories that most people have no problem with? Never mind that such an idea would have left us all still believing the world to be flat (once a popular opinion).

but evolution and big bang theory being taught as the origins of the universe has a pretty significant impact on ones belief structure

Only if one's belief structure is shaky and one's faith is pretty much nonexistant.

and is clearly contridictory to the beliefs of many Americans.

(a) Doesn't really matter, since it isn't being taught as fact, and, if it is, that is something to take up with the teacher, not the theory.
(b) I haven't seen this to be true of anyone who has actually studied the theories and their own religion enough to make a decision in the first place.

But really it is not reducing you’re ability to be religious or teach your kids … it is adding on top of it scientific theory (this is harder to explain what I mean by this so don’t jump on me with both feet)

You are forcing my kids to be taught something that I believe has negative moral and educational impact. That has the capacity to dull their religious convictions while at an impressionable age. That is violating my and or my family's (if I had kids) freedom of religious practice.

You are paying for something to be taught as what it is - a scientific theory. Surely you do not disagree that the leading scientific theory is currently evolution?

No one is telling anyone that your religious beliefs are wrong, only that the current scientific theory contradicts them.

That is absolutely untrue. I have been in classrooms where teachers, in much the same way that evolutionists on this board do, have derided students for their religous beliefs and stated that only people who "have their heads in the sand" could possibly believe anything other than evolution. I'd say that consititutes telling a child who believes in creation that his/her beliefs are wrong.

Every grade school and high school textbook teaches the scientific method in (usually) the first chapter. This chapter is part of the curriculum. If the students choose to ignore it, it is their failing.

Besides, in many years of science education, I have never seen a single teacher teach science as "fact." They teach it as theory, or as theory that has been backed up by so much evidence that it is practically proven, but never as "fact."


Then we've been in different schools.

I am a Catholic, I live near the Vatican, but everyone I know(included every priest) actually thinks that evolution is a fact. I went in an elementary school managed by nuns, and Sister Maria Rossi taught me that the Universe was only a spot of pure energy wandering in the void, then God decided to use it to do something. He activated the big bang and modeled the energy to create the Matter, and He waited and watched the matter slowly assemblying into wonderful shapes. At the dawn of the life, he introduced the evolution mechanism to let the Life to survive in an ever changing habitat, and to vary it.
I think it's just an American problem.

You are forcing my kids to be taught something that I believe has negative moral and educational impact. That has the capacity to dull their religious convictions while at an impressionable age. That is violating my and or my family's (if I had kids) freedom of religious practice.
No it is not violating your freedom of religious practie, if you believe that having your children taught that 'honour killings' are wrong has a negative moral and educatinal impact, you are have no right under 'religious freedoms' to insist that no school at any point use your tax payers money to teach otherwise.

No it is the theory to prove observable (or testable) results … hence why deities can reside in an “undiscovered” region … as we learn more and build on old knowledge though the “undiscovered” area shrinks

(this would be why I am agnostic … the deity can always survive outside the discovered region) but specific works and religions that attribute specific events to it can be disproved (hence why I said If I found religion I would be deist)


Here's a question for you, is it possible for someone to "know" (not believe) something that contridicts current scientific theory?

Here's a question for you, is it possible for someone to "know" (not believe) something that contridicts current scientific theory?
Of course it is possible for someone to believe something that contradicts current scientific theory, it's even possible that such a someone might be right with regards to the belief referred to.

That is absolutely untrue. I have been in classrooms where teachers, in much the same way that evolutionists on this board do, have derided students for their religous beliefs and stated that only people who "have their heads in the sand" could possibly believe anything other than evolution. I'd say that consititutes telling a child who believes in creation that his/her beliefs are wrong.

I have a hard time accepting that children are so set in their beliefs that they're unwilling to entertain theories other than what they've heard about in church. Perhaps if they've been coached by authority figures (parents, clergy) to reject differing points of view, then I'd understand it.

But who would be so sick as to hobble their children or their parishioners' childrens' sensibilities? Who would take it upon themselves to breed loathing and foster tunnel vision amongst the young and innocent?

Not an actual Christian, that's for Goddamn sure. Maybe one of those bizarre Jesus-worshippers, the ones who get everything wrong anyway, and act as though there's Communist Pagans lurking in their broom-cupboards, just waiting to find ways to fuck them over.

Find me a lion. Even one lion, and I'll shut up.

The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.ae

I have a hard time accepting that children are so set in their beliefs that they're unwilling to entertain theories other than what they've heard about in church. Perhaps if they've been coached by authority figures (parents, clergy) to reject differing points of view, then I'd understand it.

But who would be so sick as to hobble their children or their parishioners' childrens' sensibilities? Who would take it upon themselves to breed loathing and foster tunnel vision amongst the young and innocent?

Not an actual Christian, that's for Goddamn sure. Maybe one of those bizarre Jesus-worshippers, the ones who get everything wrong anyway, and act as though there's Communist Pagans lurking in their broom-cupboards, just waiting to find ways to fuck them over.

Find me a lion. Even one lion, and I'll shut up.
communists arnt pagans, they are godless atheists, DUH

I live in the middle of the so-called "Bible Belt" and there are very, very few here who actually still adhere to the "Creation" myth. Are there some? Yes, of course there are. Do they want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us? Yes, but that is a much smaller number.

I would personally oppose anyone who tried to eliminate evolution from the school curriculum and substitute "Creationism," as would the majority of North Carolina voters.

What you have to try and understand is that just because someone calls themselves a "Christian," does NOT mean they support the agenda of SOME fundamentalists'. It does NOT mean they do not accept evolution as valid. It does NOT mean they expect everyone to convert to Chrisitanity. On the contrary, even many who call themselves "fundamentalists" have no wish to impose any of their beliefs on the rest of the population.

I know a great number of those who call themselves "Christians" and a great number of those who refer to themselves as "fundamentalist," or any of a number of other synonyms for fundamentalist. By and large, these are good, kind, gentle people. Many of them are concerned that public schools ( and many other American secular institutions ) are continually undermining their faith and teaching their children things contrary to what their parents are trying to teach them.

I do not defend their beliefs, since I don't believe as they do, but based on my personal knowledge of those who call themselves "Christian fundamentalists," I do defend their rights to protect their beliefs, to teach their children their beliefs, and to defend their beliefs in the "public square." To do less would be to deny MY beliefs, which include allowing others to believe as they wish.

Read the "Why do people hate Muslims" thread, and exchange EVERY mention of the world Muslim or Islam in that thread for Christian or Christianity, respectively....

That'll get you started...

Now, finally, here is the problem... I have no problem with you and your superstitious fantasies. Indulge all you want. And in your home, practice those fantasies however you see fit... including turning off the shows on television that you don't like, turning the channel on the radio when you don't like the DJ, teaching your daughter that abortion and birth control are both sins, and your son that God wants him to hate homosexuals, that cloning and stem cell research are tools of the devil that devalue life...

In short, teach whatever regressive, backwards, flat-earth thinking philosophy to your own family that you want.

But under the current theocratic administration in the US white house, we've seen all kinds of inroads made by Christian Morality rhetoric into how our federal government practices LAW. The FCC, abortion and other medical laws, science, civil rights for gays... etc. etc. etc...

And most of y'all Christians have been quietly condoning these changes from what I see.

I don't want *my* child taught your superstitious fantasies as part of their formal education. If you want your child taught that B.S., pay to have them put in a PRIVATE Christian school. If you can't afford it, PRAY for more money... maybe He will help you out and protect you from us secular, heathen pagans... But don't try and teach MY child that your metaphysical *belief* is *any* match for the MOUNTAIN of emperical data that supports and confirms Darwin's theory of evolution.

I disagree that most Christians are good people, and that a minority of Sunday Christians make it look bad for the rest of the Christians. The majority of Christians are Sunday Christians, who like to talk loud and long about living a righteous life in the service of Christ but don't follow the teachings of their Lord one bit. Of the remainder, the truly devout and convinced, most are so full of faith they DO want to convert (major fault in the Bible, BTW, is that it tells you to go out and witness, which is why Christian missionaries are always finding themselves parted from their heads in the Middle East). They DO want to influence secular society through political influence; by turning their morality into codified LAW. They are out of step with the teachings of their Lord, as well. The remainder, a VERY small, even insignificant portion of the total, are truly living a Christian life. Hell, your very own book says so... paraphrasing: "Very few are the names written in the final book of judgement". I'll give you this, most Christians *think* what they are doing is right, and have good *intentions*. So do most Muslims. Even most of the extremists, on both sides. I've known skinheads that were "good" people, other than the fact that they were convinced that there was biblical basis and justification for racial bias. Saying, "most people are good people" really isn't good enough. Most people *are* good people. How many times do you hear a family defending a convicted child-murder or pedophile? It happens all the time, "He was a great father, and loving husband, a loyal employee, we beg the court for leniency and mercy..." This isn't a paradox. I'm sure there are Muslim mothers who are the picture of caring maternal nurturing, who are loving, caring, considerate and warm, who do not steal or lie and live their life in strict accordance with the Q'uoran... and some of them are the same women who send their children off strapped with explosives to blow up Jews. Tell the "Good People" line to someone else...

Every Christian who claims to have faith claims to be among the saved. According to the Bible, most of them are wrong. Being a Christian is being in bad company. Yours is a religion full of hypocrites, shams, scam artists, liars, thieves, pedophiles and intolerant biggots. I'm an American... I was raised in the middle of the culture of Western, American Christianity. My mother was a Catholic, my father was a Protestant, my wife's father *is* an evangelical Pastor, I did a stint at a Southern Baptist Evangelical Born-Again Youth Group... I am absolutely *disgusted* by organized Christian religion and the activities it engages in America today.

I don't think Christianity is as *bad* as Islam, today. But you've certainly got all the ingredients and all the potential to explode into just as dangerous of a situation. And under the current administration, I have seen an alarming erosion of *my* civil liberties, an alarming increase in MY secular society being force-fed YOUR religious morality, an alarming decrease in the safeguards for seperation of Church and State. So you tell me all you want about how you are a good Christian who defends my right to believe what I want. The way I see it, you're not doing anything by your inaction in your own community but reinforcing their actions, condoning their behavior that interferes with my secular pursuit of freedom and happiness. You are as guilty of making my world a worse place as the Muslims who claim that America brought 9/11 upon itself. Until I start seeing the voice of Christians raised up saying, "We don't belong involved in the abortion debate on a secular level", "we don't belong involved in discussions about secular morality on the TV and radio waves", then ALL Christians are lumped together as a threat to my freedoms.

I have a hard time accepting that children are so set in their beliefs that they're unwilling to entertain theories other than what they've heard about in church. Perhaps if they've been coached by authority figures (parents, clergy) to reject differing points of view, then I'd understand it.

But who would be so sick as to hobble their children or their parishioners' childrens' sensibilities? Who would take it upon themselves to breed loathing and foster tunnel vision amongst the young and innocent?

Not an actual Christian, that's for Goddamn sure. Maybe one of those bizarre Jesus-worshippers, the ones who get everything wrong anyway, and act as though there's Communist Pagans lurking in their broom-cupboards, just waiting to find ways to fuck them over.

Find me a lion. Even one lion, and I'll shut up.


So, I'm guessing you believe in sociatal rights over parental ones??

communists arnt pagans, they are godless atheists, DUH

Well, DUH, they aren't godless or atheists - but unless you've got the processing power of an inanimate carbon rod, you'll note that I was employing wit...I know, it's a commodity unheard of in many fundie circles...

DUH

Read the "Why do people hate Muslims" thread, and exchange EVERY mention of the world Muslim or Islam in that thread for Christian or Christianity, respectively....

That'll get you started...

Now, finally, here is the problem... I have no problem with you and your superstitious fantasies. Indulge all you want. And in your home, practice those fantasies however you see fit... including turning off the shows on television that you don't like, turning the channel on the radio when you don't like the DJ, teaching your daughter that abortion and birth control are both sins, and your son that God wants him to hate homosexuals, that cloning and stem cell research are tools of the devil that devalue life...

In short, teach whatever regressive, backwards, flat-earth thinking philosophy to your own family that you want.

But under the current theocratic administration in the US white house, we've seen all kinds of inroads made by Christian Morality rhetoric into how our federal government practices LAW. The FCC, abortion and other medical laws, science, civil rights for gays... etc. etc. etc...

And most of y'all Christians have been quietly condoning these changes from what I see.

I don't want *my* child taught your superstitious fantasies as part of their formal education. If you want your child taught that B.S., pay to have them put in a PRIVATE Christian school. If you can't afford it, PRAY for more money... maybe He will help you out and protect you from us secular, heathen pagans... But don't try and teach MY child that your metaphysical *belief* is *any* match for the MOUNTAIN of emperical data that supports and confirms Darwin's theory of evolution.

I disagree that most Christians are good people, and that a minority of Sunday Christians make it look bad for the rest of the Christians. The majority of Christians are Sunday Christians, who like to talk loud and long about living a righteous life in the service of Christ but don't follow the teachings of their Lord one bit. Of the remainder, the truly devout and convinced, most are so full of faith they DO want to convert (major fault in the Bible, BTW, is that it tells you to go out and witness, which is why Christian missionaries are always finding themselves parted from their heads in the Middle East). They DO want to influence secular society through political influence; by turning their morality into codified LAW. They are out of step with the teachings of their Lord, as well. The remainder, a VERY small, even insignificant portion of the total, are truly living a Christian life. Hell, your very own book says so... paraphrasing: "Very few are the names written in the final book of judgement". I'll give you this, most Christians *think* what they are doing is right, and have good *intentions*. So do most Muslims. Even most of the extremists, on both sides. I've known skinheads that were "good" people, other than the fact that they were convinced that there was biblical basis and justification for racial bias. Saying, "most people are good people" really isn't good enough. Most people *are* good people. How many times do you hear a family defending a convicted child-murder or pedophile? It happens all the time, "He was a great father, and loving husband, a loyal employee, we beg the court for leniency and mercy..." This isn't a paradox. I'm sure there are Muslim mothers who are the picture of caring maternal nurturing, who are loving, caring, considerate and warm, who do not steal or lie and live their life in strict accordance with the Q'uoran... and some of them are the same women who send their children off strapped with explosives to blow up Jews. Tell the "Good People" line to someone else...

Every Christian who claims to have faith claims to be among the saved. According to the Bible, most of them are wrong. Being a Christian is being in bad company. Yours is a religion full of hypocrites, shams, scam artists, liars, thieves, pedophiles and intolerant biggots. I'm an American... I was raised in the middle of the culture of Western, American Christianity. My mother was a Catholic, my father was a Protestant, my wife's father *is* an evangelical Pastor, I did a stint at a Southern Baptist Evangelical Born-Again Youth Group... I am absolutely *disgusted* by organized Christian religion and the activities it engages in America today.

I don't think Christianity is as *bad* as Islam, today. But you've certainly got all the ingredients and all the potential to explode into just as dangerous of a situation. And under the current administration, I have seen an alarming erosion of *my* civil liberties, an alarming increase in MY secular society being force-fed YOUR religious morality, an alarming decrease in the safeguards for seperation of Church and State. So you tell me all you want about how you are a good Christian who defends my right to believe what I want. The way I see it, you're not doing anything by your inaction in your own community but reinforcing their actions, condoning their behavior that interferes with my secular pursuit of freedom and happiness. You are as guilty of making my world a worse place as the Muslims who claim that America brought 9/11 upon itself. Until I start seeing the voice of Christians raised up saying, "We don't belong involved in the abortion debate on a secular level", "we don't belong involved in discussions about secular morality on the TV and radio waves", then ALL Christians are lumped together as a threat to my freedoms.


-=catches all that and fills a couple dozen hot air balloons=-

you see everything other then yourself as a threat, what are you paranoid? You blanket down all this "facts" with no shred of proof. You are just as bad as any loud mouthed christian my friend. You obviously have not been around the block, so to speak. Most Christians in this nation don't go around thumping bibles, knocking on doors, and telling everybody they is gonna go to hell less they understand. There are the negitive ones out there, yes. But do you know where all these negitive christians come from? Every one of them comes from the overdoctrinated, over traditionalized churchs. These are not Christians, but Bobites. They follow "bob" and "bob" teaches them what it means to be Christian. Even though "bob" takes a lot of the bible and gets rid of it and replaces it with what 'bob' thinks is best.

You are forcing my kids to be taught something that I believe has negative moral and educational impact. That has the capacity to dull their religious convictions while at an impressionable age. That is violating my and or my family's (if I had kids) freedom of religious practice.This is a very weird line of argument.

Someone did this earlier, but you managed to ignore it:
If I held religious views that addition and substraction are heresy, would they have to be taken out of math classes and made an optional course? Sure to keep teaching them in math classes would be a violation of my freedom of religious practice!

If I held religious views that the earth was created 1 day before I was born, would history before 1982 and all references to dates before that have to be taken out of all classes and put into optional courses? Again, to do otherwise would surely be a violation of my freedom of religious practice!

Only it doesn't work like that. People have the right to an education, a fair and useful education, and regardless of the insistence of a few (unfortunately loud) parents, the right to that education comes first.

Here's a question for you, is it possible for someone to "know" (not believe) something that contridicts current scientific theory?

If you *know* something that contradicts current scientific theory, PROVE it. Find a way to either disprove the current scientific theory or to confirm your theory.

Otherwise, you don't *really* know...

When I was 5, I could look at a globe, and see that South Africa and South America fit together remarkably well. As I grew older, I asked about this, and the current theory among geologists was that it was a coincidence, that plate tetonics made it very unlikely that they every actually fit together...

But some enterprising scientist (or group of scientists), over the years, felt the same way as I did... and eventually, they came up with the theory of the early supercontinent... what is it called? Pan-something... Pangea? Which is now the currently accepted theory on continent forming and replaces the theory which existed when I was a child.

Same thing goes for Dinosaurs. Man, they're walking around with talons, and beaks, and bills... some guy goes, "They're not LIZARDS... they're BIRDS!"

Take a look at an Ostrich, the neck, the body shape... the huge lower legs, the tiny upper appendages... *smack yourself on the head*...

Both of these theories had an uphill fight among science, and had to provide a LOT of emperical confirmational data before they were taken seriously. That is how the scientific method works...

Just going, "There is a hole in the evolution chain among primates and I think it is because of CREATION or because aliens landed and modified our DNA" isn't enough. You don't *know* that... it is absolute conjecture. You may be so certain in your heart that you FEEL that you *know* it, but you don't.

THAT is the problem. Too many people running around thinking they *know* things they only feel...

So, I'm guessing you believe in sociatal rights over parental ones??

Note the use of two question marks.

Hey, if you want to home-school your kids and in so doing, prevent them from learning to look at life from other points of view, why by all means do so, but bear in mind you're doing them no favours. Teaching children to not accept any point of view other than what YOU program them to hold true doesn't help anyone or anything.

You're just passing the buck of intolerance down to yet another generation.

Found me that lion yet?

I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.

That is absolutely untrue. I have been in classrooms where teachers, in much the same way that evolutionists on this board do, have derided students for their religous beliefs and stated that only people who "have their heads in the sand" could possibly believe anything other than evolution. I'd say that consititutes telling a child who believes in creation that his/her beliefs are wrong.

Again, a failing of the teacher, not of the scientific theory. Any teacher that actually derides children for their religious beliefs (something I have only ever seen in idiotic Jack Chick tracts, and I went to school in the heart of the Bible Belt), then there is clear basis for a lawsuit.

Then we've been in different schools.

By all means, show me any grade/high school science textbook that doesn't begin with a discussion of the scientific method and what constitutes a scientific theory/law.

Hey, if you want to home-school your kids and in so doing, prevent them from learning to look at life from other points of view, why by all means do so, but bear in mind you're doing them no favours. Teaching children to not accept any point of view other than what YOU program them to hold true doesn't help anyone or anything.

It also isn't really teaching them faith. Faith in the absence of any contradictory ideas/challenges is not really faith at all.

You are forcing my kids to be taught something that I believe has negative moral and educational impact. That has the capacity to dull their religious convictions while at an impressionable age. That is violating my and or my family's (if I had kids) freedom of religious practice.

You know what the scary thing is? I live in the Bible Belt.

And my little girl is at school, and she's six years old.

And they (because this is a rural, provincial area) quite happily promote christianity to the kids - and, it's FINE with most of the parents, because they LIKE christianity, because they are christians.

So - I have to sit at home and listen while my little girl tells me about how her teacher said that you can tell summer is coming, because god has put all the leaves back on the trees.

In fact, thanks fot the quote, because: YOU are forcing MY kids to be taught something that I believe has negative moral and educational impact. That has the capacity to dull their religious convictions while at an impressionable age. That is violating my and or my family's freedom of religious practice.

But, you probably don't mind... because you are 'bringing god' to the 'heathen masses', or something.

and yet, even with all that observation, we lack the means to see for sure what an atom is made of, so we base it on a guess. Its like walking through the fog and guessing what you are seeing. After awhile you get really good at your guessing, but its still guesswork based on observation.

I'm not trying to say science is wrong, I'm just saying that its all a path on understanding the world around us. Religion and Science are on the same coin, just different sides.

and its not a fatal mistake, cause its nothing that can ever kill me


Fatal to your argument.

Just because YOU don't know what is inside an atom, do not presume that you are at the cutting edge of the world of science.

We have been basing our models on educated assumptions, based on the theories that observation spawned... and we now have 'confirmation' of some of those theoretical models.

That's the problem with arguing AGAINST science... your argument is flawed, because you are not up-to-date.

So, I'm guessing you believe in sociatal rights over parental ones??

If you want to use the public education system, then yes society does have some rights.

The intent is to teach children knowledge to make them a more useful contributor to the society.

Censoring knowledge does not advance a society. We saw that with the dark ages.

If parents don't like what the school offers, homeschool or private schooling solves that.

Hmmm I wonder how many creationists can find work in Biotech? ;)

A school is supposed to show children other things that they would not normally find in the home and or from their parents.

Finally, my kid is in private school right now. The public schools around here pretty well abolished art and music and do a piss poor job on science.....

Then we've been in different schools.

As Demo said, I have seen the same.

What schools did you go to?

That is absolutely untrue. I have been in classrooms where teachers, in much the same way that evolutionists on this board do, have derided students for their religous beliefs and stated that only people who "have their heads in the sand" could possibly believe anything other than evolution. I'd say that consititutes telling a child who believes in creation that his/her beliefs are wrong.

And what class level was that?

I don't know of too many states that would take kindly to the teacher publically humliating a young child no matter the issue.

I like to make grand generalizations about people. :sniper:

It also isn't really teaching them faith. Faith in the absence of any contradictory ideas/challenges is not really faith at all.

Damn Demo! Beat me to it!

How do you know if your faith is strong if it is never challenged? ;)

As Demo said, I have seen the same.

What schools did you go to?

I have all ideas that Personal's statement says more about his attitude as a student than his school.

I have tutored/talked to many students (in college classes even) that whined about how their teacher/prof was teaching X as fact or only wanted regurgitation. Generally, when I had that same prof, the opposite was true.

Here's a question for you, is it possible for someone to "know" (not believe) something that contridicts current scientific theory?

Here is a shocker for you. Evolutionists constantly argue over the process all the time.

"Knowing" and proving something that contridicts a theory are two different things.

If

I am a Catholic, I live near the Vatican, but everyone I know(included every priest) actually thinks that evolution is a fact. I went in an elementary school managed by nuns, and Sister Maria Rossi taught me that the Universe was only a spot of pure energy wandering in the void, then God decided to use it to do something. He activated the big bang and modeled the energy to create the Matter, and He waited and watched the matter slowly assemblying into wonderful shapes. At the dawn of the life, he introduced the evolution mechanism to let the Life to survive in an ever changing habitat, and to vary it.
I think it's just an American problem.
It's a problem wherever there are those refuse to examine their beliefs in light of new information.

How do you know if your faith is strong if it is never challenged?
I'm fond of saying that "The unexamined belief is actually no belief at all."

I have all ideas that Personal's statement says more about his attitude as a student than his school.

I have tutored/talked to many students (in college classes even) that whined about how their teacher/prof was teaching X as fact or only wanted regurgitation. Generally, when I had that same prof, the opposite was true.

:)

I kind of suspected the same thing.

More then once I have heard a professor was the devil incarnate and many times they were the nicest people. Many however, where manifestations of the Devil! ;)

All too often when I hear about lefty liberal abuse, it's usually from Religous types that think the university should be a Religious school.

Here's a question for you, is it possible for someone to "know" (not believe) something that contridicts current scientific theory?
Yup ... and if there is proof that what they "know" is provable then it should be factored in and change the current theory ... that is how they change

But it has to be provable ... repeatable ... follow the scientific method and be repeatable in a controled envyroment

I'm fond of saying that "The unexamined belief is actually no belief at all."
I will have to remember that

I will have to remember that

Ditto! :)

:)

I kind of suspected the same thing.

More then once I have heard a professor was the devil incarnate and many times they were the nicest people. Many however, where manifestations of the Devil! ;)

All too often when I hear about lefty liberal abuse, it's usually from Religous types that think the university should be a Religious school.

Yeah, there was a case at Georgia Tech not that long ago. A girl claimed that a professor had berated her in front of the class for her conservative beliefs.

Turns out (upon review of the tape, since it was a distance learning class), that the girl had repeatedly interrupted a review session trying to bring up some political topic that wasn't related to the issues they were covering. The prof told her more than once that they could discuss it after the review session, but she kept bringing it up. The prof continued to try and keep the session on topic, and finally out of desperation said something along the lines of "This is stupid, I won't discuss it any further." The rest of the class applauded.

Still, the girl got the College Republicans all up in arms about it for a while.

Yeah, there was a case at Georgia Tech not that long ago. A girl claimed that a professor had berated her in front of the class for her conservative beliefs.

Turns out (upon review of the tape, since it was a distance learning class), that the girl had repeatedly interrupted a review session trying to bring up some political topic that wasn't related to the issues they were covering. The prof told her more than once that they could discuss it after the review session, but she kept bringing it up. The prof continued to try and keep the session on topic, and finally out of desperation said something along the lines of "This is stupid, I won't discuss it any further." The rest of the class applauded.

Still, the girl got the College Republicans all up in arms about it for a while.
be intresting to see her face when she found out there was a tape of it :p

I kinda like what my high school allowed students who absolutely wouldn't hear evolution theory. They allowed the student to leave the room. No penalty, no test, an end of the year type thing, and he could go home early if he wanted. He explained that he didn't believe in it, and an understanding school system is a very good thing to have in delicate situations. Special note: I only know of one time this happened while I was there, he was the son of a minister, and still held the belief of Creationism. This seems like it would be a proper solution to most of the problems addressed. It keeps religion out of the science classroom, and it lets the non-religious students (or the ones who don't care that much) to learn the theory of evoultion. And in human physiology, they allowed me to leave the room for knee surgery and hip replacement videos (but that's a completely different reason). I don't see why both sides have to have it completely their way. Compromise and try to make the world work for everybody. don't be selfish, it's not what a good christian, or a good person in general, would do.

I kinda like what my high school allowed students who absolutely wouldn't hear evolution theory. They allowed the student to leave the room. No penalty, no test, an end of the year type thing, and he could go home early if he wanted. He explained that he didn't believe in it, and an understanding school system is a very good thing to have in delicate situations. Special note: I only know of one time this happened while I was there, he was the son of a minister, and still held the belief of Creationism. This seems like it would be a proper solution to most of the problems addressed. It keeps religion out of the science classroom, and it lets the non-religious students (or the ones who don't care that much) to learn the theory of evoultion. And in human physiology, they allowed me to leave the room for knee surgery and hip replacement videos (but that's a completely different reason). I don't see why both sides have to have it completely their way. Compromise and try to make the world work for everybody. don't be selfish, it's not what a good christian, or a good person in general, would do.
Why that sounds nice I don’t see how it is fair to the rest of the students that would have to learn evolution… and if the rest don’t have to learn a valid theory because of faith … seems silly

I wouldn’t want someone to be able to walk out on a religious class either for that matter … it is course content (and yes I think a fair and unbiased teaching … or at least covering of world religion would be beneficial for people to learn)

Originally Posted by Slinao
and yet, even with all that observation, we lack the means to see for sure what an atom is made of, so we base it on a guess. Its like walking through the fog and guessing what you are seeing. After awhile you get really good at your guessing, but its still guesswork based on observation.

I'm not trying to say science is wrong, I'm just saying that its all a path on understanding the world around us. Religion and Science are on the same coin, just different sides.

and its not a fatal mistake, cause its nothing that can ever kill me

I'll buy this... that it is all trying to make sense of the world around us, and that ultimately, science *is* a form of metaphysical religion, in as much as there are things that science just doesn't seem like it will ever be able to answer with a satisfactory response. Scientists start talking about multi-dimensional realities, string and quantum physics, and other stuff out there and say, "we can't really OBSERVE these things, so we sort of just have to take it on faith that they may be there *affecting* indirectly things which we CAN observe"... Sounds pretty metaphysical to me... when you get to the big bang, what was there before it? Nothing? Well then, what did the big bang come from?

This is the reason a lot of the best scientists aren't ATHEIST. They believe that there is *something* else... and God is the best theory we've got going for that, right now... although you can afford quite a bit of flexibility in your definition of that God from a scientific perspective...

Science, as any scientist will readily admit, isn't about PROVING theories. Science is about the disconfirmational method, that is, proving that something is NOT the reason or cause for an event or phenomenon.

But the dogma of organized religion is just that in general. Rhetoric, dogma, propaganda, control methods, the word of MAN... all based on metaphysical faith with no need for substantiation, confirmational or disconfirmational.

Which makes it pretty useless to argue with someone of faith. I don't care *what* you believe... you have your right... Until *your* belief starts to impede MY personal liberties. Then we've got a reason to fight. Keep it in your church and your house, on your own radio stations, in your own schools, and we're fine.

Seems reasonable enough to me...

I'll buy this... that it is all trying to make sense of the world around us, and that ultimately, science *is* a form of metaphysical religion, in as much as there are things that science just doesn't seem like it will ever be able to answer with a satisfactory response. Scientists start talking about multi-dimensional realities, string and quantum physics, and other stuff out there and say, "we can't really OBSERVE these things, so we sort of just have to take it on faith that they may be there *affecting* indirectly things which we CAN observe"... Sounds pretty metaphysical to me... when you get to the big bang, what was there before it? Nothing? Well then, what did the big bang come from?

This is the reason a lot of the best scientists aren't ATHEIST. They believe that there is *something* else... and God is the best theory we've got going for that, right now... although you can afford quite a bit of flexibility in your definition of that God from a scientific perspective...

Science, as any scientist will readily admit, isn't about PROVING theories. Science is about the disconfirmational method, that is, proving that something is NOT the reason or cause for an event or phenomenon.

But the dogma of organized religion is just that in general. Rhetoric, dogma, propaganda, control methods, the word of MAN... all based on metaphysical faith with no need for substantiation, confirmational or disconfirmational.

Which makes it pretty useless to argue with someone of faith. I don't care *what* you believe... you have your right... Until *your* belief starts to impede MY personal liberties. Then we've got a reason to fight. Keep it in your church and your house, on your own radio stations, in your own schools, and we're fine.

Seems reasonable enough to me...


Observing effects is also observation

I kinda like what my high school allowed students who absolutely wouldn't hear evolution theory. They allowed the student to leave the room. No penalty, no test, an end of the year type thing, and he could go home early if he wanted. He explained that he didn't believe in it, and an understanding school system is a very good thing to have in delicate situations. Special note: I only know of one time this happened while I was there, he was the son of a minister, and still held the belief of Creationism. This seems like it would be a proper solution to most of the problems addressed. It keeps religion out of the science classroom, and it lets the non-religious students (or the ones who don't care that much) to learn the theory of evoultion. And in human physiology, they allowed me to leave the room for knee surgery and hip replacement videos (but that's a completely different reason). I don't see why both sides have to have it completely their way. Compromise and try to make the world work for everybody. don't be selfish, it's not what a good christian, or a good person in general, would do.

The only problem with this is that it demonstrates weak faith in the first place. If you won't even hear a theory because you have already decided it is wrong, you pretty much deserve to fail that part of science class.

Meanwhile, if a student really does want to live up to what their parents want and deny to even listen to class lectures about evolution, I think they should be prepared to take the zeros that go along with missing class.

Observing effects is also observation


Schroder's Cat. Let's not get ridiculious in how this impacts this discussion.

Schroder's Cat. Let's not get ridiculious in how this impacts this discussion.

Surely... it would be hard to discuss the impact of Schroder's Cat, without knowing who Schroder was, or what was so special about his pet.

I wonder if, perhaps, you were referring to Schrodinger?

Of course - even if you WERE referring to Schrodinger and his famous zombie kitty - I don't really see what that has to do with Christianity, or whether evolution is the devil...

I kinda like what my high school allowed students who absolutely wouldn't hear evolution theory. They allowed the student to leave the room. No penalty, no test, an end of the year type thing, and he could go home early if he wanted. He explained that he didn't believe in it, and an understanding school system is a very good thing to have in delicate situations. Special note: I only know of one time this happened while I was there, he was the son of a minister, and still held the belief of Creationism. This seems like it would be a proper solution to most of the problems addressed. It keeps religion out of the science classroom, and it lets the non-religious students (or the ones who don't care that much) to learn the theory of evoultion. And in human physiology, they allowed me to leave the room for knee surgery and hip replacement videos (but that's a completely different reason). I don't see why both sides have to have it completely their way. Compromise and try to make the world work for everybody. don't be selfish, it's not what a good christian, or a good person in general, would do.

Okay... let's look at this objectively.

We shall imagine I don't like chemistry. It offends me, with it's implications that chemicals are mere building blocks, and that everything is made of them. It offends me that people describe human bodies as being made of proteins and other chemicals... because I KNOW that we were "made from clay", like it says in the 'good book'.

So... I opt out of chemistry classes.

Two years later, I am working in a factory, where there is a chemical leak... and chlorine starts filling the workplace.

Because I 'opted out' of the most rudimentary chemistry classes, I am unaware that Chlorine is heavier than air... so, when everyone else climbs up to the second floor, I am left coughing blood, and drowning inside the contents of my own lungs.

That would be bad enough, if I allowed my own beliefs to harm myself... but what if a party of school children were on a visit, and I stopped them climbing to the second story, due to a vaguely recalled memory that gases are light...

Did my school cost the lives of a party of school-children?

I don't think it matters what the subject is... there is no knowledge that you MUST believe, but there is also NO BAD KNOWLEDGE.

So, you don't like evolution, and you want to opt out?

Deal with it. Nobody says you have to believe it... but you should STULL have to study it, just like everyone else.

good point I don't believe that Word is useful in IT but I have to learn it.

good point I don't believe that Word is useful in IT but I have to learn it.

Exactly - you never know when you might need it.

It is better to be equipped with ALL the available information, and CHOOSE what you wish to use, and what to lose... than to NEED information that you don't have.

Exactly - you never know when you might need it.

It is better to be equipped with ALL the available information, and CHOOSE what you wish to use, and what to lose... than to NEED information that you don't have.
Agreed ... same reason I am strongly for some more theology or sociology classes covering a wide range of things including religion ... cant hurt to learn something new or a new viewpoint

Agreed ... same reason I am strongly for some more theology or sociology classes covering a wide range of things including religion ... cant hurt to learn something new or a new viewpoint

Exactly... but you notice that fundamentalists always argue for more representation ONLY for THEIR chosen mythology.

You don't get christian hardliners making petitions to have more Hindu scripture taught in schools...

Surely... it would be hard to discuss the impact of Schroder's Cat, without knowing who Schroder was, or what was so special about his pet.

I wonder if, perhaps, you were referring to Schrodinger?

Of course - even if you WERE referring to Schrodinger and his famous zombie kitty - I don't really see what that has to do with Christianity, or whether evolution is the devil...

No... I'm talking about Schroder's cat. You know, he liked to dance on Schroder's piano while Schroder played classical interpetations of Metallica songs.

Which is what I'm going to do on the corpse of this thread, now.

Don't try and pretend there was someone with the unlikely and unfortunate name of "Schrodinger". Everyone knows that is a slang expression for your "package"...

"I went out to my local last night and picked up a bird and now my Schrodinger is burning like it is on fire..."

and we all can figure out what that would make "Schrodinger's CAT"...

Exactly... but you notice that fundamentalists always argue for more representation ONLY for THEIR chosen mythology.

You don't get christian hardliners making petitions to have more Hindu scripture taught in schools...

In this sense, World Religion courses, even at the collegic level, are grossly unrepresentative of WESTERN religion. I think this is with specific intent, and is a liberal backlash *against* Western/European religious and political insitutions and their perceived cultural dominance and intolerance. You'll find chapters devoted to Buddishm, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, and a dozen other obscure religions in a college world religion course... but typically hardly a paragraph, if that, on Christianity. With the excuse, "why teach students something they are exposed to throughout their life". Hey... I agree totally, let's get rid of Mathamatics and English from G.E. requirements, while we're at it.

Which still doesn't make it right to instruct students in such a biased and non-representative way.

And unfortunately also gives the right-wing Christians some value to their argument that school is being used to draw people AWAY from Christian values...

In this sense, World Religion courses, even at the collegic level, are grossly unrepresentative of WESTERN religion. I think this is with specific intent, and is a liberal backlash *against* Western/European religious and political insitutions and their perceived cultural dominance and intolerance. You'll find chapters devoted to Buddishm, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, and a dozen other obscure religions in a college world religion course... but typically hardly a paragraph, if that, on Christianity. With the excuse, "why teach students something they are exposed to throughout their life". Hey... I agree totally, let's get rid of Mathamatics and English from G.E. requirements, while we're at it.

Not to be picky here, but how exactly is Islam an "obscure religion"?

The world religion class I had in 5th grade basically covered the top five: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Budhism - fairly evenly and all from a historical and a "this is what they believe" point of view. We did spend more time on some of the others, but that was because there were less questions asked about Christianity. We then visited a synagogue and a Cathedral. I'm sure we would've gone to a mosque if my teacher could've swung it.

I find it really hard to believe that I have had better teachers/classes than everyone else on this forum in the state which is last in the country on education.

In this sense, World Religion courses, even at the collegic level, are grossly unrepresentative of WESTERN religion. I think this is with specific intent, and is a liberal backlash *against* Western/European religious and political insitutions and their perceived cultural dominance and intolerance. You'll find chapters devoted to Buddishm, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, and a dozen other obscure religions in a college world religion course... but typically hardly a paragraph, if that, on Christianity. With the excuse, "why teach students something they are exposed to throughout their life". Hey... I agree totally, let's get rid of Mathamatics and English from G.E. requirements, while we're at it.

Which still doesn't make it right to instruct students in such a biased and non-representative way.

And unfortunately also gives the right-wing Christians some value to their argument that school is being used to draw people AWAY from Christian values...

I don't necessarily believe that Christianity is less represented, at all - but, if it was, the simple reason would be that we are collectively immersed in a largely Christian culture. Christmas, for example, usually sees TV filled with christian imagery, christian stories. We are raised in a 'christian' atmosphere.

What THAT would mean, interms of time spent learnign about religion, is that a course can cover christian material very quickly... they don't have to keep going back and explaining 'who they mean when they say the carpenter's son'... etc.

You know what the scary thing is? I live in the Bible Belt.

And my little girl is at school, and she's six years old.

And they (because this is a rural, provincial area) quite happily promote christianity to the kids - and, it's FINE with most of the parents, because they LIKE christianity, because they are christians.

So - I have to sit at home and listen while my little girl tells me about how her teacher said that you can tell summer is coming, because god has put all the leaves back on the trees.

In fact, thanks fot the quote, because: YOU are forcing MY kids to be taught something that I believe has negative moral and educational impact. That has the capacity to dull their religious convictions while at an impressionable age. That is violating my and or my family's freedom of religious practice.

But, you probably don't mind... because you are 'bringing god' to the 'heathen masses', or something.

Actually, I do mind. I very strongly believe in the seperation of church and state and find that to be just as aggious a violation. As I said earlier, I would prefer if neither were taught in public schools, but if you are going to teach one theory of origins, then you are pretty much responsible for teaching all of them and not offer value judgements about the voracity of any of them.

Actually, I do mind. I very strongly believe in the seperation of church and state and find that to be just as aggious a violation. As I said earlier, I would prefer if neither were taught in public schools, but if you are going to teach one theory of origins, then you are pretty much responsible for teaching all of them and not offer value judgements about the voracity of any of them.

This is a really silly statement.

In a science class, you offer scientific theories, without regard to whether or not they contradict a nonscientific source. According to science, the best idea we have right now on speciation is evolution.

Basically, you don't like this one particular theory, it threatens you, so you want to make an exception *just for this*. However, it is idiotic to say "Teach everything in science you want, wait, except the parts my religion doesn't like. Oh yeah, but I'm all for separation of church and state." Really, don't be silly.

Actually, I do mind. I very strongly believe in the seperation of church and state and find that to be just as aggious a violation. As I said earlier, I would prefer if neither were taught in public schools, but if you are going to teach one theory of origins, then you are pretty much responsible for teaching all of them and not offer value judgements about the voracity of any of them.

But the problem is.... evolution isn't a RELIGIOUS doctrine.

So, it isn't covered by "separation of church and state".

Personally - I think that there should be NO RELIGIOUS EDUCATION at schools, until the participants reach the age of maturity... so that they can MAKE VALID CHOICES about what they are hearing.

But - I ALSO want children educated to the highest possible level, and that means they have to learn somethings that I would rather they didn't have to.

Well... tough buns... I have to accept that.

But, in the interests of separation of church and state, the STATE schools shouldn't favour ONE religion. Religious teaching should be done in a relgious class (NOT in science class), and should cover a VARIETY of religious views.

And, if you want your children to know more about one religion... well, take them to a CHURCH (for example)... that's pretty much THEIR job.

This is a really silly statement.

In a science class, you offer scientific theories, without regard to whether or not they contradict a nonscientific source. According to science, the best idea we have right now on speciation is evolution.

Basically, you don't like this one particular theory, it threatens you, so you want to make an exception *just for this*. However, it is idiotic to say "Teach everything in science you want, wait, except the parts my religion doesn't like. Oh yeah, but I'm all for separation of church and state." Really, don't be silly.

I would make an exception for this as it severely undermining of the Christian faith in God as Creator of all that is. And, there is no need to be insulting just because you disagree. Forcing my child to be taught things contrary to my faith, and or to pay for other children being taught things contrary to my faith is an abridgement of my 1st ammedment right to the free exercise of my religion.

But the problem is.... evolution isn't a RELIGIOUS doctrine.

So, it isn't covered by "separation of church and state".

Personally - I think that there should be NO RELIGIOUS EDUCATION at schools, until the participants reach the age of maturity... so that they can MAKE VALID CHOICES about what they are hearing.

But - I ALSO want children educated to the highest possible level, and that means they have to learn somethings that I would rather they didn't have to.

Well... tough buns... I have to accept that.

But, in the interests of separation of church and state, the STATE schools shouldn't favour ONE religion. Religious teaching should be done in a relgious class (NOT in science class), and should cover a VARIETY of religious views.

And, if you want your children to know more about one religion... well, take them to a CHURCH (for example)... that's pretty much THEIR job.

The problem is that it's teaching is in direct opposition to my free exercise of religion, both in exposing my prodgeny to it as well as forcing me to pay for it.

I would make an exception for this as it severely undermining of the Christian faith in God as Creator of all that is. And, there is no need to be insulting just because you disagree. Forcing my child to be taught things contrary to my faith, and or to pay for other children being taught things contrary to my faith is an abridgement of my 1st ammedment right to the free exercise of my religion.

No - it isn't.

Science has NOTHING to do with religion.

You are free to inform your child that 'science' doesn't agree with your beliefs, and you are free to continue in those beliefs. The first amendment doesn't contain any language implying that science should not be taught, or that ONE person has a more IMPORTANT religion than anyone else's.

If you TRULY support the first amendment, you should be arguing for ALL religious theories of creation to be covered equally... not singling out your 'favourite'... that is not your 'right to worship', that is tyranny.

The problem is that it's teaching is in direct opposition to my free exercise of religion, both in exposing my prodgeny to it as well as forcing me to pay for it.

No - not at all.

It isn't taught in religious classes... it is ONLY taught in science classes.

Therefore, it is not religion, so is not affected or bound by the right to 'freedom of religion'.

And, your 'right to worship' doesn't have any bearing on what a science course chooses to teach - since that doesn't STOP you from worshipping.

And, of course, I am being forced to pay for religious education, despite being an atheist... christianity is abusing MY first amendment right, yes?

Last thing... it has no bearing on your rights, anyway... the school isn't teaching you... it is teaching children... and they are not covered by YOUR freedom to worship.

I would make an exception for this as it severely undermining of the Christian faith in God as Creator of all that is. And, there is no need to be insulting just because you disagree. Forcing my child to be taught things contrary to my faith, and or to pay for other children being taught things contrary to my faith is an abridgement of my 1st ammedment right to the free exercise of my religion.

Evolution has never made a statement to the existence or non-existence of God(s).

The problem with the undermining of faith is not Evolutions fault, it's the faithfuls fault(ie you). You don't have faith if you seek to censor or control anything the might threaten it.

Your child should be exposed to knowledge. What that child does with such knowledge is decided by their views and upbringing.

Ignorence is not best!

Finally, you can't use the 1st admendment on the matters of education. Evolution is not a Relgion. Evolution does not prevent you from pacticing you religion.

No - it isn't.

Science has NOTHING to do with religion.

You are free to inform your child that 'science' doesn't agree with your beliefs, and you are free to continue in those beliefs. The first amendment doesn't contain any language implying that science should not be taught, or that ONE person has a more IMPORTANT religion than anyone else's.

If you TRULY support the first amendment, you should be arguing for ALL religious theories of creation to be covered equally... not singling out your 'favourite'... that is not your 'right to worship', that is tyranny.

Please tell me you don't really think that there is no overlap between science and religion. Both teach fundamentally different perspectives on the origins of life. They clearly overlap.

You are right in your last paragraph about it being an all or nothing kind of thing with all religions represented equally along side competing scientific theories. I don't think that is practical and as a result would prefer that the teaching of competing ideas from science and other religions, be entirely private or at the very least by individual parental consent and further that I shouldn't have to pay for something to be taught that I believe to be false.

Finally, you can't use the 1st admendment on the matters of education. Evolution is not a Relgion. Evolution does not prevent you from pacticing you religion.

Practicing my religion means not paying for or having something taught to my child that I believe to be false and harmful to my practice of my religion against my will, is a violiation of my ability to freely exercise my religion.

I would make an exception for this as it severely undermining of the Christian faith in God as Creator of all that is. And, there is no need to be insulting just because you disagree. Forcing my child to be taught things contrary to my faith, and or to pay for other children being taught things contrary to my faith is an abridgement of my 1st ammedment right to the free exercise of my religion.

In other words "Separation of church and state, unless it's my church that wants to control the government."

Good to know you aren't hypocritical.

And you would only have a case if scientifc theories were truly taught as fact, rather than as the best current theory. If a teacher says "Your religion is wrong. Evolution is a fact." you have a 1st Ammendment case. However, if a teacher says "The best theory science has currently determined is evolution, and it is believed to work like this..." (like every science teacher I have ever seen and any decent teacher would), you have no case.

Please tell me you don't really think that there is no overlap between science and religion. Both teach fundamentally different perspectives on the origins of life. They clearly overlap.

Not really. As pointed out numerous times before, science in no way precludes the idea of a God, or that said God created the world.

You are right in your last paragraph about it being an all or nothing kind of thing with all religions represented equally along side competing scientific theories.

Religion and science are completely different areas, and should not really be compared anyways.

Of course, if you are really going to argue that any religion should have veto power over what is taught in schools, we cannot teach that the world is round, as some mythologies state that it is not. We cannot teach that the sun is a separate body made up of atoms, etc., as some religions believe that it is a god. We cannot teach that you think with your brain, as the Bible states you think with your heart. We cannot teach doctors how to perform blood transfusions, as some religions are against them.

And so on and so on. Why is your religion so much more important than any of these?

And, out of curiosity, which of the two Genesis creation stories do you espouse, the Priestly, or the Yahwist?

In grade 12, i took a class called Comparative Civilizations. We discussed all the major world religions: Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam, and we also discussed Shintoism and other beliefs. Part of the class was also about ancient China, ancient Greece, ancient Rome and ancient Egypt, so we discussed their beliefs too. They were all given equal time. It was an optional class, i took it because i am intereseted in stuff like that. I have always loved history and philosophy and that class combined them. I have no problem with schools teaching creationism, just not in a science class, just as i don't think Shakespeare should be taught in a science class. If they do teach creationism, it should be in a class where they discuss various other creation stories and religious traditions too. In a public school, it is simply not fair to teach only one religion. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. If you were Buddhist, Jewish, or Muslim, would you want to sit there listening to creationsim, knowing your traditions won't get the same attention and time? Or conversely, as a Christian, would you want public schools to only teach creation stories from other religions, but not Christianity? I think that all schools should offer classes like Comparative Civilizations, but as optional courses. That way if kids or their parents don't want them to take them, they don't have to.

In grade 12, i took a class called Comparative Civilizations. We discussed all the major world religions: Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam, and we also discussed Shintoism and other beliefs. Part of the class was also about ancient China, ancient Greece, ancient Rome and ancient Egypt, so we discussed their beliefs too. They were all given equal time. It was an optional class, i took it because i am intereseted in stuff like that. I have always loved history and philosophy and that class combined them. I have no problem with schools teaching creationism, just not in a science class, just as i don't think Shakespeare should be taught in a science class. If they do teach evolution, it should be in a class where they discuss various other creation stories and religious traditions too. In a public school, it is simply not fair to teach only one religion. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. If you were Buddhist, Jewish, or Muslim, would you want to sit there listening to creationsim, knowing your traditions won't get the same attention and time? Or conversely, as a Christian, would you want public schools to only teach creation stories from other religions, but not Christianity? I think that all schools should offer classes like Comparative Civilizations, but as optional courses. That way if kids or their parents don't want them to take them, they don't have to.

You had me right up until you said that evolution should be taught alongside religion.

Should we teach physics alongside religion?

Should we teach geometry alongside religion?

Should we teach geology alongside religion?

Why exactly do you think that biology has to be combined with religion?

In grade 12, i took a class called Comparative Civilizations. We discussed all the major world religions: Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam, and we also discussed Shintoism and other beliefs. Part of the class was also about ancient China, ancient Greece, ancient Rome and ancient Egypt, so we discussed their beliefs too. They were all given equal time. It was an optional class, i took it because i am intereseted in stuff like that. I have always loved history and philosophy and that class combined them. I have no problem with schools teaching creationism, just not in a science class, just as i don't think Shakespeare should be taught in a science class. If they do teach creationism, it should be in a class where they discuss various other creation stories and religious traditions too. In a public school, it is simply not fair to teach only one religion. Put yourself in someone else's shoes for a minute. If you were Buddhist, Jewish, or Muslim, would you want to sit there listening to creationsim, knowing your traditions won't get the same attention and time? Or conversely, as a Christian, would you want public schools to only teach creation stories from other religions, but not Christianity? I think that all schools should offer classes like Comparative Civilizations, but as optional courses. That way if kids or their parents don't want them to take them, they don't have to.

Exactly. Excellent post.

Practicing my religion means not paying for or having something taught to my child that I believe to be false and harmful to my practice of my religion against my will, is a violiation of my ability to freely exercise my religion.

Just because your faith is questionable does not give you the right to block the free examination of knowledge.

Again, you don't understand the Establishment clause. The teaching of evolution does not prevent Christianity from being worshipped.

Please tell me you don't really think that there is no overlap between science and religion. Both teach fundamentally different perspectives on the origins of life. They clearly overlap.

You are right in your last paragraph about it being an all or nothing kind of thing with all religions represented equally along side competing scientific theories. I don't think that is practical and as a result would prefer that the teaching of competing ideas from science and other religions, be entirely private or at the very least by individual parental consent and further that I shouldn't have to pay for something to be taught that I believe to be false.

Really... I don't see that there is an overlap.

Science teaches what is observable, and what the 'thinking' is about what is observable... and draws conclusions based on what is observable.

You take that, and you have a science class.

Now, one of the things that science suggests is that life evolves, and that is the scientific observation that suggests how life might have started.

Religion teaches what is 'believed' without observation, it draws no conclusions... it IS the conclusion, and that is why it is taught in a separate class.

I understand that you don't want to pay for what you perceive as false.

Okay. Fine... let's imagine that school-system for a while.

We will no longer teach any other religions, because you think they are false.

We will no longer teach evolution, because you think that is false.

We will no longer pledge alleigance, because I am not an American citizen, so I think THAT is false.

We will no longer teach any christian concepts, because I think they are false..

Not really. As pointed out numerous times before, science in no way precludes the idea of a God, or that said God created the world.



Religion and science are completely different areas, and should not really be compared anyways.

Of course, if you are really going to argue that any religion should have veto power over what is taught in schools, we cannot teach that the world is round, as some mythologies state that it is not. We cannot teach that the sun is a separate body made up of atoms, etc., as some religions believe that it is a god. We cannot teach that you think with your brain, as the Bible states you think with your heart. We cannot teach doctors how to perform blood transfusions, as some religions are against them.

And so on and so on. Why is your religion so much more important than any of these?

And, out of curiosity, which of the two Genesis creation stories do you espouse, the Priestly, or the Yahwist?

They are not completely different areas, both are part of the human search for truth and knowledge. Both have significant impact on people's world views, behavior and many other aspects of life.

I'm not saying that scientific theories should never be taught, but not at tax payor expense, or at least not involuntarily, and that they shouldn't be taught to minors without parental consent.

To do less would be to deny MY beliefs, which include allowing others to believe as they wish.

Well said. THe world needs more people like you.

Really... I don't see that there is an overlap.

Science teaches what is observable, and what the 'thinking' is about what is observable... and draws conclusions based on what is observable.

You take that, and you have a science class.

Now, one of the things that science suggests is that life evolves, and that is the scientific observation that suggests how life might have started.

Religion teaches what is 'believed' without observation, it draws no conclusions... it IS the conclusion, and that is why it is taught in a separate class.

I understand that you don't want to pay for what you perceive as false.

Okay. Fine... let's imagine that school-system for a while.

We will no longer teach any other religions, because you think they are false.

We will no longer teach evolution, because you think that is false.

We will no longer pledge alleigance, because I am not an American citizen, so I think THAT is false.

We will no longer teach any christian concepts, because I think they are false..

I observe that I exist. I theorize that a being bigger and more powerful than me may have created me. I find historical evidence of this in one of the world's oldest writings. I theorize that God created me. Sorry but the whole science is based on observation is can be just as true of religion.

I don't want just what I believe to be false not taught, but rather anything that any religion teaches is false or that science teaches is false, should not be taught without parental consent to minors and not be billed to tax payors involuntarily.

They are not completely different areas, both are part of the human search for truth and knowledge. Both have significant impact on people's world views, behavior and many other aspects of life.

I'm not saying that scientific theories should never be taught, but not at tax payor expense, or at least not involuntarily, and that they shouldn't be taught to minors without parental consent.

*blinks*

Ok if we use the not at tax payer expense, then you just wiped out most of physics, chemistry and biology. A chunk of Math, business and computer science. There is also business theories so we have to kill that......

Hey! Welcome back Dark Ages!

As to involuntarily? Hell; how many children willing go to school! :D

Finally, the parents? Sure they should be involved. However to a point. If we let Religion control education, just about everything would get censored.

They are not completely different areas, both are part of the human search for truth and knowledge. Both have significant impact on people's world views, behavior and many other aspects of life.

I'm not saying that scientific theories should never be taught, but not at tax payor expense, or at least not involuntarily, and that they shouldn't be taught to minors without parental consent.

They are only taught with parental consent... you choose to put your child in a school.

Taxes pay for education - whether you like the subject, or not.

I know people (seriously) who dislike the fact that children are taught Spanish as a second language around where I live.

They consider it an attack on their rights as Americans, because it is just "pandering to them damn Mexicans"... (quote).

I personally, object to the fact that children AREN'T being taught about other religions. How can we promote a peaceful world, if nobody understands what the other is saying? How can we understand, if we don't have the reference points?

I know christians around here that are SURPRISED when I mention the fact that Jesus is an important figure in Islam...

We need MORE education, not less.

And, if that means that you have to do a little work, at home, to re-inforce YOUR religious bias - well, my taxes shouldn't have to be spent to replace good parenting.

I observe that I exist. I theorize that a being bigger and more powerful than me may have created me. I find historical evidence of this in one of the world's oldest writings. I theorize that God created me. Sorry but the whole science is based on observation is can be just as true of religion.

I don't want just what I believe to be false not taught, but rather anything that any religion teaches is false or that science teaches is false, should not be taught without parental consent to minors and not be billed to tax payors involuntarily.

Okay - so we remove every subject that has any contention...

Now our children have no schools.

So, we make a tacit acceptance to include subjects that others consider extrememly valuable... and voila, here we are, right back at the same point.

They are not completely different areas, both are part of the human search for truth and knowledge.

One deals with what is observable, the other deals with that which is not. Seems pretty separate to me. It isn't my fault that people will make fun of the idea that the Greeks thought the sun was pulled in a chariot across the sky but still want to pick one of the two Hebrew creation stories and call it literal.

I'm not saying that scientific theories should never be taught, but not at tax payor expense,

Then vote against it. Fortunately, most people want their children to be knowledgeable.

or at least not involuntarily,

It isn't involuntary. If you choose to take advantage of public schools, you agree to the rules of public schools. Otherwise, you have home schooling and private schooling available to you.

and that they shouldn't be taught to minors without parental consent.

Again, if you want your children to be ignorant, by all means keep them from getting an education. You aren't really doing them any favors - you aren't even instilling true faith in them, but do it anyways if you feel you must.

They are only taught with parental consent... you choose to put your child in a school.

Taxes pay for education - whether you like the subject, or not.

I know people (seriously) who dislike the fact that children are taught Spanish as a second language around where I live.

They consider it an attack on their rights as Americans, because it is just "pandering to them damn Mexicans"... (quote).

I personally, object to the fact that children AREN'T being taught about other religions. How can we promote a peaceful world, if nobody understands what the other is saying? How can we understand, if we don't have the reference points?

I know christians around here that are SURPRISED when I mention the fact that Jesus is an important figure in Islam...

We need MORE education, not less.

And, if that means that you have to do a little work, at home, to re-inforce YOUR religious bias - well, my taxes shouldn't have to be spent to replace good parenting.

I don't get to chose whether or not my child goes to school. The Gov. does mandate that, but doesn't accomodate what I desire to have my child taught in the process. If I have the money to send my kid to a private school, I'm still required pay for things I don't believe to be true against my will, thereby abridging my freedom to practice my religion.

One deals with what is observable, the other deals with that which is not. Seems pretty separate to me. It isn't my fault that people will make fun of the idea that the Greeks thought the sun was pulled in a chariot across the sky but still want to pick one of the two Hebrew creation stories and call it literal.



Then vote against it. Fortunately, most people want their children to be knowledgeable.



It isn't involuntary. If you choose to take advantage of public schools, you agree to the rules of public schools. Otherwise, you have home schooling and private schooling available to you.



Again, if you want your children to be ignorant, by all means keep them from getting an education. You aren't really doing them any favors - you aren't even instilling true faith in them, but do it anyways if you feel you must.

Religion teaches about both the observeable and unobserveable. There is overlap whether you want to admit it or not.

I observe that I exist. I theorize that a being bigger and more powerful than me may have created me. I find historical evidence of this in one of the world's oldest writings. I theorize that God created me. Sorry but the whole science is based on observation is can be just as true of religion.

Big problem here - the idea of God being a creator is not falsifiable. There is no test you can devise that would give you evidence for or against such a statement. Thus, it is not valid in the realm of science. Do not confuse philosophy with science.

I don't want just what I believe to be false not taught, but rather anything that any religion teaches is false or that science teaches is false, should not be taught without parental consent to minors and not be billed to tax payors involuntarily.

Of course, if you are really going to argue that any religion should have veto power over what is taught in schools, we cannot teach that the world is round, as some mythologies state that it is not. We cannot teach that the sun is a separate body made up of atoms, etc., as some religions believe that it is a god. We cannot teach that you think with your brain, as the Bible states you think with your heart. We cannot teach doctors how to perform blood transfusions, as some religions are against them.

And you are not paying taxes involuntarily. A vote was taken on whether or not you would pay taxes, and now there are taxes. A vote was taken on your representatives, and the ones who were voted in have deemed (as is their job) what government money will be spent on. If you don't like it, change it.

I don't get to chose whether or not my child goes to school. The Gov. does mandate that, but doesn't accomodate what I desire to have my child taught in the process. If I have the money to send my kid to a private school, I'm still required pay for things I don't believe to be true against my will, thereby abridging my freedom to practice my religion.

You do understand the concept of a representative republic, correct?

You are arguing against our system of government - so why don't you go elsewhere?

I observe that I exist. I theorize that a being bigger and more powerful than me may have created me. I find historical evidence of this in one of the world's oldest writings. I theorize that God created me. Sorry but the whole science is based on observation is can be just as true of religion.

I don't want just what I believe to be false not taught, but rather anything that any religion teaches is false or that science teaches is false, should not be taught without parental consent to minors and not be billed to tax payors involuntarily.

Science is not based only on observation!!!!!

OK a short lesson on the Scientific Method. There are four major steps:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

How do you test for the fact God went booga booga and poof you appeared?

Finally, your viewpoints of what should be taught. Sorry but to give you that right means to give that right to everybody. Most people would find something wrong with a great deal of things so education would only be reading and limited at that since many books offend people.

Heck you forget the athiests. Religion wouldn't be taught......

Religion teaches about both the observeable and unobserveable. There is overlap whether you want to admit it or not.

The basis of religion is in the unobservable.

Some people want to ignore the observable to hold to what ancient peoples didn't understand thousands of years ago. That is their right, but it is involved in ignoring the observable, not using it.

Meanwhile, I ask again, which of the two Genesis creation accounts do you hold to be observably true, the Priestly, or the Yahwist?

I don't get to chose whether or not my child goes to school. The Gov. does mandate that, but doesn't accomodate what I desire to have my child taught in the process. If I have the money to send my kid to a private school, I'm still required pay for things I don't believe to be true against my will, thereby abridging my freedom to practice my religion.

Not at all. You can choose not to send your child to school through several means.

You can just not let them go. They will probably be taken away from you, and you'll maybe go to jail, or something... but that is surely a small price to pay for protecting your religious rights?

You can homeschool - which puts ALL the responsibility in YOUR OWN hands... thus, if you want to preface evolution with "this is all anti-christ propoganda", you can.

You can move to a different country, with more lax education laws.

You seem to be confusing:

"What I want"

with

What "freedom of religion" means.

Religion teaches about both the observeable and unobserveable. There is overlap whether you want to admit it or not.

No - religion teaches the unobservable.

It references the observable, but the 'lesson' is the unobservable.

That is why religious teaching and the Scientific Method are fundamentally opposed.

Of course, you can be religious, and still USE science... you just have to accept that diametric opposition.

The basis of religion is in the unobservable.

Some people want to ignore the observable to hold to what ancient peoples didn't understand thousands of years ago. That is their right, but it is involved in ignoring the observable, not using it.

Meanwhile, I ask again, which of the two Genesis creation accounts do you hold to be observably true, the Priestly, or the Yahwist?


Don't know the Priestly from the Yahwist, but what I believe is that God literally created this planet and more or less everything on it, though there have been some mutations to things since, in 6 literal 24hour evening/mornings and rested on the 7th/Sabbath day.

As for the basis of religion being in the unobservable, you would be more accurate in saying that not everyone has observed the basis for religion and that some portions of religious belief are currently unobservable with our current methods of observation.

No - religion teaches the unobservable.

It references the observable, but the 'lesson' is the unobservable.

That is why religious teaching and the Scientific Method are fundamentally opposed.

Of course, you can be religious, and still USE science... you just have to accept that diametric opposition.

See my reply to Dempublicants...

that some portions of religious belief are currently unobservable with our current methods of observation.

That's called faith and that is not science.....

Don't know the Priestly from the Yahwist, but what I believe is that God literally created this planet and more or less everything on it, though there have been some mutations to things since, in 6 literal 24hour evening/mornings and rested on the 7th/Sabbath day.

As for the basis of religion being in the unobservable, you would be more accurate in saying that not everyone has observed the basis for religion and that some portions of religious belief are currently unobservable with our current methods of observation.

ALL portions of religious belief are unobservable with current methods of observation.

That is why it is a religion, not science.

Show me something that religion teaches that is an observation, that is NOT a scientific concept, also?

Those elements are 'religious belief'... the rest of scripture, etc... is flavour, and history... the 'texture' of the religion, not the form.

Don't know the Priestly from the Yahwist, but what I believe is that God literally created this planet and more or less everything on it, though there have been some mutations to things since, in 6 literal 24hour evening/mornings and rested on the 7th/Sabbath day.

Ok, you answered my question. You accept the Priestly version of Creation.

Thus, unless you are a completely irrational person, you must reject the Yahwist version. So much for Adam and Eve then...

As for the basis of religion being in the unobservable, you would be more accurate in saying that not everyone has observed the basis for religion and that some portions of religious belief are currently unobservable with our current methods of observation.

You misunderstand what I mean by observable. By observable, I mean measurable.

By definition, an all-powerful God is completley outside the bounds of anything we could ever measure. While many of us have personally observed the workings of God, we cannot *measure* that experience, nor is it something we can consider repeatable. Therefore, it is completely outside the realm of science.

ALL portions of religious belief are unobservable with current methods of observation.

That is why it is a religion, not science.

Show me something that religion teaches that is an observation, that is NOT a scientific concept, also?

Those elements are 'religious belief'... the rest of scripture, etc... is flavour, and history... the 'texture' of the religion, not the form.


My faith teaches me that certain animals I have never observed exist and in somecases the writings of scientist agree.

Another issue we are bound to run into is how do you define the word "observation".

Ok, you answered my question. You accept the Priestly version of Creation.

Thus, unless you are a completely irrational person, you must reject the Yahwist version. So much for Adam and Eve then...



You misunderstand what I mean by observable. By observable, I mean measurable.

By definition, an all-powerful God is completley outside the bounds of anything we could ever measure. While many of us have personally observed the workings of God, we cannot *measure* that experience, nor is it something we can consider repeatable. Therefore, it is completely outside the realm of science.

It is measureable in within the context of behavioral sciences as well as, albeit a very limited scope, in medical outcomes as well.

My faith teaches me that certain animals I have never observed exist and in somecases the writings of scientist agree.

Another issue we are bound to run into is how do you define the word "observation".

An observation is something you observe... something you can see, that you can record... to be truly scientific... you really need to be able to repeat it, too.

So - gravity can be observed.

The ACT of prayer can be observed.

The RESULT of prayer, cannot be observed.

An observation is something you observe... something you can see, that you can record... to be truly scientific... you really need to be able to repeat it, too.

So - gravity can be observed.

The ACT of prayer can be observed.

The RESULT of prayer, cannot be observed.

Actaully there are some pretty well designed behavioral experiments, double blind, random assignment, etc. experiments on the efficacy of prayer in medical outcomes.

Actaully there are some pretty well designed behavioral experiments, double blind, random assignment, etc. experiments on the efficacy of prayer in medical outcomes.

Double-blind doesn't mean much on your claim.

You have to site the study.

They we get to look it over.

Praying for a cold to go away vs AIDs disappearing......

It is measureable in within the context of behavioral sciences as well as, albeit a very limited scope, in medical outcomes as well.

No, it isn't.

We can only measure that which is bound by our universe. God is not bound by our universe.

Now, we can measure how many people say they have had religious experiences, but we have no way to verify that said experiences (a) happened and (b) came from any outside source.

Actaully there are some pretty well designed behavioral experiments, double blind, random assignment, etc. experiments on the efficacy of prayer in medical outcomes.

Wrong.

There was one. In the first study, the results looked promising.

In the second, which was repeated with more subjects, the results were unblinded and looked at, with no correlation. They were then reblinded and scoured for *any* correlation. They finally found one, however, the process with which they found it was unscientific. The study was thrown out.

There has not yet been a single repeatable study which demonstrated that prayer actually helped.

I don't think religion should be taught alongside science. I made a typo, which i corrected. I accidentally put in evolution instead of creationism. I don't think creationism should be taught in any science class as it is not a scientific theory.

If you are arguing about the fact that i believe schools should have a separate kind of religious or philosophical class, than i stand by what i said. I think schools should teach a variety of subjects. They should not only teach math, science, english, history and geography, but art, drama, PE, philosophy, law, etc. I just think that many of them should be optional. People deserve to have choices, so they can expand their horizons.

I don't think religion should be taught alongside science. I made a typo, which i corrected. I accidentally put in evolution instead of creationism. I don't think creationism should be taught in any science class as it is not a scientific theory.

If you are arguing about the fact that i believe schools should have a separate kind of religious or philosophical class, than i stand by what i said. I think schools should teach a variety of subjects. They should not only teach math, science, english, history and geography, but art, drama, PE, philosophy, law, etc. I just think that many of them should be optional. People deserve to have choices, so they can expand their horizons.

Ah, it was the typo that was getting me.

I think that everyone should have access to a comparative relgion-type class as well.

Wrong.

There was one. In the first study, the results looked promising.

In the second, which was repeated with more subjects, the results were unblinded and looked at, with no correlation. They were then reblinded and scoured for *any* correlation. They finally found one, however, the process with which they found it was unscientific. The study was thrown out.

There has not yet been a single repeatable study which demonstrated that prayer actually helped.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/college/sig/spirit/publications/fenwick_%208_4_04.pdf

Note in particular the second half of page 3.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/323/7327/1450.pdf

Okay, i figured it might have been the typo, sorry about that...lol.

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/college/sig/spirit/publications/fenwick_%208_4_04.pdf

Note in particular the second half of page 3.

Confirms exactly what I said. Some studies have been for, some against, and none of them repeated.

I do find it disturbing that they left out the AIDs study, however, as it was one of the most publicized.

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/323/7327/1450.pdf

Very interesting. P values of .01 and .04 are not great, but are often considered significant. I would love to see a repeatability study.

-snip-
OMG all c0z Youtruska d3f3nds Kriztianz we should ph33r |-||/\/\!!!!!

Not really - I respect your actions, Eutrusca. We need more people to balance out the *very* loud anti-religious tendencies of some posts on this board

Not to be picky here, but how exactly is Islam an "obscure religion"?

The world religion class I had in 5th grade basically covered the top five: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Budhism - fairly evenly and all from a historical and a "this is what they believe" point of view. We did spend more time on some of the others, but that was because there were less questions asked about Christianity. We then visited a synagogue and a Cathedral. I'm sure we would've gone to a mosque if my teacher could've swung it.

I find it really hard to believe that I have had better teachers/classes than everyone else on this forum in the state which is last in the country on education.

Well... if you WANT to split hairs... it ISN'T like there is a Mosque on every corner and Muslims are represented in EVERY facet of American life. Oh.. wait, my bad. I forgot about all those tours of the historic, quaint, New England Mosques...

We're clearly talking about a U.S.-centric perspective on Christianity and other Religions. Islam is absolutely an OBSCURE religion as it relates internally to the United States of America.

Which is a tangent of this whole thing... more PC b.s. Having to clarify that,

"Yeah, I understand that Islam is the most practiced religion on a global scale, yada yada yada..."

But... that *really* doesn't mean -dick- in relation to THIS conversation... so what was your point?!?

*pumping my wrist in front of my crotch while flashing a look of dismissive contempt on my face at you*

Too bad they don't have an emoticon for THAT.

And yeah, it looks like you scored with your World Religion teacher.

I don't necessarily believe that Christianity is less represented, at all - but, if it was, the simple reason would be that we are collectively immersed in a largely Christian culture. Christmas, for example, usually sees TV filled with christian imagery, christian stories. We are raised in a 'christian' atmosphere.

What THAT would mean, interms of time spent learnign about religion, is that a course can cover christian material very quickly... they don't have to keep going back and explaining 'who they mean when they say the carpenter's son'... etc.

At what point while reading MY post did you rush ahead to hit quote and respond? Obviously it was before you read very far. I said that this was EXACTLY the argument that these instructors and these courses give for giving scant attention to Christianity. I also said that I don't agree with this and posted my arguments against this.

All you did, in effect, was take the same thing I said, rephrase it, and post it again as your rebuttal. Brilliant.

In this sense, World Religion courses, even at the collegic level, are grossly unrepresentative of WESTERN religion. I think this is with specific intent, and is a liberal backlash *against* Western/European religious and political insitutions and their perceived cultural dominance and intolerance. You'll find chapters devoted to Buddishm, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, and a dozen other obscure religions in a college world religion course... but typically hardly a paragraph, if that, on Christianity. With the excuse, "why teach students something they are exposed to throughout their life". Hey... I agree totally, let's get rid of Mathamatics and English from G.E. requirements, while we're at it.

Which still doesn't make it right to instruct students in such a biased and non-representative way.


Obscure Relgions? Eww I do love that argument. If it's not dominate on this soil its an obscure Relgion.

Well that may have been a valid arguement about 50-100+ years ago but we are no longer isolated as we were. World events are noticed fast. Cultures spill across the net, Tv, boarders much faster then before.

College is about seeing and learning new things. Especially since we have those "obscure" Relgions in this country right now.

So what is the advantage of having Christianity in a world Religions class(which BTW, the book we had, did have a chapter)? Do Christians have such a weak faith that they need to have a chapter on Christianity?


And unfortunately also gives the right-wing Christians some value to their argument that school is being used to draw people AWAY from Christian values...

Shhhhhh the liberal socialist communist homosexual anti-christian front my put you on a list for saying that!

Hmmm maybe I should get that tinfoil hat while I am at it....

I would make an exception for this as it severely undermining of the Christian faith in God as Creator of all that is. And, there is no need to be insulting just because you disagree. Forcing my child to be taught things contrary to my faith, and or to pay for other children being taught things contrary to my faith is an abridgement of my 1st ammedment right to the free exercise of my religion.
No it is not undermining the Christian faith, it may be in conflict with how you choose to interpret your religious beliefs, but that is not the same as undermining Christianity, indeed many Christians believe in aspects of evolutionary theory, many believe evolutionary theory is generally right to the same extent as many non-christians.

Your 1st amendment rights are not being vioated by your children being subjected to ideas that conflict with your interpretation of your religion. You keep referring to your 1st amendment rights in such a way that I cant help but wonder why you think what you claim to think.

Remember if the 1st amendment were intended to be interpreted to grant you the right to not pay for things that contradict your interpretation of your religion, and to be able to prevent your children from being exposed to any and all ideas that you interpreted as being contrary to your religious beliefs, such a right would also be extended to every other citizen, including rastafarians -who only knows what they make of having to finance the administration of laws against consumption of cannabis (as well as educational programes aimed at teaching children about the wrongs of consuming, among other things, cannabis), or what about religiously polygamous people who have to finance the teaching and administration of laws contrary to their religious beliefs? If a religion decides that killing babies is necessitated by their beliefs, must the school system then refrain from teaching that murder is wrong?

In law if the analogy fits the materially relevent facts as it does in the above cases, then it is treated the same. So if the 1st amendment grants the rights you claim to you, it also grants the same rights I have just described regarding drug consumption, bigamy, and infanticide. I dont accept that such rights were ever intended by the authors of the amendment, by those who voted for the passing of the amendment, by those who since have been called on to make precedent setting interpretations of the amendment, nor by the community that accepts and approves of the amendment.

I dont see how the 1st amendment grants the rights you claim, and I certainly dont see such rights being accepted in application by the community at large, even if you could substantiate them technically.

So we are going back to the whole "seperate but equal" issue we have with racism. If I pay taxes and don't believe in evolution and don't want my child taught it or wish to decide when and under what circumstance they can be taught, why should I be discriminated against and forced out of the school system I pay for or paid for prior to having children? What about those of us who don't have kids, but still have a fundamental problem with paying for someone to be taught something I disagree with?

I don't believe in calculus. I want refunds on the taxes I paid to schools that teach calculus.

Obscure Relgions? Eww I do love that argument. If it's not dominate on this soil its an obscure Relgion.

Well that may have been a valid arguement about 50-100+ years ago but we are no longer isolated as we were. World events are noticed fast. Cultures spill across the net, Tv, boarders much faster then before.

College is about seeing and learning new things. Especially since we have those "obscure" Relgions in this country right now.

So what is the advantage of having Christianity in a world Religions class(which BTW, the book we had, did have a chapter)? Do Christians have such a weak faith that they need to have a chapter on Christianity?



Shhhhhh the liberal socialist communist homosexual anti-christian front my put you on a list for saying that!

Hmmm maybe I should get that tinfoil hat while I am at it....

Oh Jesus Christ Son of Mary how am I getting sucked into defending Christians on this effin' thread by politically correct liberal Christ-bashers?!?

Listen...

Read back through the thread. First off, this thread, "I will always defend Christians", started off as a US-Centric topic, and I, for one, intend on staying on-topic as much as possible. In relation to this topic, I don't give a flying one WHAT is going on in the rest of the world. I don't see *any* need to be considerate or politically correct in addressing the status of these religions on a global scale.

You're damn right, on a conversation about DOMESTIC religion in the United States, if it isn't dominant in THOSE UNITED STATES it IS obscure"...

Is there anything in that phrase that is confusing to you... that you're having trouble trying to grasp? I'll draw some pictures for you, if it will help...

Now... what is the PROBLEM with having world religion courses that gloss over Christianity? I'm going to use a technique I've learned in this forum, and throw your own arguments right back at you.

America is *not* an *exclusively* Christian culture. Christians feel, and maybe rightly so, that they are targeted, censored, and sometimes hobbled by a secular policy that tends to regard them as a dominant monopoly on religion in the US. A Christian would argue that there are TONS of souls within the US who have not really heard a fair account of Christianity, who COULD benefit from introduction to what the religion is REALLY about. These same Christians would argue that in a society that constantly paints Christians in the worst light possible, it is unfair for education to present detailed, non-biased information about OTHER world religions while glossing over Christianity, using the excuse, "Y'all know all about this one, cuz it is EVERYWHERE, trying to take away your rights and oppress your soul"...

It always blows me away... the people who are SO enthusiastic about "World Religions", are also the ones so "open" to diversity, so enthusiastic about global unity, so progressive on issues of race, so ANGRY about the denial of civil rights to gays and women and minorities and... and yet they see nothing wrong with slapping a bumper sticker of a "Darwin legged fish" eating a dead, upside down "Jesus-fish" on the back of their VW or Volvo. Right next to their Apple Mac or Linux Penguin sticker. Hey, it is OK to offend and demean Christians... oh, and White Men... they're *eeeee-fil*! They are the oppressive overlords!!! They've got it coming...

How you got me defending Christianity... I'm beyond amazement.

If World Religion has a place in education, then it is absolutely essential that the information be presented ABSOLUTELY non-biased, impartial and with equal time for each religion that is addressed. If it isn't this way (and in my experience, it generally isn't,) then the Christians (or whatever other religion is getting shorted) DO have a right to be concerned about some seeming conspiracy at the worst, and unjust oversight at the least.

Personally, I think -all- religion is a crutch for the weak, a tool of control for the powerful, and a danger to the progress and advancement of society. But, there are a lot of weak people out there who need to be led around like sheep, and without it, they would probably just roll into the fetal position and cry. I think Christianity and Islam are two of the most *dangerous* of all... with the edge that way going to Islam because of it's lack of a "reform".

But I absolutely see that it is hypocritical to argue FIRST that this is a global world and that Islam *isn't* obscure (in relation to this topic, and in relation to just Islam and global religion itself), and then to argue that Christianity *doesn't* need or deserve equal coverage in secular education.

Yours is the same mindset that leds to sympathy for "those poor, desperate, miserable terrorists and what western society has reduced them to"...

I actually know a guy who posted how sad he was for the Hussein family when Saddam's two sons and 15 year old grandson bit it courtesy of the US Armed Forces. He would *absolutely* agree with you on this...

You had me right up until you said that evolution should be taught alongside religion.

Should we teach physics alongside religion?

Should we teach geometry alongside religion?

Should we teach geology alongside religion?

Why exactly do you think that biology has to be combined with religion?

He said no such thing.

Unless you mean that he said that that teaching about religion had a place *anywhere* in secular schooling.

Despite my distaste for religion, it *does* have a place in formal, secular education... in that sense, "right alongside gemoetry and geology and all the other -ologies".... After all... it *is* theology...

But he never said that science classes should be combined IN classes with a religious topic.

What is it with you, and context, syntax and interpetation, anyhow?

and then, three pages later...

Originally Posted by Rangerville
I don't think religion should be taught alongside science. I made a typo, which i corrected. I accidentally put in evolution instead of creationism. I don't think creationism should be taught in any science class as it is not a scientific theory.

If you are arguing about the fact that i believe schools should have a separate kind of religious or philosophical class, than i stand by what i said. I think schools should teach a variety of subjects. They should not only teach math, science, english, history and geography, but art, drama, PE, philosophy, law, etc. I just think that many of them should be optional. People deserve to have choices, so they can expand their horizons.

Ah... I just caught this. I was reading an edited version of his original post. My bad. I retract all the nasty things I said about you... Dempubli-whatever...

Well... not ALL the bad things... But, all the bad things that relate to this post...

Okay - so we remove every subject that has any contention...

Now our children have no schools.

So, we make a tacit acceptance to include subjects that others consider extrememly valuable... and voila, here we are, right back at the same point.

Hey, that works for me. I'm fairly well off, and have no intention of ever seeing my daughter in a *public* school. With less free education for the masses, it'll be that much easier for my family to establish a lasting dynasty of wealth, power and control over all of the mid-west, Bible-belt thumping trailer-park minions, exploiting their inexpensive labor and manipulating their superstitious beliefs to our gain...

:D

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]One deals with what is observable, the other deals with that which is not. Seems pretty separate to me. It isn't my fault that people will make fun of the idea that the Greeks thought the sun was pulled in a chariot across the sky but still want to pick one of the two Hebrew creation stories and call it literal.

QUOTE]

String theory, quantum physics, and multidimensional theory are OBSERVABLE scientific theories in WHOLE?

Science *never* drifts into basically metaphysical topics that are outside of human ability to percieve and observe?

Please enlighten me, oh Guru of definition of all things scientific...

It is all right for SCIENCE to do this, but not for Religion? Please clarify...

Big problem here - the idea of God being a creator is not falsifiable. There is no test you can devise that would give you evidence for or against such a statement. Thus, it is not valid in the realm of science. Do not confuse philosophy with science.

Again... not true. We just haven't figured out a way to do it. Meet God, ask him his name, ask him if it is the truth, and then have him prove it... and present your findings in a nice science journal... "My discussion with God... by Dempublirantingtroll"....

Lots of accepted scientific theories started out as non-falsifiable ideas...

Your mind is a closed book.

If they do teach evolution, it should be in a class where they discuss various other creation stories and religious traditions too..


He said no such thing.

Unless you mean that he said that that teaching about religion had a place *anywhere* in secular schooling.

Despite my distaste for religion, it *does* have a place in formal, secular education... in that sense, "right alongside gemoetry and geology and all the other -ologies".... After all... it *is* theology...

But he never said that science classes should be combined IN classes with a religious topic.

What is it with you, and context, syntax and interpetation, anyhow?
Hang on, so as far as you are concerned "it should be in a class where they discuss various other creation stories and religious traditions too" doesnt mean that the referred to 'it' should be combined in one class with religious topics? Interesting interpretation, although I'm not sure why you think this highlights a concern with dempublicants ability to contextualise, interpret, and to deal with syntax... :rolleyes:

Hang on, so as far as you are concerned "it should be in a class where they discuss various other creation stories and religious traditions too" doesnt mean that the referred to 'it' should be combined in one class with religious topics? Interesting interpretation, although I'm not sure why you think this highlights a concern with dempublicants ability to contextualise, interpret, and to deal with syntax... :rolleyes:

Read back up a few posts. I totally jumped the gun on this one. Dempublicant was responding to a previous edit of the post that I read, where a typo made a significant difference in how the text read. I retracted my statements.

Ok. So I went out, had a smoke, and regrouped... and Demopublicants, I want to really single you out here...

When I called your mind a closed book... I want to elaborate on that.

We've been crossing paths in several threads, and I find your line of reasoning and logic utterly annoying.

The problem is, you are *technically* correct in almost everything you say. Your arguments here are solid, your arguments on race are solid, and you obviously are well educated and researched...

But my problem with your arguments, are the same problems I have with *most* intellectuals and their arguments.

You want to define the parameters which you are willing to argue in such a narrow degree, and you will not accept anything which goes OUTSIDE of those narrowly defined parameters.

In a nutshell, that makes it just as much of an exercise in futility to argue with you as to argue with the pure metaphysical beliefs of this Personal Responsibilit poster...

Your basic argument is, "Listen, from a scientific perspective... yada yada yada."

When things drift outside of falsifiable, observable, quantifiable criteria, you're *instantly* dismissive of them... and present it as if they are therefore invalid. Which *isn't* the case.

To you, if it isn't hard science, it doesn't matter. Just like to the Christian, if it isn't hard religion, it doesn't matter. You can dismiss creationism just as haphazzardly and without any room for critical thinking as easily as the Christian can toss out evolution.

Yet, neither of your approaches can ultimately answer the BIG questions. You can explain right to the edges of the universe... but you can't explain what is on the other side, or if there even IS an other side.

And I think THAT is what Personal Responsibilit is trying to get at here... when he discusses "overlap".

Science often uses philosophy and metaphysics as a cop-out. "Hey, it isn't quantifiable, it isn't falsifiable, we don't do that... sorry. Can't have this discussion... your data isn't relevent, accept what we say, and no one gets hurt".

Wrong. This topic, this thread, all of the threads where we have been bumping heads, philosophy (which is arguably the birthplace of science) and metaphysics have a place, and a value. Just because YOU don't want to get into that, doesn't mean that those aren't valid avenues to explore. If you don't like it when the subject turns that way, check out. Stop posting.

But that isn't what you'll do. Because YOU want to beat down with your dogma and rhetoric and assert YOUR righteousness as *certainly* and as *arrogantly* as any philosopher or theologist. You want to define completely by YOUR narrow set of rules and hold every counter argument to that set of rules.

Which frankly, isn't enough. If science can't eventually explain our concept of reality (and it may very well never be able to do so), then explaining how everything WORKS (more often than not, anyhow) in this reality is kind of useless. A neat parlor trick... it gets us to Mars... it explains sunspots... it is certainlly a better foundation for understanding lightning than thinking Zeus is pissed off... but it doesn't really change a whole lot.

So you know, your strict, scientific approach, as far as I'm concerned, it has a place, it is welcome. But as much as you walk around pumping out your chest acting as if you have the last word on *everything*... you don't.

We've already discussed how scientific knowledge in general can be misled. How the observable results, the falsifiable data, may be misinterpeted, how we just may not have the capacity, the tools, to fill in the blanks... how what we think we know isn't the entire picture. This is just a further elaboration on that...

So, as far as I'm concerned, you can act as arrogant, all-knowing and well-informed within your narrowly defined scope of understanding as you want. It still doesn't make you *right*. You don't know what "right" is any more than Personal Responsibilit does. From a philosophical perspective, all of your "hard science" may be nothing more than an illusion, a waking dream, and all of us brains in a vat... or a single entitity arguing with itself within a timeless, featureless, formless void.

Which is why, in my opinion, it is just a futile arguing with you as arguing with a religious fundamentalist. Science if your faith, you are a fundamentalist in your faith, and you are unwilling to entertain that anything else BUT your faith is the ultimate truth. Yet, ultimately, you rely on the same blind faith in YOUR conviction as the fanatic Christian does in his, even when common sense and critical reasoning *should* tell you otherwise.

That pretty much sums YOU up, in a nutshell.

Again... not true. We just haven't figured out a way to do it. Meet God, ask him his name, ask him if it is the truth, and then have him prove it... and present your findings in a nice science journal... "My discussion with God... by Dempublirantingtroll"....

Lots of accepted scientific theories started out as non-falsifiable ideas...

Your mind is a closed book.

The purpose of science is defining the universe around us, the rules governing that universe, and using them to our advantage.

If an all-powerful God exists, it is, by definition, outside the rules of our universe and, as such, outside the realm of science.

This really isn't hard to understand at all.

String theory, quantum physics, and multidimensional theory are OBSERVABLE scientific theories in WHOLE?

Yes. Have we observed them completely yet? Of course not, or there would be no questions. However, they are within our universe, bound by the rules of the universe. As such, they are observable phenomenon. The theories themselves are falsifiable.

Science *never* drifts into basically metaphysical topics that are outside of human ability to percieve and observe?

Beyond current human ability to perceive? Of course it does, although it never claims such ideas to be proven.

Beyond the ability to perceive in general? Nope.

Please enlighten me, oh Guru of definition of all things scientific...

It is all right for SCIENCE to do this, but not for Religion? Please clarify...

I never said it wasn't ok for religion to delve into metaphysical topics that are outside of human ability to perceive and observe. In fact, I explicitly stated that such topics are *exactly* the realm of religion.

No it is not undermining the Christian faith, it may be in conflict with how you choose to interpret your religious beliefs, but that is not the same as undermining Christianity, indeed many Christians believe in aspects of evolutionary theory, many believe evolutionary theory is generally right to the same extent as many non-christians.

Your 1st amendment rights are not being vioated by your children being subjected to ideas that conflict with your interpretation of your religion. You keep referring to your 1st amendment rights in such a way that I cant help but wonder why you think what you claim to think.

Remember if the 1st amendment were intended to be interpreted to grant you the right to not pay for things that contradict your interpretation of your religion, and to be able to prevent your children from being exposed to any and all ideas that you interpreted as being contrary to your religious beliefs, such a right would also be extended to every other citizen, including rastafarians -who only knows what they make of having to finance the administration of laws against consumption of cannabis (as well as educational programes aimed at teaching children about the wrongs of consuming, among other things, cannabis), or what about religiously polygamous people who have to finance the teaching and administration of laws contrary to their religious beliefs? If a religion decides that killing babies is necessitated by their beliefs, must the school system then refrain from teaching that murder is wrong?

In law if the analogy fits the materially relevent facts as it does in the above cases, then it is treated the same. So if the 1st amendment grants the rights you claim to you, it also grants the same rights I have just described regarding drug consumption, bigamy, and infanticide. I dont accept that such rights were ever intended by the authors of the amendment, by those who voted for the passing of the amendment, by those who since have been called on to make precedent setting interpretations of the amendment, nor by the community that accepts and approves of the amendment.

I dont see how the 1st amendment grants the rights you claim, and I certainly dont see such rights being accepted in application by the community at large, even if you could substantiate them technically.

You're close. When you get to the point of taking a human life or causing harm, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, trumps the right to practice religion.

The purpose of science is defining the universe around us, the rules governing that universe, and using them to our advantage.

If an all-powerful God exists, it is, by definition, outside the rules of our universe and, as such, outside the realm of science.

This really isn't hard to understand at all.

Actually, God is able to move and operate both without and within the accepted "laws" of the universe. There is overlap. The subjects are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Ok. So I went out, had a smoke, and regrouped... and Demopublicants, I want to really single you out here...

And present a completely false picture of me, but you know, whatever.

When I called your mind a closed book... I want to elaborate on that.

By all means.

We've been crossing paths in several threads, and I find your line of reasoning and logic utterly annoying.

Could that possibly be because you have a bit of a martyr complex and ignore half of what I say in these threads?

The problem is, you are *technically* correct in almost everything you say. Your arguments here are solid, your arguments on race are solid, and you obviously are well educated and researched...

But my problem with your arguments, are the same problems I have with *most* intellectuals and their arguments.

You want to define the parameters which you are willing to argue in such a narrow degree, and you will not accept anything which goes OUTSIDE of those narrowly defined parameters.

This is patently untrue. I make it very clear what I am talking about and acknowledge that other viewpoints are correct. For instance, in the race issue. I have made it very clear that, biologically, there is no basis for the term race. However, from a societal standpoint, there quite clearly is.

In this discussion, I have made it quite clear that someone may believe in whatever idea of creation they choose to believe, but it is only science if it fits within science.

Your basic argument is, "Listen, from a scientific perspective... yada yada yada."

When things drift outside of falsifiable, observable, quantifiable criteria, you're *instantly* dismissive of them... and present it as if they are therefore invalid. Which *isn't* the case.

This is also patently untrue. When we are talking about science, I dismiss those things which are unscientific. When we are talking in general, I may present the scientific viewpoint, but I generally will discuss my religious viewpoint as well. The only way in which you could possibly think I am dismissive of them is the fact that I will point out quite clearly that once you delve into the metaphysical/religious point of view, you cannot prove your viewpoint, and thus have no business attempting to force it upon others.

To you, if it isn't hard science, it doesn't matter. Just like to the Christian, if it isn't hard religion, it doesn't matter. You can dismiss creationism just as haphazzardly and without any room for critical thinking as easily as the Christian can toss out evolution.

This is *also* patently untrue.

First of all, I am a Christian, so your "if it isn't hard science, it doesn't matter" bullshit is just that, bullshit.

I dismiss Creationism because I have studied it in depth, and it is bullshit. There are two *separate* creation stories in Genesis which contradict each other. To me, this makes it pretty clear that the point of the stories is what is important, not the little details.

On top of that Creationism is, by definition, the belief that you can use science to "prove" whichever details of the two Creation stories you have deemed to be true. As this involves beginning with a foregone conclusion and attempting to dig up evidence that specifically supports that conclusion, it is not science. You can do it all you want, you just can't call it science if it does not follow the scientific method.

Yet, neither of your approaches can ultimately answer the BIG questions. You can explain right to the edges of the universe... but you can't explain what is on the other side, or if there even IS an other side.

As I have said time and time again, this is *exactly* the realm of religion. We discuss what is (or for some, is not) beyond our current existence. We discuss God. We discuss the afterlife. We discuss morality (which may or may not come from beyond our existence).

Like you said, science may explain right to the edges (should there be any) of the universe, but it does not explain further, *and it is not meant to*.

And I think THAT is what Personal Responsibilit is trying to get at here... when he discusses "overlap".

How can it "overlap" when it is, by definition, outside the realm of science in the first place?

Science often uses philosophy and metaphysics as a cop-out. "Hey, it isn't quantifiable, it isn't falsifiable, we don't do that... sorry. Can't have this discussion... your data isn't relevent, accept what we say, and no one gets hurt".

Wrong. This topic, this thread, all of the threads where we have been bumping heads, philosophy (which is arguably the birthplace of science) and metaphysics have a place, and a value. Just because YOU don't want to get into that, doesn't mean that those aren't valid avenues to explore. If you don't like it when the subject turns that way, check out. Stop posting.

Wrong. Metaphysics has a value, but it is separate from science. Therefore, it has no place in a discussion of what is taught in a *science* class (which is what we are currently discussing).

Metaphysics has a value in say, the abortion debate, but it is a personal value, as the decision is really a personal moral and religious one. It is wrong for anyone to force their personal moral and religious beliefs upon another and we have this little thing called the 1st Amendment, so religion does not come into what we place into *law*.

You are misunderstanding (purposely or not, I have no way of knowing) me by getting all upset over me stating that while these arguments have value, they are inherently subjective and, as such, cannot be used to make law and certainly cannot be used in a discussion of a scientific topic.

But that isn't what you'll do. Because YOU want to beat down with your dogma and rhetoric and assert YOUR righteousness as *certainly* and as *arrogantly* as any philosopher or theologist. You want to define completely by YOUR narrow set of rules and hold every counter argument to that set of rules.

And yet you cannot bring up an single instance in which I have done this.

Which frankly, isn't enough. If science can't eventually explain our concept of reality (and it may very well never be able to do so), then explaining how everything WORKS (more often than not, anyhow) in this reality is kind of useless. A neat parlor trick... it gets us to Mars... it explains sunspots... it is certainlly a better foundation for understanding lightning than thinking Zeus is pissed off... but it doesn't really change a whole lot.

You are right, no one has ever been helped by science. Oh, wait...

So you know, your strict, scientific approach, as far as I'm concerned, it has a place, it is welcome. But as much as you walk around pumping out your chest acting as if you have the last word on *everything*... you don't.

I have never done any such thing.

So, as far as I'm concerned, you can act as arrogant, all-knowing and well-informed within your narrowly defined scope of understanding as you want. It still doesn't make you *right*. You don't know what "right" is any more than Personal Responsibilit does. From a philosophical perspective, all of your "hard science" may be nothing more than an illusion, a waking dream, and all of us brains in a vat... or a single entitity arguing with itself within a timeless, featureless, formless void.

I have never said anything to dispute this. I have never claimed to be *right* in any of these topics. I have simply pointed out the scientific viewpoint on them and supported it when it was attacked by those who did not understand what I said.

Which is why, in my opinion, it is just a futile arguing with you as arguing with a religious fundamentalist. Science if your faith, you are a fundamentalist in your faith, and you are unwilling to entertain that anything else BUT your faith is the ultimate truth. Yet, ultimately, you rely on the same blind faith in YOUR conviction as the fanatic Christian does in his, even when common sense and critical reasoning *should* tell you otherwise.

And again, this is completely unfounded. My faith is in God and in Christianity.

Yes, there is a certain amount of "what if" in a scientific viewpoint. I could consider that I might just be a figment in someone else's dream, for instance. However, it isn't very useful to me and scientific thinking, as far as I am concerned, is meant to be useful. I don't have "faith" in science in the way that I have faith in God. The two modes of thinking are very separate.

Science is the most useful way to describe the physical world and figure out how to improve things within it.

Religion and spirituality are the useful conduits for discussing the spirtual and metaphysical world.

That pretty much sums YOU up, in a nutshell.

Darlin, I don't know who you think you are, but you haven't gotten a single thing right about me in this entire post. Maybe you should try again.

Actually, God is able to move and operate both without and within the accepted "laws" of the universe. There is overlap. The subjects are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

If God moves within the laws of the universe (whether they are currently "accepted" or not), we cannot differentiate that movement from the regular workings of the universe. Therefore, while we may feel that God is doing so, it is still irrelevant to the scientific viewpoint, which seeks only to understand these laws. If God works outside these laws, these workings are, by definition, outside the realm of science.

If God moves within the laws of the universe (whether they are currently "accepted" or not), we cannot differentiate that movement from the regular workings of the universe. Therefore, while we may feel that God is doing so, it is still irrelevant to the scientific viewpoint, which seeks only to understand these laws. If God works outside these laws, these workings are, by definition, outside the realm of science.

It doesn't really matter. Considering He made them.

Yes. Have we observed them completely yet? Of course not, or there would be no questions. However, they are within our universe, bound by the rules of the universe. As such, they are observable phenomenon. The theories themselves are falsifiable.



Beyond current human ability to perceive? Of course it does, although it never claims such ideas to be proven.

Beyond the ability to perceive in general? Nope.



I never said it wasn't ok for religion to delve into metaphysical topics that are outside of human ability to perceive and observe. In fact, I explicitly stated that such topics are *exactly* the realm of religion.

Ok... I waited and read down through the rest of your repsonses, before I commented on this one... just to be safe. But I didn't need to.

YOU are patently wrong about this. When you start getting into quantum mechanics, string theory, and some of the other more extreme edges of modern science (like multidimensional theory), you're absolutely crossing over into "metapyhisical science". It isn't just a matter of us not having the technology to observe, it is about us not having the capacity to observe. We might be able to conceptualize some of these things and fit them into models of how OUR world works... but it is unlikely we can observe completely with any technology available to us.

In specific, I'm thinking about a Carl Sagan clip I've seen where he is talking about a multi-dimensional world. Maybe you've seen it. He uses a 2 dimensional model of "reality" and then tries to illustrate what a 3 dimensional being would look like to the "flat-landers" when visiting the 2 dimensional world. The "flat-landers" would only be able to see a slice, a cross section, of the multi-dimensional visiter at one time. So, we can conceptualize, scientifically, a scenario wherein we could NEVER hope to observe the complete phenomenon. This kind of conceptual science also has a strong influence on extremes in quantum physics and string theory.

Science consistently runs into things that "work outside of the "rules" of our universe". Bending of space time around gravity wells was "outside" of the accepted "rules of the universe". Albert just re-wrote the rules. And HE thought he was nuts, that there was no way his theory was RIGHT, at the time, because it was so far from the "accepted" rules.

Sometimes you can bend the rules, sometimes you can break them. Sometimes you've all got to get together and REWRITE the rules. Your "rules of the universe" are NOT absolute.

Just another example of you doing this... you're claiming one thing, but your holding cards up your sleeve. I'm not buying it.

If God moves within the laws of the universe (whether they are currently "accepted" or not), we cannot differentiate that movement from the regular workings of the universe. Therefore, while we may feel that God is doing so, it is still irrelevant to the scientific viewpoint, which seeks only to understand these laws. If God works outside these laws, these workings are, by definition, outside the realm of science.


See the comment, "it doesn't really matter, He made them..."

But additionally, science is a quest for knowledge and understanding. Just because there may be two sets of rules, doesn't mean that science can't learn and comprehend about that second set of rules.... potentially.

How about a currently metaphysical belief... like the afterlife, and ghosts.

A lot like race, we have some incidental "evidence", nothing conclusive, and if there *are* rules, they don't seem to mesh with our current set of single "rules of the universe". The "rules" don't seem very consistent. You want to claim that it is *simply* outside of the realm of science. In fact, it is possible, possibly even *likely*, that it is simply something that operates at a WAY more complex level of "Da Rules" then we are capable of comprehending, conceptualizing or testing. Maybe it will ALWAYS be that way... maybe we are just physically limited from conceptualizing some of these things... Maybe OUR rules prevent us from understanding THOSE rules. But, on the other hand, maybe like "capturing neutrinos", we just don't have the right technology. Or maybe like warping space-time, we need to rewrite entire sections of our current rules, either throwing the old stuff out, or writing a whole bunch of "exception parameters" in.

You would use this argument with me... "Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it isn't science".

Try applying that to the limitations of your OWN scientific understanding. There are none to yours, though, right? You've got the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy in your back pocket. I'm limited by my ignorance, you are limited by a full and complete understanding of the hard and fast limits of science... right...

Uh huh... :rolleyes:

This is patently untrue. I make it very clear what I am talking about and acknowledge that other viewpoints are correct. For instance, in the race issue. I have made it very clear that, biologically, there is no basis for the term race. However, from a societal standpoint, there quite clearly is.

The argument there has been, and remains, that there is clearly a biological and genetic component of race. It may not be fully understood, it may not be politically correct, but that doesn't change the fact that biological and genetic processes are taking place in race. You want a neat, ordered universe where the lines are clearly defined in very simple, non-complex ways. That isn't always the case. Sticking your head in the sand and screaming "not science"... is typical... but not very productive.


In this discussion, I have made it quite clear that someone may believe in whatever idea of creation they choose to believe, but it is only science if it fits within science.

And science, as a religion in it's own manner, obviously has limitations as severe as any religion in explaining the whole deal.


This is also patently untrue. When we are talking about science, I dismiss those things which are unscientific. When we are talking in general, I may present the scientific viewpoint, but I generally will discuss my religious viewpoint as well. The only way in which you could possibly think I am dismissive of them is the fact that I will point out quite clearly that once you delve into the metaphysical/religious point of view, you cannot prove your viewpoint, and thus have no business attempting to force it upon others.

But forcing SCIENCE upon others is justified? Because it is always proven? You *know* that isn't the case... but in either case, PROVE you exist. Falsify that I exist... Your science is built on an unstable house of cards, in that it can answer all the basic answers, but can't answer the fundamental ones. You cling on to what you have *faith* in, as much a frightened follower as any of the religiously faithful. I'm not going to *really* split hairs over this. Science is far more rational than metaphysical belief or religion. Science is the process of reverse engineering creation and existence. By that very definition, it is incomplete, and relies on some form of faith. When reverse engineering, you may find out that the *beginning* you eventually arrive at is FAR different than your earlier findings might have indicated was going to be the case. That absolutely applies to science. This is absolutely philosophical in nature, but it is a valid and sound argument.




This is *also* patently untrue.

First of all, I am a Christian, so your "if it isn't hard science, it doesn't matter" bullshit is just that, bullshit.

I dismiss Creationism because I have studied it in depth, and it is bullshit. There are two *separate* creation stories in Genesis which contradict each other. To me, this makes it pretty clear that the point of the stories is what is important, not the little details.

Ah, those biblical/spiritual/religious contradictions. I've got my own theories on those. Ever read any Sitchin? He is a fringe UFO/Alien DNA/Lost Civ. kinda guy. I don't perscribe to a whole lot of what he has to say... but some of his explainations might be in the very large ballpark. Anyhow, just because there are two stories, and they conflict, doesn't mean either one is right, or wrong. Maybe you're just reading them wrong.


Like you said, science may explain right to the edges (should there be any) of the universe, but it does not explain further, *and it is not meant to*.

I was going to add the "should there be any", (or something to that effect) to that myself. But I was counting on you to be too anal about this subject to let that slide. You never let me down.



How can it "overlap" when it is, by definition, outside the realm of science in the first place?

I didn't say I agree with the guy, only that this is what he may be getting at when he suggests that there *is* overlap. Rather than demanding that he understand YOUR syntax and meaning, maybe understanding HIS perspective would be a positive first step. Again, I don't think you are interested in positive first steps. You are interested in making others conform to YOUR cherished notions of right and wrong.



Wrong. Metaphysics has a value, but it is separate from science. Therefore, it has no place in a discussion of what is taught in a *science* class (which is what we are currently discussing).

Wow... seems like we've been having a pretty interesting conversation in which BOTH have a place within the same discussion. It is also interesting how you get to decide what has value, and where it belongs, and also *what* we are currently discussing. Seems to me that what you are discussing is just a carefully isolated component of the larger thing the REST of us are discussing. Maybe *that* is the root of the problem, here.


Metaphysics has a value in say, the abortion debate, but it is a personal value, as the decision is really a personal moral and religious one. It is wrong for anyone to force their personal moral and religious beliefs upon another and we have this little thing called the 1st Amendment, so religion does not come into what we place into *law*.

I've got a Christian friend who makes a pretty convincing argument about that 1st ammendment thing and how people define it. I don't buy his argument, but it is decent. Even if I don't buy it, it shows how clearly the 1st ammendment depends on your perspective, who it is protecting from what and WHAT it is guaranteeing.

At any rate, the idea that religion does not come into what we place into "law": that is *clearly* not the case. Hell... people VOTE based on religious conviction. They vote for LAWMAKERS with similar religious conviction. Those lawmakers then write LAWS influenced by their religious conviction. It is inevitable. Right or wrong, intended or not, this is the reality of it. I won't even *pretend* to have all or even a few of the answers on this... the why, who, what, when and where of it all. It is one of those areas that is just too damn complex to have a hard and fast, inflexible opinion on... let alone true knowledge and understanding. What did the founding fathers intend... Who fuckin' KNOWS.

All I know is that you are *wrong* about these things, time and time again, when it comes to issues like this, you're simply *wrong*. It is a pattern with you.

You are misunderstanding (purposely or not, I have no way of knowing) me by getting all upset over me stating that while these arguments have value, they are inherently subjective and, as such, cannot be used to make law and certainly cannot be used in a discussion of a scientific topic.


EVERYTHING, including ALL science, is inherently subjective. REALITY is subjective. It may not seem that way, because the "truth" of how a crop is nourished may be the same for a Pygmy farmer in the wild grasslands of Africa and for a fat-redneck on his John Deere in Nebraska... But the whole reality underlying BOTH of their very existences is subjective. Forcing anything on *anyone* else to make law is a subjective process. What you feel is right or wrong, regardless of how you "PROVE" it, and then telling me I can or can't do a certain thing, is a subjective process.

And yet you cannot bring up an single instance in which I have done this.
I have, numerous times. My prior post to this one is a good example.



You are right, no one has ever been helped by science. Oh, wait...


No one has ever been helped by religion, or philosophy. Oh, wait...

So what is your point?!?


I have never done any such thing.

Yes, you have.




I have never claimed to be *right* in any of these topics. I have simply pointed out the scientific viewpoint on them and supported it when it was attacked by those who did not understand what I said.



*choke* Heh. Ok... :rolleyes:

I like that. It isn't as effective as a "jergov icon" would be... but it'll do the trick...

Actaully there are some pretty well designed behavioral experiments, double blind, random assignment, etc. experiments on the efficacy of prayer in medical outcomes.

Yes, I know about those studies... but there are a couple of factors you are neglecting:

1) It didn't matter what deity the prayers prayed to, or whether they were even religious. In repeat studies, a christian 'praying' to Allah, or an atheist 'praying' a formula to NO god, were just as efficacious as a true believer praying to their own power.

In other words, the act of faith healing, seems to have something to do with the positive thinking of the 'healer', but no provable (or even directly impliable) link to any 'gods'.

2) The action of prayer caused healing - but that could be argued as a side-effect of the prayer. Since the 'link-to-god' element of the prayer is still unprovable, you cannot prove that 'god' heard the prayer, or that 'he' intervened in the healing - so you still cannot prove a RESULT that includes god.

3) Positive thinking has been shown to have positive healthful effects outside of these studies, anyway - the 'prayer' element of the experiment is almost irrelevent.

Yes, I know about those studies... but there are a couple of factors you are neglecting:

1) It didn't matter what deity the prayers prayed to, or whether they were even religious. In repeat studies, a christian 'praying' to Allah, or an atheist 'praying' a formula to NO god, were just as efficacious as a true believer praying to their own power.

In other words, the act of faith healing, seems to have something to do with the positive thinking of the 'healer', but no provable (or even directly impliable) link to any 'gods'.

2) The action of prayer caused healing - but that could be argued as a side-effect of the prayer. Since the 'link-to-god' element of the prayer is still unprovable, you cannot prove that 'god' heard the prayer, or that 'he' intervened in the healing - so you still cannot prove a RESULT that includes god.

3) Positive thinking has been shown to have positive healthful effects outside of these studies, anyway - the 'prayer' element of the experiment is almost irrelevent.


Believe me, as a behavioral scientist, I am aware that there are so many extaraneous variables in any human related expiriment that it is pert near impossible to prove anything conclusive.

However, your arguements against this set of findings and alternate theories to explain the results are no more or less valid than criticisms and alternate theories to current or past evolutionary theory or findings.

It doesn't really matter. Considering He made them.

Exactly my point - it doesn't really matter.

We can study the workings of the universe without even touching on the concept of God.

But additionally, science is a quest for knowledge and understanding. Just because there may be two sets of rules, doesn't mean that science can't learn and comprehend about that second set of rules.... potentially.

An all-powerful being, by definition, is not bounded by *any* rules. It wouldn't be a "different set of rules."

How about a currently metaphysical belief... like the afterlife, and ghosts.

A lot like race, we have some incidental "evidence", nothing conclusive, and if there *are* rules, they don't seem to mesh with our current set of single "rules of the universe".

Ah, here is the problem. You are talking about "our current set of rules." I am talking about the actual rules, some of which we may have currently figured out, others which we may not have yet discovered.

The "rules" don't seem very consistent. You want to claim that it is *simply* outside of the realm of science.

I have never claimed that ghosts or an afterlife (if such afterlife exists within our universe) are outside the realm of science. I said that any all-powerful being is not bound by any rules of any universe and is thus outside the realm of science. Maybe a little reading comprehension would help you here.

You would use this argument with me... "Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it isn't science".

Would I now?

Try applying that to the limitations of your OWN scientific understanding. There are none to yours, though, right? You've got the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy in your back pocket. I'm limited by my ignorance, you are limited by a full and complete understanding of the hard and fast limits of science... right...

Uh huh... :rolleyes:

Personal attacks really get you nowhere, dear. I have never claimed that anyone, least of all myself, has a full and complete understanding of *anything*.

The argument there has been, and remains, that there is clearly a biological and genetic component of race.

And if you would actually read my posts, you would see that I never claimed that there was no biological component whatsoever in what we choose to classify as race.

What I said, quite clearly, was that, from a biological standpoint, there is not enough genetic variance to clearly define race. Again, reading comprehension - try it.

And science, as a religion in it's own manner, obviously has limitations as severe as any religion in explaining the whole deal.

I love it when people classify science as a religion. Makes me laugh. But by all means lobby to have it classified as such.

But forcing SCIENCE upon others is justified?

Science is not really forced upon others.

Because it is always proven? You *know* that isn't the case... but in either case, PROVE you exist.

Science does not *prove* anything, it simply disproves false theories. Once a theory has accumulated enough evidence, it may be claimed as "proven" by the general public, but any scientist would never claim it as such.

Anyhow, just because there are two stories, and they conflict, doesn't mean either one is right, or wrong. Maybe you're just reading them wrong.

If they are meant to be literally true, that is exactly what it means, unless of course, we have two alternate universes and creation happened twice.

I was going to add the "should there be any", (or something to that effect) to that myself. But I was counting on you to be too anal about this subject to let that slide. You never let me down.

Excuse me for, unlike you, being clear that I don't have all the answers.

Wow... seems like we've been having a pretty interesting conversation in which BOTH have a place within the same discussion. It is also interesting how you get to decide what has value, and where it belongs, and also *what* we are currently discussing. Seems to me that what you are discussing is just a carefully isolated component of the larger thing the REST of us are discussing. Maybe *that* is the root of the problem, here.

Explain to me where the metaphysical comes into what should and shouldn't be placed in a science curriculum.

I'm waiting...

At any rate, the idea that religion does not come into what we place into "law": that is *clearly* not the case. Hell... people VOTE based on religious conviction. They vote for LAWMAKERS with similar religious conviction. Those lawmakers then write LAWS influenced by their religious conviction. It is inevitable. Right or wrong, intended or not, this is the reality of it.

Nothing like twisting words to make yourself feel better.

I never said that religion would not *influence* laws. A person's religion is an integral part of their life and affects everything they do. What I said was that laws based soley in religion have no place in our government - something which is upheld by our Constitution and the various writings of the framers of that Constitution.

All I know is that you are *wrong* about these things, time and time again, when it comes to issues like this, you're simply *wrong*. It is a pattern with you.

And I am supposedly the one who claims to always be right.....

Hmmmm.....

I have, numerous times. My prior post to this one is a good example.

Actually, you haven't. You have attempted to twist my words to make it seem as if I have done so, but you have yet to demonstrate a single time in which I actually have.

No one has ever been helped by religion, or philosophy. Oh, wait...

So what is your point?!?

The same as yours. ((Guess what, I never claimed that no one was helped by religion or philosophy)).

Yes, you have.

And yet you can't point out a single time.

You have been personally attacking me, with no provocation from myself. I have pointed out my viewpoints and where they come from - you have ignored it. Perhaps you really cannot understand the fine points that make a distinction between the way you want to twist things and the way the really are, but I doubt it.

Science is not really forced upon others.


Is education in the U.S. compulsory? Last time I checked. Is science part of compulsory ed. curriculum? Last time I checked. Have parents had parental rights removed and or been arrested for not keeping their kids in school? Compulsory = forced... more or less.

And if you would actually read my posts, you would see that I never claimed that there was no biological component whatsoever in what we choose to classify as race.

What I said, quite clearly, was that, from a biological standpoint, there is not enough genetic variance to clearly define race. Again, reading comprehension - try it


I love it when people classify science as a religion. Makes me laugh. But by all means lobby to have it classified as such.

Science is not really forced upon others.

Yeah it is forced upon others... like aethist who say we should ban religion because its not scientifically sound and stuff. Science being forced.
Scientology is a religion thus science is a religion.


Science does not *prove* anything, it simply disproves false theories. Once a theory has accumulated enough evidence, it may be claimed as "proven" by the general public, but any scientist would never claim it as such.


Science does prove things. It cannot prove a negative. It cannot deal with supernatural. That is outside of its realm and scope.


If they are meant to be literally true, that is exactly what it means, unless of course, we have two alternate universes and creation happened twice.

Actually that is only way that Big bang can account for all the missing things.
My science teacher taught me aboyt that in Biology in college.

I never said that religion would not *influence* laws. A person's religion is an integral part of their life and affects everything they do. What I said was that laws based soley in religion have no place in our government - something which is upheld by our Constitution and the various writings of the framers of that Constitution.

And I am supposedly the one who claims to always be right.....

Yes you are claiming to be right. Well than science laws have no place in government...

Oh Jesus Christ Son of Mary how am I getting sucked into defending Christians on this effin' thread by politically correct liberal Christ-bashers?!?

Maybe we are those people your parents warned you to stay away from! ;)

As to politically correct liberal Christ-bashers? There are a couple sure. But the main debaters Demp, Grave, and me are not. We go after the ones that expect and try to make everybody listen to their moral code.

BTW: I am not a lib. ;)


Listen...

Read back through the thread. First off, this thread, "I will always defend Christians", started off as a US-Centric topic, and I, for one, intend on staying on-topic as much as possible. In relation to this topic, I don't give a flying one WHAT is going on in the rest of the world. I don't see *any* need to be considerate or politically correct in addressing the status of these religions on a global scale.

You're damn right, on a conversation about DOMESTIC religion in the United States, if it isn't dominant in THOSE UNITED STATES it IS obscure"...


Actually you are the one offering an obscure arguement. Dominance of one Religion does not make the others obscure Religions. Again 100+ years ago where travel and access was hard, yes they were. Your chances of running into them were rare. That is not the case here.

Especially in my area and in my field. You can't go into a company and not find Buddists, Hindu, or Muslims.


Is there anything in that phrase that is confusing to you... that you're having trouble trying to grasp? I'll draw some pictures for you, if it will help...

Now... what is the PROBLEM with having world religion courses that gloss over Christianity? I'm going to use a technique I've learned in this forum, and throw your own arguments right back at you.

America is *not* an *exclusively* Christian culture. Christians feel, and maybe rightly so, that they are targeted, censored, and sometimes hobbled by a secular policy that tends to regard them as a dominant monopoly on religion in the US.

Oh goody! Constitution talk!

First off, the goverment does not target Christians. You don't see them preventing for setting up Churches, worship, etc.

The "evil" ACLU prevents the "oppressed" Christians from forcing the viewpoints on everyone else. The 10 Commandments posted everywhere, Class prayer time, Christian Religious symbols on public property....

Now many schools(at least where I live) allow personal Prayer time, local goverments allow Religious settings to everyone. Many Christians who scream oppression want their stuff up but nobody elses.

One of the reasons of the establishment clause was to make sure this country does not become a theocracy and have the nice Religous wars that Europe had.


A Christian would argue that there are TONS of souls within the US who have not really heard a fair account of Christianity, who COULD benefit from introduction to what the religion is REALLY about. These same Christians would argue that in a society that constantly paints Christians in the worst light possible, it is unfair for education to present detailed, non-biased information about OTHER world religions while glossing over Christianity, using the excuse, "Y'all know all about this one, cuz it is EVERYWHERE, trying to take away your rights and oppress your soul"...


In order to reach those souls, it requires some assistence of the goverment(ie schools, public assistence centers(ie drugs detox, etc.), public events.

That violates the establishment clause as local, state, and the federal goverments would be promoting one Religion.

Now pay attention. There is nothing that prevents people from finding priests, preechers, and what not.

The Christians routinely advertise on TV, newspayers, flyers and what not.

There is nothing wrong with people seeking Religion.

There is something wrong when people are forced to listen to Religion.

Hey where were the pictures!



It always blows me away... the people who are SO enthusiastic about "World Religions", are also the ones so "open" to diversity, so enthusiastic about global unity, so progressive on issues of race, so ANGRY about the denial of civil rights to gays and women and minorities and... and yet they see nothing wrong with slapping a bumper sticker of a "Darwin legged fish" eating a dead, upside down "Jesus-fish" on the back of their VW or Volvo. Right next to their Apple Mac or Linux Penguin sticker. Hey, it is OK to offend and demean Christians... oh, and White Men... they're *eeeee-fil*! They are the oppressive overlords!!! They've got it coming...

Again, I have not seen this conspiracy you are defending :p The one clase I had on world Relgions did have a chapter on Christianity.

I was talking to another person at work about this topic and he mentioned one story. He said he remembers one class he was in where a Christian was offended that the Muslim chapter had 3 more pages then the Christian chapter.


How you got me defending Christianity... I'm beyond amazement.

Now if I can only get women to do what they didn't want to do! :p


If World Religion has a place in education, then it is absolutely essential that the information be presented ABSOLUTELY non-biased, impartial and with equal time for each religion that is addressed. If it isn't this way (and in my experience, it generally isn't,) then the Christians (or whatever other religion is getting shorted) DO have a right to be concerned about some seeming conspiracy at the worst, and unjust oversight at the least.

Well one thing, world religions is an optional class. It's not a requirement in the public system. Many don't even offer it.

What is taught is the disgression of the teacher, the school and the system. If a guy is in the Bible belt, odds are it's a waste of time to be spending a great deal of time talking about what they all ready know.

Hell we don't even know there is a conspiracy to deny Christianity.

Many Christians view the establishment clause as opressing their Relgion and yet time after time in cases involving proselytizing in the classroom(there is one case going on right now in a nearby school), parents don't like the idea of somebody else introducing Religion to their children.

It's funny but when a Christian is involved, it's oppression and yet if it were one of the "obscure" Religions, it is right.

Oppression seems to be the new argument of the fundi christians, we don't like christians proselytizing to our children at school, sporting events, etc. We are oppressing them.


Personally, I think -all- religion is a crutch for the weak, a tool of control for the powerful, and a danger to the progress and advancement of society. But, there are a lot of weak people out there who need to be led around like sheep, and without it, they would probably just roll into the fetal position and cry. I think Christianity and Islam are two of the most *dangerous* of all... with the edge that way going to Islam because of it's lack of a "reform".

But I absolutely see that it is hypocritical to argue FIRST that this is a global world and that Islam *isn't* obscure (in relation to this topic, and in relation to just Islam and global religion itself), and then to argue that Christianity *doesn't* need or deserve equal coverage in secular education.

Yours is the same mindset that leds to sympathy for "those poor, desperate, miserable terrorists and what western society has reduced them to"...


Wow I didn't know I supported them. I wonder what I was doing with all those early arguments with Steph, Zepp, and Canuck about the war in Iraq.....


I actually know a guy who posted how sad he was for the Hussein family when Saddam's two sons and 15 year old grandson bit it courtesy of the US Armed Forces. He would *absolutely* agree with you on this...

You do like to make assumptions. The two boys were animals and got what they deserved.

Is education in the U.S. compulsory?

Did the people not vote on the government that made it so?

Is science part of compulsory ed. curriculum?

Did the people not vote on the government that made it so?

Does being told something force you to believe/abide by it?

Have parents had parental rights removed and or been arrested for not keeping their kids in school?

Did the people not vote on the lawmakers who made this so?

Compulsory = forced... more or less.

So, in other words, you are (if you choose to stay in this country) forced to hear about science. You are not, however, forced to believe or live by it.

I may tell you that mixing chlorine and bleach is a bad thing and explain the science of it to you. However, you may choose to mix them on your own at home, and I cannot force you to do otherwise.

Do you see the difference now?

Is education in the U.S. compulsory? Last time I checked. Is science part of compulsory ed. curriculum? Last time I checked. Have parents had parental rights removed and or been arrested for not keeping their kids in school? Compulsory = forced... more or less.

I don't know about other states but yes it is compulsory in the higher levels you have to hone one science class to complete general ed. It can be any of them.

The lower grades class work is so low level, I really wonder what the fuss is about? Nothing in there brings the question of the existence of God. Well unless the teacher brings up the case.....

How many people did the classic volcano experiment! :)

Apparently nothing.

Yeah it is forced upon others... like aethist who say we should ban religion because its not scientifically sound and stuff. Science being forced.

I have never heard anyone, atheist or not, say "we should ban religion because its not scientifically sound." And there is no law banning religion because it is not scientifically sound. Thus, you have no case.

Scientology is a religion thus science is a religion.

Ah, the spectacularly uninformed.

Scientology has nothing to do with science. It was a religion made up on a bet between two authors and has to do with aliens. Saying that two things are the same simply because they share the same root word is absolutely ignorant, and I have not seen you be ignorant before.

Science does prove things.

No, it doesn't. It provides evidence for an idea, but always with the caveat that further evidence may disprove the current theory. *Always*.

It cannot prove a negative.

True.

It cannot deal with supernatural.

Depends on your definition of supernatural. Once upon a time, lightning was supernatural. Now we know better.

Actually that is only way that Big bang can account for all the missing things.

Now, I'm not a physicist, so I don't know all the ins and outs of the Big Bang theory, but exactly what "missing things" are we talking about here?

My science teacher taught me aboyt that in Biology in college.

That's funny, since the Big Bang has nothing to do with Biology. It is really a physics concept. The inception of biology comes much, much later.

Yes you are claiming to be right.

Doesn't it actually take a claim from the person involved. You saying this is like me saying:

You are claiming to be purple.

Look, it must be true!! I said so!!!

Well than science laws have no place in government...

Science =! Religion

Of course, I haven't really seen a "science" law anyways. I have seen laws that have scientific backing, but not that are "science" laws, unless you are referring to the laws that regulate science. Surely you don't think we should do away with all of those?

Yeah it is forced upon others... like aethist who say we should ban religion because its not scientifically sound and stuff. Science being forced.
Scientology is a religion thus science is a religion.

Ok forced on others? So why is it bad to know why plants grow? What the sun means? Air, water, evaperation, snow.....

I had to do a doubletake on the Scientology comment. You are joking right?

Christ, why does everyone pit creationsim vs. evoultion/science. They don't disagree or disprove each other. I'm sick and tired of hearing this pointless arguement. Its impossible to prove; no one was there; so, everyone believe what they want to believe and just shut up about it already.

Christ, why does everyone pit creationsim vs. evoultion/science. They don't disagree or disprove each other. I'm sick and tired of hearing this pointless arguement. Its impossible to prove; no one was there; so, everyone believe what they want to believe and just shut up about it already.

Because our Christian friends won't let it go. The fight to prevent Creationism in the Biology and physcial anthroprology classes never ends.

The effort to censor evolutional theory never ends.

Hell this silly country has some areas puting warning labels on text books now! :rolleyes:

Hell this silly country has some areas puting warning labels on text books now! :rolleyes:

Yup, I have to drive through that county on my way to and from work.

Of course, the sticker would be perfect if it said "all scientific theories" instead of just "evolution." Unfortunately, those who didn't actually listen in their rudimentary science courses want to believe that these pieces of science over here are "just theories" but the ones they like are "proven fact." In truth, everything in science is "just theories."

People need to learn that best way to try and spread your belief is to not smack others in the face with it. I personally am a Christian, but I just try to let my attitude and the way I live my life speak for my beliefs. This, I believe is much more effective than shouting bible verses at passersby.

People need to learn that best way to try and spread your belief is to not smack others in the face with it. I personally am a Christian, but I just try to let my attitude and the way I live my life speak for my beliefs. This, I believe is much more effective than shouting bible verses at passersby.

I wholeheartedly agree. Living your life as a Christian, being Christ-like in your actions, and being willing to discuss your religion with those who wish to hear it is going to inform people much better than screaming at them or forcing your viewpoint on them. The latter will just turn people away from your religion.

People need to learn that best way to try and spread your belief is to not smack others in the face with it. I personally am a Christian, but I just try to let my attitude and the way I live my life speak for my beliefs. This, I believe is much more effective than shouting bible verses at passersby.

Well my friend. The so called liberal anti-christians(which a few have labeled me) have no problems with you.

It's too bad that a tiny loudmouthed batch make the whole look bad.....

For me Religion is a personal thing. I don't see the need to broadcast it.

Yup, I have to drive through that county on my way to and from work.

Of course, the sticker would be perfect if it said "all scientific theories" instead of just "evolution." Unfortunately, those who didn't actually listen in their rudimentary science courses want to believe that these pieces of science over here are "just theories" but the ones they like are "proven fact." In truth, everything in science is "just theories."

Actually, the warning label that I heard put into books read something along the lines that all theories contained within the Science books were just theories and told readers to keep an open mind and not a closed mind upon reading it.

Though a movement against the warning labels came up shortly afterwards by an atheist group saying that it violated the seperation of church and state because it was a church group that started the movement to put the warning labels into the books in the first place. Though I don't see how having a church group start it means anything, since lobbists are the biggerst reasons for laws, everything from envirmonetalists to atheists, it shouldn't be religion that is looked at, but since this is a democrazy, it should be by the people.

If the nation truely ruled as a Democrazy or Republic that it is, then the whole, well G-d said so, or thier is no G-d so you can't say it, arguement wouldn't even come to light. Its ruled by the people for the people. Follow the masses, even if you don't personally believe it, this concept is even found in the Christian Bible, "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesars, and give unto to G-d that which is God's" It doesn't say, make man's laws that of G-d's, even more so when if you read the Bible, G-d was very much against any central form of government, he wanted us to rule ourselves, in a sense, he wanted us to be anarchists, though not the extremeist time that everyone mistakes that word for today.

I think there are entirely too many laws as is, they should get rid of them so people can actually have the power to live their lives. Keep the important ones protecting people, protecting ideals, and protecting the nation. We don't need laws on how to love, how to live, and how to die. We need laws to protect and serve. To make the world safe for everyone to live in, and to further open and unrestricted thought. This doesn't mean to go all wacko, thats my job.

I wholeheartedly agree. Living your life as a Christian, being Christ-like in your actions, and being willing to discuss your religion with those who wish to hear it is going to inform people much better than screaming at them or forcing your viewpoint on them. The latter will just turn people away from your religion.
As the Bible teaches, if you go to the poor, then be as the poor, for if you come as a stranger, they will turn you away. Christians have long held themselves higher then others because "they know the truth and others don't" yet even in the Christian bible it says, The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. So if a Christian is putting himself first in this world, then even his own dogma tells him that he is pushing himself towards damnation. The world doesn't need a whole bunch of zeolots running around screaming about how they are the only right ones and everybody needs to follow them. Then you get people going, oh sure, he is right, until the next one comes along, obviously these people don't know whats going on.

At what point while reading MY post did you rush ahead to hit quote and respond? Obviously it was before you read very far. I said that this was EXACTLY the argument that these instructors and these courses give for giving scant attention to Christianity. I also said that I don't agree with this and posted my arguments against this.

All you did, in effect, was take the same thing I said, rephrase it, and post it again as your rebuttal. Brilliant.

Delusions of grandeur, my friend.

Firstly, my comment wasn't a 'rebuttal' of yours, so much as a commentary - just because I chose to quote your paragraph, doesn't mean I argued against it...

Second: "Which still doesn't make it right to instruct students in such a biased and non-representative way" implies that Christianity is being left out of religious education. I have seen no evidence of this... and neither have most of the people responding, apparently.

If you re-read my commentary, you'll see that I am explaining why it might SEEM that christianity is less represented, and, yes it IS about cultural familiarity.

People need to learn that best way to try and spread your belief is to not smack others in the face with it. I personally am a Christian, but I just try to let my attitude and the way I live my life speak for my beliefs. This, I believe is much more effective than shouting bible verses at passersby.
You are to be commended. Thank you. "Conduct yourselves honorably so that [men] may witness your good deeds and give glory to God." :)

[QUOTE=Dempublicents]One deals with what is observable, the other deals with that which is not. Seems pretty separate to me. It isn't my fault that people will make fun of the idea that the Greeks thought the sun was pulled in a chariot across the sky but still want to pick one of the two Hebrew creation stories and call it literal.

QUOTE]

String theory, quantum physics, and multidimensional theory are OBSERVABLE scientific theories in WHOLE?

Science *never* drifts into basically metaphysical topics that are outside of human ability to percieve and observe?

Please enlighten me, oh Guru of definition of all things scientific...

It is all right for SCIENCE to do this, but not for Religion? Please clarify...

Still missing the point:

Quantum physics - starts in the observable, formulates a model, tests the model, creates a theory to explain the repeated observed results.

Creationism - starts in a book, reads the book, interprets data into the guidelines of the book if possible.

One is scientific, the other isn't. It's that simple.

One starts from observation, and tries to explain it - the other starts from a 'rule' and tries to make everything fit it.

And present a completely false picture of me, but you know, whatever...First of all, I am a Christian, so your "if it isn't hard science, it doesn't matter" bullshit is just that, bullshit.... I dismiss Creationism because I have studied it in depth, and it is bullshit. There are two *separate* creation stories in Genesis which contradict each other. To me, this makes it pretty clear that the point of the stories is what is important, not the little details...Darlin, I don't know who you think you are, but you haven't gotten a single thing right about me in this entire post. Maybe you should try again.

Trimmed to make it concise...

I LOVE watching Dempublicents getting medieval on someone.

GO Dempublicents. :)

Actually, creationism can be taught in the absence of a specific theological perspective and is a theory about origins, just like evolution. It doesn't have the years of scientific testing behind it and is somewhat more difficult to measure, but a good scientist would acknowledge that just because we don't have the tools to measure something doesn't make it false.
a good scientist also realises that creationism is not science, thus does not belong in a science class.

Works for me. I shouldn't have the right to force you or your children to believe or be taught by others to believe something you believe to be untrue. You also don't have the right to force me or my children to be taught to believe something that I believe to be untrue. Perhaps we could seperate evolution from science class at teach it in an optional "origins" clase...
except that evolution is science. it should be taught in a biology class... at my school, bio was optional...

Believe me, as a behavioral scientist, I am aware that there are so many extaraneous variables in any human related expiriment that it is pert near impossible to prove anything conclusive.

However, your arguements against this set of findings and alternate theories to explain the results are no more or less valid than criticisms and alternate theories to current or past evolutionary theory or findings.

No, not buying it.

Evoution is a theory based on thousands of verifiable artifacts, discovered over hundreds of years, dating a chronology of millions.

Behavioural science is a system that can only be used to deal with current phenomena, and even then, only in loose terms, since there are no 'fossils', if you will - no hard copy.

Add to that, especially in the case of the 'prayer experiments', the unrepeatability and unverifiability of the evidence... how do you make ANY comparison between that and millions of years of evidence that is, very literally - and this should particularly appeal - carved in stone?

Actually, the warning label that I heard put into books read something along the lines that all theories contained within the Science books were just theories and told readers to keep an open mind and not a closed mind upon reading it.

The one in Cobb county, GA specifically states that *Evolution* is a just a theory and should be approached with an open and critical mind.

Because the church group wished these to be added because of religious motives, it is being challenged.

My point was that if the label *did* say "all scientific theories" instead of just "evolution," it would be appropriate. Of course, the first chapter of any science textbook pretty much says just that, but redundancy can be good at low levels.

I think there are entirely too many laws as is, they should get rid of them so people can actually have the power to live their lives. Keep the important ones protecting people, protecting ideals, and protecting the nation. We don't need laws on how to love, how to live, and how to die. We need laws to protect and serve. To make the world safe for everyone to live in, and to further open and unrestricted thought. This doesn't mean to go all wacko, thats my job.

I can't disagree with this. The problem comes in when people disagree on what is involved in "protecting people, protecting ideals, and protecting the nation." Whose ideals are we to protect? What do we mean by protecting people? Does it include protection from mental harm as well as physical? Does it include protecting them from unfair treatment from others that does not cause lasting harm?

Actually, creationism can be taught in the absence of a specific theological perspective and is a theory about origins, just like evolution. It doesn't have the years of scientific testing behind it and is somewhat more difficult to measure, but a good scientist would acknowledge that just because we don't have the tools to measure something doesn't make it false.

That would be teaching the idea of creation, not Creationism, which is the belief that the Genesis account of creation is literal and can be proven true.

Of course, there are no set theories, etc. to creation, so teaching it would involve a single sentence: "The universe may have been created by a deity or set of deities, as many people believe." The end. And guess what? This sentence was mentioned, not only by my high school biology teacher, but in my high school biology textbook.

Absolutely. I know a freaking huge amount of Christians, including my parents, who are some of the most intelligent people on this planet; hell, my dad has multiple doctorates, including in geophysics and programming. It's a shame that we would call every Christian an evil bible-beating Republican, just as it is a shame that we lump ever Muslim together with the terrorists like Al Queda.
Now, there are some bad Christians, yes, but you've got bad apples in just about every batch, no matter what. Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Muslims, Jews, Christians, hell, whatever you want, we've all got good and bad in us. You must judge on the character of the individual alone.
Well said! BTW, when I said I was quitting, I was only joking, and trying to see the kind of reaction I'd get.

Christ, why does everyone pit creationsim vs. evoultion/science. They don't disagree or disprove each other. I'm sick and tired of hearing this pointless arguement. Its impossible to prove; no one was there; so, everyone believe what they want to believe and just shut up about it already.

Classic! THIS is what people say when they want to evade the responsibility of trying to come up with an answer.

Classic! THIS is what people say when they want to evade the responsibility of trying to come up with an answer.

Some sleeping dogs are best left to lie.

I think the problem is both sides come across generally as absolutes. The Vatican has really backed off on evolution, haven't they? Haven't they gone as far as to say evolution is compatible within the framework of creationism?

Which to me is the same as saying, "well, we don't know the whole picture, on EITHER side".

And we don't. We're going from things, as someone else pro-evolution above pointed out "carved in stone". An incomplete fossil record that often only provides an impartial record with a lot of blanks to fill in, at best. And from a book, or a couple of books.

How either side can sit there and absolutely claim the other side is patently WRONG is beyond me.

I can't disagree with this. The problem comes in when people disagree on what is involved in "protecting people, protecting ideals, and protecting the nation." Whose ideals are we to protect? What do we mean by protecting people? Does it include protection from mental harm as well as physical? Does it include protecting them from unfair treatment from others that does not cause lasting harm?

Protecting people means from physical harm. As for mental harm, we should all be able to believe to listen and not listen when ever we wish. The hard part is the children, when should they have a say, and when should the parents have a say. Too often parents feel they should control their kids future by controlling thier present. I think there should be a much more open forum. Allow the students to choose what they wish to follow, and allow for them to follow their own path. The school system tries to make everyone a scientist in everything, and then college kicks in and tells everyone to pick only one to be good in, and pick what to support it.

I think local government should rule the domestic issues, its the way the government was setup in the first place, and the only thing I see the Fedral government good for is setting up National Defenses and for things that affect more then one state, like controlling trade issues and such. They should ease off schools and such. That way each region is up to itself and the only time the Fedral system should come into play is when there is obvious infractions. Things like Slavery, Prejudice, and the like, and they should stop them, from all sides. This shouldn't brake down into, well, Science infringes upon me, so its prejudice, so I should be heard on the national level, and I'm going to sue the school board and take away more of the little funds to fuel my path on this.

It worked in Greece, let it work here. Though I know it won't.

Classic! THIS is what people say when they want to evade the responsibility of trying to come up with an answer.

What?! I wasn't even a part of the initial arguement. What are you talking about?

Some sleeping dogs are best left to lie.

I think the problem is both sides come across generally as absolutes. The Vatican has really backed off on evolution, haven't they? Haven't they gone as far as to say evolution is compatible within the framework of creationism?

Which to me is the same as saying, "well, we don't know the whole picture, on EITHER side".

And we don't. We're going from things, as someone else pro-evolution above pointed out "carved in stone". An incomplete fossil record that often only provides an impartial record with a lot of blanks to fill in, at best. And from a book, or a couple of books.

How either side can sit there and absolutely claim the other side is patently WRONG is beyond me.


Well said. Things are seldom black and white. Especially when you arguing some think that cannot be tested.

Too often parents feel they should control their kids future by controlling thier present. I think there should be a much more open forum. Allow the students to choose what they wish to follow, and allow for them to follow their own path. The school system tries to make everyone a scientist in everything, and then college kicks in and tells everyone to pick only one to be good in, and pick what to support it.


Parents will always make their kids believe what the parents think is right. No one wants their kid believing what they think is wrong. Thats just the nature of human beings.

Parents will always make their kids believe what the parents think is right. No one wants their kid believing what they think is wrong. Thats just the nature of human beings.

Actually, good parents will admit that in areas where nobody can be sure that they are completely right, their kids should be allowed to make up their own minds. Nobody wants their children to believe something they think is wrong, but any decent parent teaches, rather than indoctrinating. As such, they must accept the fact that their child may come to a different conclusion.

Yup, I have to drive through that county on my way to and from work.

Of course, the sticker would be perfect if it said "all scientific theories" instead of just "evolution." Unfortunately, those who didn't actually listen in their rudimentary science courses want to believe that these pieces of science over here are "just theories" but the ones they like are "proven fact." In truth, everything in science is "just theories."

Looks like I did get ONE assumption right about you, suga-pie, sweetie-cakes, apple-dumplin' buns... you DO live in the South... huh... I thought you said I didn't get *anything* right...


Well, at least I've caught you in ONE lie.

Looks like I did get ONE assumption right about you, suga-pie, sweetie-cakes, apple-dumplin' buns... you DO live in the South... huh... I thought you said I didn't get *anything* right...


Well, at least I've caught you in ONE lie.

Wow... you really are the king of jumping to conclusions...

What about if Dempublicents lives in one place, but goes to school in another??? Not that crazy an idea, huh?

Then she would for example, stay, work and study in the south, but might not even 'live' in the same country...

But, jump away... they are your conclusions.

Wow... you really are the king of jumping to conclusions...

What about if Dempublicents lives in one place, but goes to school in another??? Not that crazy an idea, huh?

Then she would for example, stay, work and study in the south, but might not even 'live' in the same country...

But, jump away... they are your conclusions.

So she LIVES in the North, but drives by the SOUTH every day on her way to school? (actually, she said on her way to WORK, but we'll go with your misinterpetation of her post).

I guess it is possible. I hadn't considered it. She might live *right* on the edge... you're right... I *did* jump to conclusions...

Not a real BIG one, if you asked me...

Hold on... did you say COUNTY, or COUNTRY.

You are from America, right?

The North/south divide is along STATES... not Counties OR countries. Maybe you're not from the States, and the significance of the Southern Dialect being used is lost on you, honey... So, you are suggesting that she drives from Canada, through the entire Northern East Coast, all the way down to, say, Maryland, Virginia or further, on a daily basis? Or maybe that she drives from Mexico, up to Texas (which barely qualifies as a "Southern Slave Owning State" under the traditional American interpetation of the North/South. New Mexico and Arizona certainly don't).

Oh... there I go jumping to conclusions again. There are probably three dozen other conclusions, including "you are an American, but an idiot". Do I really need to list every POSSIBLE conclusion that might occur to me to my already verbose, long-winded and rambling posts?

But wait... isn't that kind of the goal of a discussion forum... to draw conclusions on issues?

Now you've got me totally confused... I guess the REAL goal if a discussion forum HERE is for the rest of us to submit to YOUR opinion....

Originally Posted by Dempublicents
Yup, I have to drive through that county on my way to and from work.

Yup. I didn't even check first, but I was pretty sure she said COUNTY and not COUNTRY...

Which implies, at least to me, that she lives in a different COUNTY in the same State... which further implies, *strongly* that she lives in the South.

Being that the County where the text-book sticker was passed *is* in a Southern State, although the exact State escapes me now.

The south *is* a frightening, regressive place, though... especially for a liberal... I'm *also* jumping to the conclusion that Dempublicant is a woman... and *very* likely a woman of at least partial African American descent. With an advanced degree from a Southern University (thus, highly educated). How about THAT for jumping to conclusions. She actually reminds me a LOT in tone and attitude of the owner of "T-Shirt Hell". Google it if you want to find out more (and don't already know what I am talking about).

But anyhow, if Dempublicant indeed fits anywhere NEAR this rough profile, it explains SO much about Dempublicant. In attitude, opinion, and approach. No wonder....

I dunno why, exactly... it is JUST a hunch.

It is also worth noting that Counties, and TALKING about counties, is a bigger thing on the east and especially in the South than it is is the Western United States.... I dunno why that is... maybe because the Western states are so big that individual counties are often the size of entire Eastern/Southern STATES, and that therefore STATE government has a much more high profile role in government in the west than in the East and South. But... who knows... At any rate... take THAT for whatever it is worth, as well... Me and Richard Simmons are just "Jumpin' to The Conclusions" here... $19.95 on DVD and VHS... it is the new exercise craze...

Actually, good parents will admit that in areas where nobody can be sure that they are completely right, their kids should be allowed to make up their own minds. Nobody wants their children to believe something they think is wrong, but any decent parent teaches, rather than indoctrinating. As such, they must accept the fact that their child may come to a different conclusion.

I spent lots of time with my own children using what was essentially a Socratic dialogue to make them think and to draw them into making their own decisions about virtually everything. Any family or other long-term organization has its own values, standards, myths, legends, etc., and those are absorbed as if by osmosis, but they still have the capacity to examine each of those and make their own decisions about each.

We must have done something right, since all five of our children are, without exception, good people who care about others, are kind and compassionate, yet have a core set of values they decided were best for them. I may not always agree with what they believe or decide, but I just love 'em all to death! Does it come across that I'm inordinately impressed with my own offspring? :D

I spent lots of time with my own children using what was essentially a Socratic dialogue to make them think and to draw them into making their own decisions about virtually everything. Any family or other long-term organization has its own values, standards, myths, legends, etc., and those are absorbed as if by osmosis, but they still have the capacity to examine each of those and make their own decisions about each.

We must have done something right, since all five of our children are, without exception, good people who care about others, are kind and compassionate, yet have a core set of values they decided were best for them. I may not always agree with what they believe or decide, but I just love 'em all to death! Does it come across that I'm inordinately impressed with my own offspring? :D

You know... I basically agree, and feel that this is the parental style I want to adopt in raising my child. I think analyzing it to the point that you know you are essentially having a Socratic dialogue with your children might be a bit overboard, but... whatever floats you boat. Personally, I'm a big fan of the Sophist dialogue myself, and hopefully my child will adopt this pessimistic outlook on the human condition instead... (Yeah, I'm being a little sarcastic).

But by the same token, I don't think that "indoctrinating" your children into your belief set is necessarily undoubtedly a bad thing. For 2000 years of recorded human history, that has basically been the dominant method of parenting, and after all, we're here, to have this discussion, aren't we? Just because one philosophy has been dominant, and fairly successful, for the last 40 years or so, doesn't mean that it hasn't come with its own failings.

Looks like I did get ONE assumption right about you, suga-pie, sweetie-cakes, apple-dumplin' buns... you DO live in the South... huh... I thought you said I didn't get *anything* right...


Well, at least I've caught you in ONE lie.

That would be great, if you had said anywhere in your assumption post that I lived in the South. Of course, you didn't, so you have no point.

Which implies, at least to me, that she lives in a different COUNTY in the same State... which further implies, *strongly* that she lives in the South.

Not that I've ever claimed that I don't. Go figure.

Being that the County where the text-book sticker was passed *is* in a Southern State, although the exact State escapes me now.

Georgia. Of course, there are many places in GA that don't meet the stereotypical description of the South (there are also many places that do.

The south *is* a frightening, regressive place, though...

Let's not get too stereotypical here. Parts of the south meet this description. Others do not. Parts of the midwest meet this description. Others do not. Hell, even parts of California and the Northeast meet this description.

especially for a liberal...

*Shrug* Only extreme conservative tend to call me a liberal. Extreme liberals call me a conservative. Personally, I don't care for all the labels.

I'm *also* jumping to the conclusion that Dempublicant is a woman...

This might have come, just maybe, from everyone else discussing me as "she".

and *very* likely a woman of at least partial African American descent.

It is very likely that just about everyone in this country is of at least partial "African American" descent. There is none that I know of in my background, but your assumption (wherever you drew it from) could possibly be right.

With an advanced degree from a Southern University (thus, highly educated).

At the moment, I have a BSE (Bachelors of Science in Engineering) with a specialty in Biomedical Engineering, which did actually come from a Southern University. I am currently working towards a Ph.D. in Bioengineering, at Georgia Tech, which while certainly in the South, wouldn't really be seen as your typical southern school.

How about THAT for jumping to conclusions. She actually reminds me a LOT in tone and attitude of the owner of "T-Shirt Hell". Google it if you want to find out more (and don't already know what I am talking about).

T-shirt Hell, eh? Heard of it. Heard a few of the T-shirt slogans through friends. Some of them are funny in that "my what an insane bunch humans are" kind of way, but generally a little too crass for my taste.

But anyhow, if Dempublicant indeed fits anywhere NEAR this rough profile, it explains SO much about Dempublicant. In attitude, opinion, and approach. No wonder....

Really? How so?

It is also worth noting that Counties, and TALKING about counties, is a bigger thing on the east and especially in the South than it is is the Western United States.... I dunno why that is... maybe because the Western states are so big that individual counties are often the size of entire Eastern/Southern STATES, and that therefore STATE government has a much more high profile role in government in the west than in the East and South. But... who knows...

I'd never heard that, although it might be true. I was born in the Northwest, but I don't know a great deal about the general viewpoint of the government there - just that of the family I have who still live there. The only dealings I really have with the county government are paying property taxes, car registration, pet registration (which my new county doesn't even have), and things like trash pickup.

(actually, she said on her way to WORK, but we'll go with your misinterpetation of her post).

In Grave's defense, work and school are pretty much the same thing for me, a fact which I have probably mentioned in other threads.

So she LIVES in the North, but drives by the SOUTH every day on her way to school? (actually, she said on her way to WORK, but we'll go with your misinterpetation of her post).

I guess it is possible. I hadn't considered it. She might live *right* on the edge... you're right... I *did* jump to conclusions...

Not a real BIG one, if you asked me...

Hold on... did you say COUNTY, or COUNTRY.

You are from America, right?

The North/south divide is along STATES... not Counties OR countries. Maybe you're not from the States, and the significance of the Southern Dialect being used is lost on you, honey... So, you are suggesting that she drives from Canada, through the entire Northern East Coast, all the way down to, say, Maryland, Virginia or further, on a daily basis? Or maybe that she drives from Mexico, up to Texas (which barely qualifies as a "Southern Slave Owning State" under the traditional American interpetation of the North/South. New Mexico and Arizona certainly don't).

Oh... there I go jumping to conclusions again. There are probably three dozen other conclusions, including "you are an American, but an idiot". Do I really need to list every POSSIBLE conclusion that might occur to me to my already verbose, long-winded and rambling posts?

But wait... isn't that kind of the goal of a discussion forum... to draw conclusions on issues?

Now you've got me totally confused... I guess the REAL goal if a discussion forum HERE is for the rest of us to submit to YOUR opinion....

Yes, I am IN America... but I am not FROM America.

Not sure why that is so hard for you to understand.

I have a close friend from back home who lives in Cambridge, which is pretty much in the middle of the UK.

But he went to school in Florida, for two of the three years he needed for his degree.

So... his HOME was in Cambridge, England - but his school (and his work, while a student) was in Florida. (That's in the South...)

How is that so hard to understand?

*shrugs* I will always defend anyone of any culture or religion, as long as they aren't fundamentalists.

I didn't DIRECTLY claim you were from the South. I made some implied assumptions when I started returning the endearing yet condenscending quanit Southern-Bell phrases you are so fond of, chitlin-cakes...

As for the South versus the rest of the nation... There are certainly *pockets* of progressive thinking throughout the South. Surrounded by oceans of regressive, backwards, obsolete ideology. They're connected to the rest of the nation by highways "maintained by the local chapter of the Klu Klux Klan" and airliners that are rusting apart at the bolts.

*snicker*

We could go on and on and on on this tangent. But why bother...

Yes, I am IN America... but I am not FROM America.

Not sure why that is so hard for you to understand.

I have a close friend from back home who lives in Cambridge, which is pretty much in the middle of the UK.

But he went to school in Florida, for two of the three years he needed for his degree.

So... his HOME was in Cambridge, England - but his school (and his work, while a student) was in Florida. (That's in the South...)

How is that so hard to understand?

Not hard for me to understand at all. I just didn't want to jump to conclusions... lmao...

Wow... that must have been a helluva drive for your friend. Cambridge to Florida, every day, huh? I would *assume* that while he was attending school and work in Florida, his HOME was actually somewhere a little more localized to the region of Florida than *Cambridge, England*.

Which really goes to show how "unreasonable" my assumptions and conclusions have been here, while your counter-points haven't been spliting hairs to the Nth degree but have in fact been the most reasonable, logical and rational of responses...

Or... uh, something like that...