Posted on 07/11/2008 4:06:06 AM PDT by Soliton
Louisiana is another story. A hub of creationist activism since the early 1980s, it was Louisiana that enacted the Balanced Treatment Act, which required that creationism be taught alongside evolution in schools. In a landmark 1987 case known as Edwards vs Aguillard, the US Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, effectively closing the door on teaching "creation science" in public schools. ID was invented soon afterwards as a way of proffering creationist concepts without specific reference to God.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
This is what I believe as well...and this is why science can't address God -- it would have to be able to prove or disprove His existance.
“Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).”
A discovery after the fact?
Do you believe the Universe was created in 6 days, approximately 6000 years ago?
Now, predict when the next major human/hominid speciation event will occur and how many genes will it involve.
Speciation may well involve some aspect of DNA management than the genes themselves, but it's not a consequence of readily identifiale changes in genes.
Can we disprove theories of particle physics by failing to predict the next path a particle trace will take through a cloud chamber?
I have NOT accused **YOU** of anything!
My comments have been **entirely** directed at **teaching** methods!
Please do not accuse me of personal insult when I have done NO SUCH THING!
Can you explain how it was a “discovery after the fact” or do you just want to move on to a new lame excuse why this wasn't a prediction based upon the theory of evolution?
When you describe the path before hand, then do the experiment, and a different path is taken, you failed to predict the path.
When it comes to discussions of DNA transformations that occurred in the distant past it's a stretch to call any of it "predictions". It's more like describing what happened than in predicting that which can happen in the future.
That's something that already happened.
He didn't predict the technology it took to describe the nucleic differece between men and apes. Really blew it in fact. There's not the slightest inkling that anyone in Darwin's day had regarding DNA. Doublehelix simply didn't fall from their lips eh.
We can predict them if we produce and directed the particles. What mathematical model will describe beforehand paths produced by naturally occurring radiation, like cosmic rays?
Oh sure. Your not saying I have a Godless worldview philosophy with that post. How could I possibly have thought so?/s
So does Pope Benedict XVI have a Godless worldview as well? The Pope and I seem to be in agreement about the preponderance of evidence for evolution, he even used the word proof, which I would not, so apparently he is even more convinced than I am.
We can, in fact, gen up statistical averages, etc. that are useful in “predicting” probable pathways for such items. That way we can build satellites that are protected against what will be their normal environment.
We aren’t talking about statistical averages. We’ve talking about predicting, at any given moment exactly what track the next particle that passes through that chamber will produce. If we can’t do that, does that render the theories of particle physics invalid?
Here we have a situation in "evolution" that's really troublesome. Mice and men have essentially the same number and type of genes.
Whales and bats are essentially indistinguishable from mice and men, rats, bats, horses, pigs and monkeys at the genetic level.
Given that genes were acceped as the likely geerators of "characteristics" I'd suggest that particular thesis may be in grave danger and should be questioned.
I’m not questioning your thesis. I’m questioning your methodology.
Citizen Blade
Your post seems to express a sincere question so I will very respectfully answer your questions.
This statement puzzles me.
Having once rejected religion and having once adopted a godless worldview, yes, I do understand that this statement would confuse you.
Very little in education involves the mention of a supreme being- how do you make math God-centred or atheistic?
In my homeschool I reminded my children that mathematics is evidence of a rational God. I also reminded them that there is likely more math ( and more evidence of God's rationality) to be discovered. Also, I reminded them that our religion teaches that we are expected to seek out and discover this knowledge.
What about English?
Except for the genre of man overcomes nature, almost all literature involves the keeping or breaking of the Ten Commandments. Much of the world's poetry is an expression of gratitude for the beauty of God's earth, or the love that we have for each other. Love is another gift from God.
Chemistry?
Physics and chemistry, and all laws involved, are evidence of a rational God, and I reminded my children of this frequently in our study of these subjects.
Your statement makes as much sense as claiming that it is impossible to make ice cream in a religiously neutral manner.
The making of ice cream is a demonstration of the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore is evidence of a rational God.
I suppose you can try to shoehorn the topic of religion into any subject, but that just seems like a waste of time.
It is a commandment that we speak of God in all things to our children. Please read Deut6: 6-9.
I don't remember the topic of religion coming up one way or the other- our teachers were too busy trying to teach us trig, or understanding Shakespeare, or making us memorize the the periodic table of elements.
If your educational setting was a godless Secular one then it would not come up. My husband and I were educated in Catholic schools. Not one student in the class had any doubt that the teacher believed that all things were created by God, and that these subjects were are reflection of God's order.
Also,...It is impossible to fully discuss and understand Shakespeare without discussing God, the devil, evil, good, the Commandments, fallen man, and sin etc. Having a thorough and complete understanding of Christianity is essential to understanding Shakespeare, even if the student or teacher does not subscribe to the religion of Christianity. Christian belief was the very grain of the fabric of Shakespeare's culture.
There are parochial schools that incorporate religious teachings into the subject-matter.
Yes, I agree they do.
But most parents don't have any real interest in that- they would prefer to be the ones to teach religion, while using the schools as a place for their kids to focus on non-religious subjects.
The First Amendment does not apply to most or some of the people. It applies to **all** of the people (especially the minority).
It is **not** religiously neutral to force children into godless Secular schools and scrub God from the curriculum. It teaches them that God is irrelevant to their lives. At a minimum it teaches them that God is irrelevant to their education. This is **not** religiously neutral!
Government schools promote a godless religious worldview. They never were, are not now, and never can be religiously neutral. It is impossible.
Government schools are a First Amendment and freedom of conscience abomination! The solution to the thousands of utterly irresolvable philosophical conflicts is to privatize universal K-12 education.
How about the prediction that a population subjected to heat stress will accumulate mutations to better survive heat stress? Is that also not a prediction based upon the theory of evolution through natural selection? How so?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The above is a godless educational philosophy.
If education were privatized, those who subscribe to this philosophy could choose this for their children. Those who would want something different could choose that.
I.D. is not synonymous with God. Rejection of I.D. in no way renders one Godless.
Is the Pope's view Godless as well? He seems convinced of the “proof” of evolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.