Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[Aric2000]

Really, that is interesting, well, if ID is the best that creationists can come up with, we have a LONG wait ahead of us.

Pardon my typing and wordstructure, I have one month old asleep on my chest.

[longshadow]

Really? He means the Universe is not an accident? And he's not basing his opinion on the theory of evolution?

You can read my previous response to your question, .... or not. Your choice; it's in your reply queue.

I'll give you the point about the grammar.

You mean we agree on something! Hey, that makes TWO things we can agree on: the grammar, and getting rid of public education.

Maybe we should should quit while we're severe agreement with each other.....

;-)

[Tribune7]

Maybe we should should quit while we're severe agreement with each other.....

Fair enough. Good night, Longshadow. :-)

[donh]

I guess Don we'll just have to disagree. My opinion is that children will learn more about science if they're taught more than just currently accepted results because science is much more than that.

I'll give some consideration to this thought the day one of my nephews or nieces comes home from school and gives me a marginally correct accounting of the currently accepted results.

[viaveritasvita]

"And what is implied by teaching Creationism/ID?"

God. So what say we allow teaching of both implications.

[longshadow]

Fair enough. Good night, Longshadow. :-)

Likewise. May all your dreams contain noun phrases.

;-)

[donh]

Sorry, lassy, you are not protected from an offending message. The threat or action of physical force is an entirely different matter.

Well, actually, in some cases which have now passed constitutional muster, you are. Some municipalities and counties have established 4th degree assault, which amounts to causing undue annoyance. You may tell me something once, politely. You may not pursue me down the street exercising your freedom of speech in my vicinity for a half-hour.

[gore3000]

Scientific data can't prove any hypothesis

Of course it can, else we would not be able to build up knowledge by 'piling on' one scientific theory upon another. If nothing were true, then the scientific advances we have seen the last two centuries would have been totally impossible. You cannot build castles on sand, but you can build great edificices upon scientific knowledge.

This silly know-nothingism is a complete denial of reality.

[Alamo-Girl]

May all your dreams contain noun phrases

LOLOL! This thread may go down in Junior's archives as the single most productive discussion.

Numerous troubling issues were thoroughly analyzed and I truly believe we all understand - and respect - one another's positions much better than when we started.

[Heartlander]

Why do you keep repeating ID followed by Creationism?

Intelligent Design Creationism

You are blessed to have a child asleep on you… Man, I miss that!

[viaveritasvita]

"If otherwise means that I am forced to pay for the expression of your religion, yes."

I'm forced to pay for yours.

[B. Rabbit]

The point is - why does your family have importance? Why is it a big part of your life? Love, affection, caring, and the other emotions you may have for them are not part of the material realm.

Please explain your point here deeper. I don't get where I am supposed to go with that. What realm do emotions belong to?

[Aric2000]

Teaching both implications is not the public schools job, science, which is secular, is the schools job.

Creationism/ID, which is religious, is YOUR job, as a parent.

As a parent, it is your job to teach your religious beliefs to your children, it is YOUR responsibility, not the public schools!!

[gore3000]

My point, actually, is that there is more than one theory of evolution being discussed in our culture. I was actually taught the all encompassing view in my high school.

What you say is correct. Evolution is sort of the keystone of the materialist/atheist axis of evil. This axis includes abiogenesis and random universe theory. It seeks to replace God with 'natural forces' and 'random ordering' (no matter how silly such a thing sounds). All the members of this godless axis know that they must fight together against religion because they know that if God is admitted in any of these fields then all the theories in the axis of evil fall apart.

[viaveritasvita]

"...as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians [believers!] who have been sitting there for centuries.

And they say to him, 'We're stuck. Can you help us?'"

The evo puffs out his chest, believing that the theologians had finally recognized the error of their ways. As he was formulating his response (should it be condescending, gracious, coldly reasonable, should he make them pay cash for it or tax them?), one of the theologians asks: "Did you REALLY believe that matter could organize itself to contemplate itself?"

[Nebullis]

You may not pursue me down the street exercising your freedom of speech in my vicinity for a half-hour.

There's a limit to the approach or delivery, I agree. That's where tpaine was going as well. That's independent of the content. A sales-clerk pursuing me down the street for half an hour repeating the message "Thank you, please come again!", would be a menace or a nuisance.

[gore3000]

Here is my response, science CANNOT PROVE OR DISPROVE the existence of god, therefore the existence of god CANNOT be used by science, when you are able to PROVE scientifically that god exists, then we will discuss god being part of science.

This is rhetoric, not facts. Science can indeed deal with God as it has dealt with the Big Bang and with abiogenesis. Science can see that natural causes cannot explain a certain thing such as life or the order of the cosmos. Indeed, the problem science has is not with God, but with the skeptics who deny that there is such a thing as order in the Universe. It is disorder, randomness, fortuitousness, lack of causation, that are the enemies of science.

[Nebullis]

Some municipalities have willy-nilly outlawed offensive speech of any kind. Popular applications of those laws are directed against "homophobia" and "racism".

[Aric2000]

Yeah, that's it, it's all a big conspiracy G3K, SHEESH!!

Public schools are secular, they are not allowed to favor one religion over another. You wish your children to learn about Pagans ideas of creation, how about Hindu, or perhaps druidic notions?

Is that what you are aching for G3K, because that is EXACTLY what would happen. As long as science is taught in a secular fashion, without any notions of god, it will remain the way it is, teaching of fact and theory, but once you open the can of worms with ID/creationism and other religious doctrine, you will have opened the floodgate to the teachings of those others as well.

Is that what you are aching for?

Fact of the matter is, if parents care so much about what their childrens religious upbringing is, then they will do it themselves, or are you afraid that parents will not teach their children what you are hoping they are being taught?

You are going for a pandoras box that will not be closed once it is opened.

Evolution is a scientific theory and therefore should be taught in science class as that, creationism is religious, as is ID, THAT should be taught at home or at a private school.

Once you teach one religion, you had better be ready to teach the rest.

[Nebullis]

Soon, right-leaning political ideas will be deemed hate speech. Demoncrats are very busy doing this in Congress. It's not legislated ye, but I can see the trend: Republicans will have no place in the public arena. Politics and conservatism must be kept separate!