|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/10/2006 12:38:51 PM | Oddly, this thread isn't all about 'law'. It started with a discussion of Creation and Evolution, and issues of science and pseudo-science. Perhaps you might go back and read page 1 for a refresher?
are you really that ignorant! read the first message creating this thread. it talks about whether sciecne or religion can be taught in (public) schools. now in comes the law of the us and the constitution and its admendments. Read article one carefully then find the establishment laws. Religion can be taught in the public school. You won, but you keep on babbling on all this stuff about science. this is not a science thread and you are off the subject, get it, and get it right once and for all. you won!!!
 | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/10/2006 12:45:29 PM | Charlie,
One of the most critical issues in the legal realm has been defining science, and scientific method in order to determine whether I.D. Theory would fit within the said definition.
So I would suggest that defining science is critical to this debate. Also, it is still a debatable as the courts decisions are subject to change if they are appealed to a higher level of court.
Cheers | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/10/2006 2:16:58 PM | One of the most critical issues in the legal realm has been defining science, and scientific method in order to determine whether I.D. Theory would fit within the said definition.
So I would suggest that defining science is critical to this debate. Also, it is still a debatable as the courts decisions are subject to change if they are appealed to a higher level of court.
Cheers
hi brain
i can find reasons to agree with you on your science theories and whether or not your sciences can be taught in public scools. the entire thread belong to those like you who follow science. religion has no right to be here on the thread as the law simply will never allow religion to be taught in public school.
i don't think religion will ever be touch by the law . i am very happy for that and i personnally don't need to see religion taught in public school. i am very happy the churches and the community are very pleased having religion taught in the chruches or their schools.
ID has already has been tag as religion by the courts. there are going to be more law suites on id but the courts will favor religion and not science. this one i would rather watch it from the law side so my search words are 'ID law religion'.
there are current law suites open and closed. here is one example:
CNN.com - Judge rules against 'intelligent design' in science ... [New Window]
CNN.com. LAW CENTER ... "We have concluded that it is not [science], and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, ...
Verified by a Netscape Security Partner: Netscape Security Center, VeriSign http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/ [Preview This Site]
[/]
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/10/2006 9:50:51 PM | are you really that ignorant! read the first message creating this thread. it talks about whether sciecne or religion can be taught in (public) schools.
The first article isn't discussing law, it's discussing evidence, and in scientific terms, not legal terms.
This was a science thread - the first post asks 'where is the beef' not 'isn't this against the law'. Here it is, in toto:
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?
The poster is clearly asking for a scientific answer about evidence, not a legal one. If you still can't see that, you need to get a refund on whatever you paid for your education.
As to 'article one' (you mean the First Amendment, actually, since Article I deals with the powers of Congress), it doesn't apply to many of the posters here in any event.
Your writing skills really degrade when you're throwing a tantrum, by the way. I liked the "Read article one carefully then find the establishment laws. Religion can be taught in the public school." I think you meant 'clause' and 'can't' as well there, right? Just asking since you're fairly unclear even on good days. Maybe a spell-checker - or is English maybe a second language for you?
--R. | |
|
late™
|
Joined: 1/9/2005
Msg: 3455 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/10/2006 9:53:55 PM |
The first article isn't discussing law, it's discussing evidence, and in scientific terms, not legal terms.
Bingo
Some seem to think being a pest, is some kind of a rebuttal.
.......It's just, "being a pest"? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/10/2006 9:58:13 PM |
the law simply will never allow religion to be taught in public school
Untrue. You can teach religion in US public schools.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/10/2006 10:04:44 PM |
Bingo
Some seem to think being a pest, is some kind of a rebuttal.
.......It's just, "being a pest"?
And the issue of 'what is science' transcends the odd parochial squabbles of the USA anyhow. One posters' odd mish-mash of US constitutional terms leads me to point out that the 'First Article' that applies to many posters on this thread says something completely different, to wit:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
If the Government of Canada wanted to, I suppose it could legally 'establish' a Church of Canada (Anglican, I'd suppose, with the Queen at its head). We had daily Lord's Prayer recital in my public high school (as of 1986 anyhow), with Bible readings, on the PA, along with singing 'O Canada'.
The 'science versus pseudoscience' issues are bigger than the prior poster seems to comprehend. I'm *shocked*.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/11/2006 7:22:55 AM |
Untrue. You can teach religion in US public schools.
where did you get your wisdom? we are talkig about us ps?
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/11/2006 8:14:11 AM |
The first article isn't discussing law, it's discussing evidence, and in scientific terms, not legal terms.
This was a science thread - the first post asks 'where is the beef' not 'isn't this against the law'. Here it is, in toto:
i am talking about religion is schools. the first article of the constitiution say congress will make no laws regarding religion and thoughts thereof. how many times must you be told this. Also look at the establishment laws. Religion is not taught in schools in the United Stste. It is taught in reglious chruches and their class rooms.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/11/2006 8:25:37 AM |
Bingo
Some seem to think being a pest, is some kind of a rebuttal.
.......It's just, "being a pest"?
late i dont care how many times you appear, however you should read article 1 again about schools and congress shall make no laws on reiigiion. and thoughts thereof. except it and get over it. move on. get a life, whatever. Then find the establishment addmendment.
| |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3461 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/11/2006 1:19:39 PM | While the topic of how Creationism has tried to fight against Evolution science is interesting, the topic of "teaching in the US public schools" is a complete alien to me.
Thus, I am not going to contribute to the current discussion and am going to address the original sin, sorry, the original question.
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School?
Because it is part of a religion. Because it is the way some people understand the world. At least some of us need to understand, analyse and deconstruct this fact. Teach me that, I want to know how. Desconstruction of Creationism is the key part.
Deconstruction signifies a project of critical thought whose task is to locate and 'take apart' those concepts which serve as the axioms or rules for a period of thought, those concepts which command the unfolding of an entire epoch of metaphysics. 'Deconstruction' is somewhat less negative than the Heideggerian or Nietzschean terms 'destruction' or 'reversal'; it suggests that certain foundational concepts of metaphysics will never be entirely eliminated...There is no simple 'overcoming' of metaphysics or the language of metaphysics." (Introduction by Allison, in Derrida, 1973, p. xxxii, n. 1.)
to make the story short, lets not be bothered about explaining God or explaining the origin of life. Let us concentrate in how Creationism or ID have been assembled upto the point that some believe that could make it look like an alternative to evolutionary science.
I'll throw the first stone towards the highly religious but highly-science devoid mass, who watches hours of religious TV but just minutes of "scientific facts". ID could not flourish among scientifically trained people.
Whether religious thought is, as some people say (http://monkeymagic.net/blog/archives/2006/01/18/natural_religion.html)
an evolutionary accident, is probably misleading. I would just call it an evolutionary by-product. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/11/2006 6:53:44 PM |
Because it is part of a religion. Because it is the way some people understand the world. At least some of us need to understand, analyse and deconstruct this fact. Teach me that, I want to know how. Desconstruction of Creationism is the key part.
I started reading a bible, in my sixties, where the words of Jesus Christ was written in red. the key person iin the bible is St Paul. Brillant man who put the face of Jesus on the world. they never meet, most people don't know about this fact, Paul was a marketing genius, but once he found about Jesus and his word he took over the entire operation. There is more to St. Paul than the bible, one needs to read his private papers and scholors work that contribute and work with his papers and his books in the bible, especially corithins one, a church he built and corithins two where the chruch is in trouble and his thoughts why.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/11/2006 7:05:10 PM | Good job i'm not a political leader elected to run a country, have to feel sorry for those that start believing stupid ideas, and my country will all be presented with the same facts and they can all draw there own conclusion.
unfortunately think i'll have to remove a whole generation of parents away from there children in order to insure true inpartiality.
Evolotion vs what 7 days.
wait but the same story says they live what 800 years or something,
must have been a typo.
stop being stupid even the panphlets used to promote this story don't get the physics right. kinda missed a line out in the quoted law. quite crucial.
if your insulted by me, don't be becuase in your eyes i'm wrong and you can laugh at me for it, i don't mind. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/11/2006 7:35:23 PM | Okay, I've been gone a while, but I noticed the thread's back. Play time!
unfortunately religion in publc schools will never happen. the us constitution forbids it. first article, congress will make no laws in regard to regligion or thoughts there of.
The US Constitution does not forbid "religion in public schools." The US Constitution (and attendant precedents set by judicial rulings) forbids the endorsing of a particular religion in public schools. The deal is, you can teach about religion, just not teach the religion itself. With regard to what Angel is saying, the creation account in Genesis could be taught about, just like the creation accounts in any other religion. The point is not to advocate or give preference to any particular one as truth.
Okay, so Angel beat me to it. I still like mine.
it hasnt happen yet and there is too much law against it for ever to happen under the us constition establishment laws.
This, though, doesn't make any sense to me. Immediately preceding this post, Angel points out why it's not a problem, and I just addressed it myself. There's no "legal precedent" against teaching about religion. In fact, I'm given to understand that there's supposed to be a movement to get the Bible taught specifically in high schools as an elective on Bible literacy. Teach about it, sure. Not unconstitutional. Teach kids to follow it, there's a line there, and that's crossing it.
They could also change the definition of Science so that ID falls within it. Kind of like they did with Evolution.
I don't get it. Coffee, how was the definition of science changed to accomodate a scientific theory?
my posts vere very clear about this thread, it was all about law, get it law, not your babble about the definition of science.
I disagree. What "it" is all about is whether or not ID could qualify as science to be taught in public schools in science classrooms, in accordance with the law. This makes important not only the legal issue of the first ammendment, but also the legal definition of science.
your replies are simply naught, no one needs to reply, but i love to debate.
I don't even have to disagree for myself here. This is just wrong. First, these are discussion threads in a discussion forum. Just the sort of place one would seek, maybe even expect replies. It's not a debate forum. Beyond that, debate consists of (not necessarily in order) stating a position, supporting that position, presenting one's understanding of the opposition, and refuting the arguments of the opposition using the support of the original position. You've done none of these.
i am talking about religion is schools. the first article of the constitiution say congress will make no laws regarding religion and thoughts thereof.
That's "First Amendment," dude.
Why should the idea of creation be taught out side of Sunday School? Because it is part of a religion. Because it is the way some people understand the world.
A good point. Sunday school is not the only place where religion is taught, nor should it be. However, as this is quite clearly hyperbole, we can advance to the actual question being asked: "Is Intelligent Design a valid scientific line of investigation, enough so that it might challenge the theory of evolution for dominance in the scientific paradigm? If so, what are its qualifications as a scientific theory?"
I'm not exactly quite sure where deconstruction enters into it. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3465 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/12/2006 3:14:29 AM | The answer to your question is just a truism been provided quite a few times in this thread...
it is not a valid scientific line of research.
Having said that, it may have some value as a philosophical proposition (teleology) and at questioning the evolutionary evidence, however it is just been used as a mean for a political agenda, which should be inadmissible in the Western world (or at least in those places with Enlightment).
As for my deconstruction goes (I think I mentioned that it is a project),
this is my second stone against "how Creationism or ID have been assembled upto the point that some believe that could make it look like an alternative to evolutionary science".
Astonishment. Yep, ID is full of it. They are astonished about the complexity of the p** and the intricacies of the marzipan. According to ID, the existance of some things cannot be supported by "random" chance, so they get astonished. ID is after something big: the Theory of Everything. How to understand the universe without the unifying thought of a Being able to manipulate the way Angelina Jolie's boobs evolved during the last few million years?
Having said that, many scientists share that same astonishment, but the difference is that they go and test, ask questions and try to prove, test, analyse. They go and poke the BELIEVED truth ("Truth" is a story that people find especially convincing, someone said).
Again, those sitting in their sofas giving the universe 2 minutes of thought and 8 hours of attention to real television shows, can easily be astonished. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:28:30 AM | I couldnt even begin to go through every post in this thread, its way too long. Anyhow, evolution is a THEORY. It's never been proven to be fact.
Creation...well there is more evidence of it if you just look around. Things of the earth did not just magically appear out of nowhere with such vast design without divine intervention. That is just not logical. | |
|
Enryk
|
Joined: 12/15/2005
Msg: 3467 | |
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/12/2006 10:00:47 AM | Could you please go through at least 10 pages of this thread and then come back and re-read your post.
You'll probably realise that
a)many people, like yourself have done exactly the same. Came in and stated unsound ideas as plain truth...
b)a theory has been through the process of collecting evidence and analysed it before becoming one.
c)we are still waiting for "evidence" around Creationism.
Evolution does not deal with the beginning of life if that is what you were talking about. Deals with how life forms change in time, place, etc...
divine? who told you and convinced you that a divine force was involved.
Creation actually states that things magically appeared on earth... actually the earth appeared magically too! ...I'd be quoting someone here... your "logic" is very weak if the assumptions you posted are the only ones you have. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/12/2006 10:23:04 AM |
where did you get your wisdom? we are talkig about us ps?
While the above is again gobbledigook, I'm going to respond as if it was something like:
"On what basis do you claim that you can teach religion in US public schools?"
which is at least a plausible meaning to the words actually posted...
Answer: Simple - the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment doesn't ban teaching religion in school. The current controlling standard is the Lemon standard, which allows the state to do so as long as the three prongs of the test are met - the action must have a secular legislative purpose, it must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
To that end, you can certainly have a class where students are taught about religion. It just can't be to inculcate religious belief, or to promote one religion over others.
To tie this back to the subject of the thread, there is no reason you couldn't teach about Creationism or ID in a philosophy course. Or a course about, say, 'Science vs. Pseudoscience' where students are exposed to the total lack of scientific evidence for Creationism, UFOs, Flat-Earth stories, Astrology, Alchemy, or the like. Such courses might be politically unpopular with the hoi polloi but they wouldn't be contravening Lemon, IMO.
So I hope I answered your somewhat oddly-worded questions. I'm still assuming English isn't your first language so I'm trying to make things clearer.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/12/2006 10:32:20 AM | I couldnt even begin to go through every post in this thread, its way too long. Anyhow, evolution is a THEORY. It's never been proven to be fact.
Creation...well there is more evidence of it if you just look around. Things of the earth did not just magically appear out of nowhere with such vast design without divine intervention. That is just not logical.
I'd like to applaud this person as the acme of Creationists - too busy to do any reading up on the subject, but need to share their insights on the topic even though the insights in question have been brought up over and over again in the discussion by previous Creationists, and shot down, over and over again, by scientists.
I applaud you, O entranced spirit. There's something of mystical innocence in a tabula rasa. It's like a sunset in the desert, you just have to sit and admire it.
--R. "evolutionism makes the Baby Jesus cry" | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/12/2006 6:42:26 PM |
"They could also change the definition of Science so that ID falls within it. Kind of like they did with Evolution."
I don't get it. Coffee, how was the definition of science changed to accomodate a scientific theory?
"One of the problems that arises from a discussion of "evolution" and "science" is the problem of definition of terms. If two people are discussing "evolution" or "science" and they define their terms differently, the conversation will be hopelessly confused!
We must consider two different definitions for each of these terms. When you discuss them, you must first clarify which definition you are using.
Science
[u]First Definition[/u]
Here is a dictionary definition. Many people assume that when we use the word "science," we are talking about this definition. In my opinion, it's a pretty good definition, and it would be good if we all meant this definition when we used the word "science." In general, when you see the word "science" in these pages, this is the definition.
"Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied." (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language)
Implied in this definition is the idea that conclusions are made on the basis of empirical evidence (i.e., evidence that comes from experimentation and observation). Thus, a true "scientist" is someone who studies a part of the world around him for evidence that he then uses to draw conclusions about the world he lives in.
Few people should have trouble with this definition of science.
[u]Second Definition[/u]
However, there are many who use the term "science" to refer to a way of looking at the world. To them, the word "science" refers to a philosophical mindset. Their definition of science might be something like this.
"An understanding that matter is the only true reality in the world and that everything in the world can be explained only in terms of this matter. An understanding that the natural world contains everything that is real and of value."
Now it should be easy to see that if someone who adheres to this second definition of "science" hears me refer to the fact that the empirical evidence points to the fact that this world must have had a Creator, they will cry, "That is not science! That is religion!"
They are using a definition of science that, by definition, excludes the concept of a Creator. They believe, in essence, that their philosophy of life (or religion) of materialism and naturalism is "science" and that the Christian philosophy of life (or religion) is "religion." In fact, both materialism and Christianity can be thought of as philosophies of life. One must examine the evidence closely to ascertain which "philosophy" most closely fits the evidence that exists in the world around us. (And, in fact, one can do "good science" [first definition!] and still adhere to either "philosophy"--or some other philosophy--of life.)
We must not let them get away with taking a good word ("science") and redefining it to mean "materialism" or "naturalism!" (And then claim that anyone who disagrees with them is trying to replace "science" [second definition] with religion!)
"© 2000 Steve Hall (steve@aboundingjoy.com). Quoted by Permission." | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/12/2006 8:43:56 PM | So, here we go again...
I couldnt even begin to go through every post in this thread, its way too long. Anyhow, evolution is a THEORY. It's never been proven to be fact.
At least the first page, and you would have realised that this had been covered.
Creation...well there is more evidence of it if you just look around. Things of the earth did not just magically appear out of nowhere with such vast design without divine intervention. That is just not logical.
This just depends on what one is willing to take as evidence, what conclusions one is willing to make based on that evidence, and what one views as logical. As for divine intervention being necessary, that point is also arguable. It's entirely possible that the world didn't exist until you read this, and that diabolical forces were responsible for your existence with all of this (the world, etc. - to include your own memories - spooky thought, eh?) having been created by demonic entities. How would we know?
Msg 3480
Ah, Coffee. Thank you. Now, let's look at this.
If two people are discussing "evolution" or "science" and they define their terms differently, the conversation will be hopelessly confused!
Absolutely true. So, we work on that, yes?
We must consider two different definitions for each of these terms. When you discuss them, you must first clarify which definition you are using.
I'm going to assume you forgot to post the two different definitions of evolution, yes? I do know that there are a great number of others, as well. But, this only references two.
In my opinion, it's a pretty good definition, and it would be good if we all meant this definition when we used the word "science."
Very well. I, too, find it a good definition. We'll play with this one in a moment.
However, there are many who use the term "science" to refer to a way of looking at the world. To them, the word "science" refers to a philosophical mindset.
Actually, as I've been looking at it, it's more the institutionalisation of the former definition. This applies equally to the use of the term "religion." However, we'll get back to that.
"An understanding that matter is the only true reality in the world and that everything in the world can be explained only in terms of this matter. An understanding that the natural world contains everything that is real and of value."
Actually, in the reading I've done, this was nowhere more prominent than in "Darwin on Trial" by Philip Johnson. The point, however, is that this is not a definition of science. This is actually a dictionary definition of naturalism, specifically ontological naturalism, which is, yes, a philosophical position. However, it's not a definition of science. Unless someone wants to misrepresent science, which, as I've seen, is only on the agenda for one particular side in this discussion.
Now it should be easy to see that if someone who adheres to this second definition of "science" hears me refer to the fact that the empirical evidence points to the fact that this world must have had a Creator, they will cry, "That is not science! That is religion!"
Here's where we get to play with concepts. And all the children shout "Yay!" 
Some folks may indeed have their wires crossed regarding the distinction between the institutionalised form of science and the philosophical position of naturalism. I'll accept that. And, those folks would most likely take issue with someone proclaiming that the world must have been designed, based on observation. I don't.
Here's where it gets wonky, though. When one person comes to me and says there's reams of material based on observation, study, and experimentation that suggest a hypothesis, and subsequent observation, study, and experimentation bear out that hypothesis, I'm most likely going to check their facts myself, and form an opinion, usually in accord with what actually bears out. With me so far?
Now, someone else comes to me and says that there's all kinds of material based on the same kinds of observation, study and experimentation that gives a completely different result, guess what? I'm going to check it out. Only, in this case, the observations are superficial, badly documented, not detailed. Okay, sure, let's see what else there is. Study? Well, not of the natural world, so much, but this book, you see, it's plenty to study! Okaaay.... Now, the experimentation. None. Why not? Because it can't be done. It's not within the power of the human race to perform or attempt to duplicate the processes used. Right. So, I guess it's not science? Well, no...
Now, I hear someone say that the empirical evidence points to the fact that this world must have had a Creator, and I say, really? What empirical evidence? How is it "fact" that the world "must" have had a Creator? Moving on, how does one establish what criteria to use to test such a hypothesis? Once all of this breaks down, and the previously noted "observations" (well, it all looks like it was created), "study" (the book is true, because the book says it's true), and nonexistent "experimentation" (well, we said we'd find stuff, and when we looked, we found stuff!) are brought out into the open, I think I and any other logically thinking being would be more than vindicated in pointing out that that, well, guess what? Is not science. By either definition, the actual, effective, functional one, or the misappropriated, misapplied "philosophical worldview" definition of "science."
For those in the back, the thinking-impaired, here's the deal:
"The world must have been created." "That's not Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied."
No, it's not. It's religion. Maybe a good idea would be to define the many aspects of that word, eh?
We must not let them get away with taking a good word ("science") and redefining it to mean "materialism" or "naturalism!"
No, we mustn't. And for the heck of it, parenthetical: (and then use the definition [second one] to place in the mouths of anyone who disagrees, so they can show the "religious" foundation of "evolutionism")
Man, I love this subject! | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/13/2006 6:58:05 AM | IT's nice to see not everyone's an anti-science nut:
NEW YORK, NY, United States (UPI) -- Nearly 450 Christian churches in the United States are celebrating the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin Sunday.
The churches say Darwin`s theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science, the Chicago Tribune reported.
'It`s to demonstrate, by Christian leaders and members of the clergy, that you don`t have to make that choice. You can have both,' said Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, who organized the 'Evolution Sunday' event.
A variety of denominational and non-denominational churches, including Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and a host of community churches, are participating in the event, which grew out of Zimmerman`s The Clergy Letter Project, another effort to dispel the perception among many Christians that faith and evolution are mutually exclusive, the newspaper said.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin.
--R. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/14/2006 1:27:31 PM |
Anyhow, evolution is a THEORY. It's never been proven to be fact.
It has been explained in this thread many, many times (it took me two full days to read this thread!  ) Evolution is a fact, The theory part is the mechanism by which Evolution works, namely Natural Selection.
Things of the earth did not just magically appear out of nowhere with such vast design without divine intervention. That is just not logical.
Evolution and Abiogenisis do not claim this though. They claim that things came about slowly, changing from simple forms to more complex forms untill we have the world we see around us. Only Creation claims the world sprang into existance as is, in all its complexity. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/14/2006 11:49:32 PM |
The US Constitution does not forbid "religion in public schools." The US Constitution (and attendant precedents set by judicial rulings) forbids the endorsing of a particular religion in public schools. The deal is, you can teach about religion, just not teach the religion itself. With regard to what Angel is saying, the creation account in Genesis could be taught about, just like the creation accounts in any other religion. The point is not to advocate or give preference to any particular one as truth. i sincercy wish you post your evidence when you make you post your thoughts. Please point me me in the direction where what you say is allowed, | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 2/15/2006 5:05:11 AM |
i sincercy wish you post your evidence when you make you post your thoughts. Please point me me in the direction where what you say is allowed,
Deftly done, Charlie. Except not really. The quote to which you are responding was one in which I was refuting an earlier assertion. And the burden of proof rests on he who makes the original assertion. Waiting a few days and trying to turn it around is not an argument. I'm waiting for proof that religion in general is forbidden in any public arena. Beyond all that, however, although I don't have time right now to find it, Late posted a good long post on legal rulings as they relate to the OP, and in none of them was there any indication that it is religion in public schools that is an issue. Please support your original assertion, and I'll work on getting some evidence to satisfy your question. | |
|
|
| Page 139 of 156
|
116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156 |
|
Home
login 
