There are only two choice's to make....it can be argued it's a 50/50 chance for either side.

the statment only requires us to at least consider evolutions 'wealth of facts' since evolution is so goofy i gave just the idea my least consideration. as to facts imho it should only be called information.

(otherwise this thread would have been closed/deleted for being redundant)

I see what Late's saying, and it's pretty clear in the OP; if there's such a controversy about evolution in schools, when evolution is clearly science (regardless of one or another's personal opinion of how it "looks"), why should creation be taught, when it isn't even scientific? This makes sense to me, and it does establish the dichotomy. As for facts, facts = data = information. Synonymous. Wow.

Perhaps the solution (in real life) is as-to remove the "vs" in the OP's title. Why should we look at Creation (aka Religious studies) as 'vs' anything else.

I think we do an injustice to kids who are not given opportunities to learn alternatives to the typical school curriculum. Creation (aka Religious studies) should be taught as an all encompassing general descriptive of the various religious studies and alternatives to such. Non compulsory.

Anyway, the thread has been laid out with the parameters clearly explained...although
I don't know where it's going from here. LOL

laws regarding state and religon

as to teaching or occupying space in the public school the point is mute.

The Pastor's Pen - By: JUAN NINGUNO


As you know, we've been working real hard in our town to get prayer back in the schools. Finally, the school board approved a plan of teacher-led prayer with the children participating at their own option. Children not wishing to participate were to be allowed to stand out in the hallway during
the prayer time. We hoped someone would sue us so we could go all the way to the Supreme Court and get that old devil-inspired ruling reversed. Naturally, we were all excited by the school board's action. As you know, our own little Billy (not so little, any more, though) is now in the second grade. Of course, Margaret and I explained to him no matter what the other kids did, he was going to stay in the classroom and participate.

After the first day of school, I asked him, "How did the prayer time go?" "Fine." "Did many kids go out into the hallway?" "Two." "Excellent. How did you like your teacher's prayer?" "It was different, Dad. Real different from the way you pray." "Oh? Like how?" "She said, 'Hail, Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners...'" The next day I talked with the principal. I politely explained I wasn't prejudice against Catholics but I would appreciate Billy being transferred to a non-Catholic teacher. The principal said it would be done right away.

At supper that evening I asked Billy to say the blessings. He slipped out of his chair, sat cross-legged on the floor, closed his eyes, raised his hands palms up and began to hum. You'd better believe I was at the principal's office at eight o'clock the next morning. "Look," I said. "I don't really know much about these Transcendental Meditationists, but I would feel a lot more comfortable if you could move Billy to a room where the teacher practices and older, more established religion.'"

That afternoon I met Billy as soon as he walked in the door after school. "I don't think your going to like Mrs. Nakasone's prayer, either, Dad." "Out with it." "She kept calling God 'O Great Buddha...'" The following morning I was waiting for the principal in the school parking lot. "Look, I don't want my son praying to the Eternal Spirit of whatever or to Buddha. I want him to have a teacher that prays in Jesus' name!" "What about Bertha Smith?" "Excellent."

I could hardly wait to hear about Mrs. Smith's prayer. I was standing on the front steps of the school when the final bell rang. "Well?" I asked Billy as we walked towards the car. "Okay." "Okay what?" "Mrs. Smith asked God to bless us and ended her prayer in Jesus name, amen - just like you." I breathed a sigh of relief. "Now we're getting some place." "She even taught us a verse of scripture about prayer," said Billy. I beamed. "Wonderful. What was the verse?" "Let's see..." he mused for a moment. " 'And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God.'" We had reached the car. "Fantastic," I said, reaching for the door handle. Then I paused. I couldn't place the scripture. "Billy, did Mrs. Smith say what book that verse was from?"
"Third Nephi, chapter 19, verse 18." "Third what?" "Nephi," he said, "It's in the Book of Mormon."

The school board doesn't meet for a month. I've given Billy very definite instructions that at prayer time each day he's to go out into the hallway. I plan to be at that board meeting. If they don't do something about this situation, I'll sue. I'll take it all the way to the Supreme Court if I have to. I don't need the schools or anybody else teaching my son about religion. We can take care of that ourselves at home and at church, thank you very much.

Either you are willfully ignoring context, or are ignorant of it, read the thread if you still have doubts as to what the topic is. Post on topic or expect posts to be deleted.

Charlie,

Is all science goofy, or just Evolution.

And to clear things up as to the intention of my post, I was/am looking for the science that ID/Creation wants to teach in the science class.

What makes evolution goofy then, in your opinion, as compared to the other branches of science that you have confidence in?

I have seen many threads questioning the proof and validity for teaching evolution.
And although evolution may not as yet have enough answers to satisfy every one, there is certainly a wealth of facts to at least consider it.
On the other hand, all I see for Creationist is "someone told me".
So I ask where is the proof?

(and please before you all start with the bible quotes, remember they too fall into the "someone told me" catagory)

Where is the beef?
Show me the money?

Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?

Late, I agree on the Theology, Philosophy and Critical Thinking courses. Who squirms at this?

Those who think that the inclusion of "religion", even if it's "comparative", is a bad thing to have in schools, also I suppose, those who balk at the idea of their personal faith being presented as an equal with other religions.

Peace, Montag. Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year. Cram them full of non-combustible data, chock them so damned full of 'facts' they feel stuffed, but absolutely `brilliant' with information. Then they'll feel they're thinking, they'll get a sense of motion without moving. And they'll be happy, because facts of that sort don't change. Don't give them any slippery stuff like philosophy or sociology to tie things up with. That way lies melancholy. Any man who can take a TV wall apart and put it back together again, and most men can nowadays, is happier than any man who tries to slide-rule, measure, and equate the universe, which just won't be measured or equated without making man feel bestial and lonely. I know, I've tried it; to hell with it. So bring on your clubs and parties, your acrobats and magicians, your dare-devils, jet cars, motor-cycle helicopters, your sex and heroin, more of everything to do with automatic reflex.

the statment only requires us to at least consider evolutions 'wealth of facts' since evolution is so goofy i gave just the idea my least consideration. as to facts imho it should only be called information.

Perhaps the solution (in real life) is as-to remove the "vs" in the OP's title. Why should we look at Creation (aka Religious studies) as 'vs' anything else.

Anyway, the thread has been laid out with the parameters clearly explained...although
I don't know where it's going from here.

these are very uplifting briefs to this countrys laws and are in great favor for the preservation of our freedom in religion and thoughts there of. goofy sciences like evolution uses these laws to keep us believers in a single God out of public school and public buildings. they cannot keep us out of public parks, public streets, freedom of speech. To their detriminate shouting off high roof tops do they lose there credibility. Those who are here decrying the loudest are mere politicos for their cause. if public school can find the power and authority to steal money from the uniformed public so be it. it will add more people to the dole who cannot read or write nor to have an inkling of the aspects of a truly goofy science topic.

Bingo

the statment only requires us to at least consider evolutions 'wealth of facts' since evolution is so goofy i gave just the idea my least consideration. as to facts imho it should only be called information.

I'm going to revisit this one, because I didn't catch this before (leave me alone, I've been ill). Charlie, are you saying here (this is entirely to clarify my understanding of the statement), that you decided, on noting the "idea," that since the mere "idea" was "goofy" to you, you simply passed on all the facts? That's how I'm reading it, and to be honest, it makes a lot of your previous posts a little more understandable. Meantime, however, I would like to clarify as to whether or not this is truly what you meant.

darwin himself a christian turning agnotic supposely said at death if there is a God he'll be saved. If there's no God, he's lost nothing by trying.

Thursday 28th September 1881 - the very same day that Darwin was visited by Buchner and Aveling. According to all the records of Darwin's comments during this meeting he said that Christianity "was not supported by evidence" and "I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age".

"What my own views may be is a question of no consequence to any one but myself. But, as you ask, I may state that my judgment often fluctuates . . . In my most extreme fluctuations I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

CD

it is mearly a theory

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory



When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it?

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Santorum Distancing Himself From Intelligent Design Law Firm
Thursday, December 22, 2005

•
Federal Judge Strikes Down Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania Schools
•
Kansas Creationism Professor Attacked
•
Pa. Bill May Put Intelligent Design in Schools
•
Kansas Mulls Redefining Science
•
Kansas Evolution Hearings Grow Contentious
PHILADELPHIA — Sen. Rick Santorum says he intends to withdraw his affiliation with the Christian-rights law center that defended a school district's policy mandating the teaching of "intelligent design."

Santorum, the Senate's No. 3 Republican who is facing a tough re-election challenge next year, earlier praised the Dover Area School District for "attempting to teach the controversy of evolution."

LAW CENTER
Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science class

From Delia Gallagher and Phil Hirschkorn
CNN
Friday, December 23, 2005; Posted: 11:19 a.m. EST (16:19 GMT)

vert.jones.ap.jpg
U.S. District Judge John Jones concluded in a 139-page decision that intelligent design is not science.

On The Scene: Toobin: 'A very important precedent'
• Judges ask tough questions in evolution sticker case
• Anti-creationism professor: Resignation was forced
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Pennsylvania
Intelligent design
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This?

HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- A Pennsylvania school district cannot teach in science classes a concept that says some aspects of science were created by a supernatural being, a federal judge has ruled.

In an opinion issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John Jones ruled that teaching "intelligent design" would violate the Constitutional separation of church and state.

"We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," Jones writes in his 139-page opinion posted on the court's Web site. (Opinion, pdf)

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions," Jones writes. (Watch a recap of the case -- 2:23)

Intelligent design claims the complexity of some systems of nature cannot be explained by evolution but must be attributed to a designer or supernatural being.

The Dover Area School District, about 25 miles from the state capital, sought to become the first in the nation to require high school science teachers to teach the concept of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.

Jones described the school board's decision as "breathtaking inanity."

"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact," said the statement that the old school board approved in a 6-3 vote in October 2004. "With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind."
'Of Pandas and People'

That school board mandated the teaching for ninth-grade biology classes and directed school libraries to purchase an alternative textbook, "Of Pandas and People," which advocated the concept. The town has since voted out eight of nine board members.

A lawsuit challenging the policy was brought in December 2004 by 11 parents in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

Jones presided over a six-week trial that ended last month. His decision applies only to the Pennsylvania school district.

His decision would block the school district's plan "requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID."

Jones says in his ruling that he did not doubt that intelligent design advocates "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors," but he also said scientific experts testified that Darwin's theory "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
Jones: Not an 'activist judge'

Jones -- an appointee of President Bush, who backs the teaching of intelligent design -- defended his decision in personal terms.

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court," Jones writes.

"Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on intelligent design, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy," he said.

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said, "Children in public schools deserve top quality science education and freedom from religious indoctrination and today they were granted both."
A 'troubling decision'

Richard Thompson, a spokesman for the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, which aided the school district, called Jones' verdict a "troubling decision."

"The founders of this country would be astonished at the thought that this simple curriculum change established religion in violation of the Constitution that they drafted," Thompson said.

Jones said of the defendants, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose" behind the intelligent design policy.

In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana could not teach creationism because it would "restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint."

HOW MUCH CAN ONE SUBJECT BE DISCUSSED??..IT IS BEING BEATEN TO DEATH!!! WAKE ME WHEN IT'S OVER!!

statiscally this thread has a bit to go, and thanks to formum participation from people like you it only adds to its life. this one is just below it prime time thanks