Evolution Disclaimer Supported

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

[exmarine]

If the theories he is teaching are based on true science and fact, then no, he should NOT be fired, but if he comes right out and says it, then yes.

Is spontaneous generation of life a fact? Nope. I can name several other facets of neodarwinism that are taught in schools in biology textbooks that ARE NOT FACT. For example, Haekel's theory of recapitulation (discredited about 100 years ago!) and the insipid and phoney peppered moth (now known to be staged!). Why is it that these outright LIES are taught to kids? Isn't that grounds for FIRING? If you don't believe these are still in textbooks today, then you are out of touch. Your argument falls under its own weight.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you oh so very, very much for the kudos and agreement! Hugs!

[B. Rabbit]

I do disagree with their judgment; for it says the only way the government can be "neutral" is by ridding the public square of all religious expression. That doesn't sound like "neutrality" to me. That sounds like open and active hostility to all forms of voluntary public religious expression -- which the second phrase of the religion clause absolutely forbids.

Just throwing this out there: When little Molly comes home to her Christian parents with stories about how she skipped her normal Bible study at public school because her new friends were doing this really cool chant around a tree and praying to the Earth Goddess, how will they feel? Do you really want children able to express themselves freely at this age in a public forum on concepts they might not quite understand fully yet? Those black cloaks looked awfully cool, and after school they were going to practice their "craft" using goat milk and spider legs! Kids are very impressionable at that age and allowing religious expression and prayer time at school might just be catastrophic when the new cool kid from Europe teaches them some new things to worship... Thoughts?

[Tribune7]

But so far we have no evidence of god(s) one way or another.

We have lots of evidence of God's existence, just no proof able to be measured or duplicated in the laboratory. That doesn't mean God can't be proved. It just means science isn't the way to do it.

I don't think ID proves God. It does refute undirected evolution.

[exmarine]

Schools should be secular, I pay for it, it would be offensive to my beliefs if my children were taught that creationism were taught as science, I have my own belief systems, and therefore I will teach my children those beliefs myself. I do NOT want the schools even admitting that there is a god, but I also do NOT want them saying there is NO god either.

Your mistake is assuming that there can be any neutral ground on God. There isn't any. One's belief on God is the basis FOR ALL SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS. It is the basis for ALL MORAL BELIEF. It is the basis for everything one believes in life and dictates one's lifestyle and behavior even.

[exmarine]

And yet Laplace made his discoveries although God wasn't in the equation.

You are wrong. Laplace said (paraphrase) that the odds that God did not to create the cosmos is about as probable as comparing infinity to unity. I think you should study Laplace a little more.

[Tribune7]

her new friends were doing this really cool chant around a tree and praying to the Earth Goddess, how will they feel?

It sounds like the status quo. While the principle might stop the Christian witnessing, he wouldn't stop the Earth Goddess chants.

[tpaine]

If morals are absolute as you say, what is their source? A universal moral precept cannot simply exist without a source - this is a non-rational view; the precept "all men are created equal" does not have extension in space. How do you explain the existence of this and other universal non-material realities outside of God? -ExM

The source of morality (and liberty as a moral code) is self-evident (too cliche?). Ok, then think of it as this: Freedom, and the morality behind the right to be free, is my God. Until another shows to be more powerful, more right, or more just, this is what I believe. 4097 -B. Rabbit-

This is not an adequate explanation. Our nation's founders recognized that the truths are self-evident because we have been endowed with them by our Creator.
The wonderful objective right for personal FREEDOM cannot just hang in mid-air and be an end unto itself.
This is still non-rational. Logically speaking, without an infinite reference point (God), there is no basis for believing absolute moral truths exist on their own - out of nothing and residing nowhere in particular.
What would stop someone like Stalin from rejecting your exaltation of freedom and throwing you in a gulag? Practiically speaking, if freedom does not originate from God, it carries no moral force and has no anchor. 4105 -ExM-

As we see, in bold above, ExM insists that there MUST be a Creator for human rights. -- That men have created their own rights seems to be beyond him.
As you noted, our sense of morality is self-evident, & that all mankind has possessed it is obvious from the presence of the 'golden rule' in all societies, regardless of religion. We all learn this golden rule at our mothers breast, in the form of 'don't bite the tit that feeds you'.

The notion that because some sociopaths like Stalin exist, -- and that therefore we must have a god inspired morality to stop them, -- is the real non-rational view.

Men are perfectly capable of stopping other mens tyranny.

Restoration of our basic constitutional principles, which include guarding against zealous infringements of the 1st, is an excellent method to achive this goal.

[B. Rabbit]

God exists regardless of intellectual fashion. I've been trying to make clear that one can be a rational respecter of science and still devoutly believe in Him and in the miracles of the Bible.

And I would agree with you. I would also counter and say that one can be a devout Christian, believe in the miracles of the Bible, and be a very successful scientist with the theory of evolution planted firmly in his head. To say otherwise is claiming to know your faith, your universe, and your God (remember the dot and the circle, exmarine) a little too well. Looking at the separate branches of the Christian faith already indicates that the Bible is varied in its interpretation.

[exmarine]

There is no good reason for me to assume an old earth or old universe. It is all based upon faulty dating methods and presupposition of uniformitarianism. A day in Hebrew is the same word throughout the bible. How do you say this instance means billions of years but this other one (same hebrew word) means 24 hours? That is inconsistent. The ONLY reason why some Christians believe in the old earth is that they are mixing "naturalistic" scientific assumptions with the bible - they don't mix. Hugh Ross and the rest of the old earth Christians are wrong IMHO. If you read the bible without benefit of a naturalistic education, you cannot come up with an old earth. Naturalism and its resulting theories presupposes atheism and atheism is not science.

[Alamo-Girl]

From the Downside Legacy (environmentalism and education):

FREEDOM.ORG 8/12/00 Henry Lamb “Are your children being taught how to make "paper images of a Hindu god, make toothpick and yarn 'worry dolls' to ward off anxiety, and take part in Earth Day worship services?" They are if they attend the Bedford Central School District in White Plains, N.Y. Are your children being taught how to howl like a wolf, as an expression of their "oneness" with nature? They are if they attend church in the Episcopal Diocese of Kansas, or the Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York. Are your children being taught that the three "R's" are: Reduce, Recycle, and Reuse? They are if they attend most any public school in America."

[Tribune7]

And I would agree with you. I would also counter and say that one can be a devout Christian, believe in the miracles of the Bible, and be a very successful scientist with the theory of evolution planted firmly in his head.

That describes Michael Behe. He accepts a lot tenets of evolution.

Back to work, now.

[VadeRetro]

Don't put words in my mouth Vade ... BTW - using more than one account will get both accounts closed.

This has been going on for a bit, now. I wondered earlier if you were accusing Sentis of being me or were just unable to keep track of whom you addressed. (That would be a little more fuzzed than usual, even for you.) I authorize the Mod squad to investigate whether my account has any duplicates. I challenge you, Mr. Blue, to do the same. "webber," for instance?

[exmarine]

As you noted, our sense of morality is self-evident, & that all mankind has possessed it is obvious from the presence of the 'golden rule' in all societies, regardless of religion.

Normally, I would not respond to you but I will make an exception in this case since you are so wrong. The golden rule does not exist in all societies. It is strictly Christian. YOu might say, "Oh yeah, Confucius said the same thing!" And I will say, "Wrong!" Confucius said that men should NOT do unto others what they DO NOT want done to them. This is a NEGATIVE golden rule and requires NO ACTION on our part. Jesus on the other hand, said, "DO UNTO OTHERS..." This requires loving action. Now, please quote the writer (pre-Christian) who stated the golden rule in the correct context.

[Aric2000]

Your mistake is assuming that there can be any neutral ground on God. There isn't any. One's belief on God is the basis FOR ALL SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS. It is the basis for ALL MORAL BELIEF. It is the basis for everything one believes in life and dictates one's lifestyle and behavior even.

No mistake about it, I DO NOT WANT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS TEACHING ABOUT GOD!! Period.

Why you would want them to is beyond me, but it is NONE of the schools business. The schools job is to instill knowledge and thinking skills. NOT to teach religion.

Why in the world would you want the public schools teaching your children about religion? I don't want them to go near that. I will teach my children what my beliefs are, thank you very much, just as you should teach your own children your beliefs.

The schools are not there to teach about god, morality, or anything else, your children are supposed to know that already, from YOU!! Otherewise, you are NOT doing your job as a parent.

It is NOT the schools job to instill those into your children, it is your job. The school has a very basic function, to TEACH knowledge and thinking skills, that's it, that's all, there ain't no more.

Too bad that they aren't even doing that, but imagine if they taught religion as badly as they are teaching what they already are.

Come on, you CANNOT seriously think that the school would do a better job of instilling morality and the belief in YOUR god then you can. Can you?

Then let's NOT even go there.

Fact is that a lot of the textbooks are outdated, the schools and the states have wasted SO much money, that there is hardly any money left to teach. I would rather just shut the damn things down, I think that they are useless, except for making sheeple, they quit instilling knowledge a long time ago, now they just indoctrinate with a bunch of silly nonsense, and in order to pass the tests now, they are dumbing down the tests, instead of bringing the knowledge of the children up.

No, they are screwed up enough, I don't want them involved in anything else. Teach the facts, stay religious neutral and cross our fingers and hope to god that the kids that come out have some marketable skill, or can at least think a little bit.

[js1138]

The universe is approximately 6000 years old (the Adamic age plus creation week from God's point of view as observer) - and is also approximately 15 billion years old from our space/time coordinates as observer.

This is a variation on the assertion that God created the universe with an apparant history. To which, I ask, what is the point of planting false evidence? I cringe at the thought of a creator authorizing a document as innerant, but producing a universe that belies the document.

I will not accept the assertion that ancient people were too ignorant to understand the simple truth about the age of the universe. Other ancient cultures managed to come within an order of magnitude of the age of the earth. They were also closer to expressing quantum particle/wave duality. This doesn't mean they were scientifice, and it doesn't prove they were visited by alien encyclopedia salesmen, but it demonstrates that ancient people were smart enough to deal with large truths.

so why would the "revealed" number differ from the number obtained by research?

[f.Christian]

Your paranoia // hate borders on child abuse ! ! !

God // truth phobia - - -psycho ! ! !

[Doctor Stochastic]

So how old do you believe the Earth to be?

Do you claim that radioactive dating, tree ring counting, ice cores, etc. are all wrong (and conspire to give the same numbers.)

[exmarine]

Yes, ice cores are wrong. Proven that the cores are created by freeze-thaw cycles, not by seasons. How do I know? A plane crashed into a glacier inWW II and it has since been buried under many feet of ice - the ice had hundreds of rings but it is known that the plane crashed in the 1940s. So much for ice cores.

[f.Christian]

God can create an any age universe instantaneously - - -

but the rules aren't going to change much just to keep the death row losers like your self from saying . . .

God is arbitrary // 'tricky' // unfair - - - "railroaded" // "I wasn't told" // "framed" ! ! !

Everyone has sufficient evidence // warning ! ! !