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 ...
Catholic eh? Well then. Listen to the Pope.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/
LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
There are only 2 possible ways to think about this issue. The idea that there are only 2 possible alternatives, or refusing to let yourself get painted into that corner.
Evolution is religion. You have to have just as much or even more faith to accept the giant leaps and bounds the darwinism speculates on. And then of course it all has to be completely random, but with enough order to put things together. That really is what I find completely unbelievable.
but that’s not WHAT IT’S USED FOR.
Well said, better than I could have ever expessed it. Thanks.
Ok....So, you disagree with me. Then please describe for us the following:
1) Describe an educational setting that is simultaneously godless and God-centered. ( I claim that this is impossible.)
2) Please describe the curriculum and policies of a religiously neutral school. ( I will have great fun with that one. It is axiomatic. A religiously neutral education can not exist.)
3) Please describe a school that is something other than godless or God-centered. ( I claim that this is impossible.)
Evolution is merely one example among thousands in which government establishes the religious worldview of some and crushes that of others. The only possible solution is to get government out of education.
"Magic" goes hand in hand with belief in demigods such as "Nature" and "Evolution".
but that’s not WHAT IT’S USED FOR.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^a
Bingo!
That will most likely be later this year.
The above has every appearance of teaching about science within a godless educational worldview. It is not religiously neutral in content or consequences.
If Madison could see our modern government schools he would have lobbied for separation of **SCHOOL** and state. Why? Because education is never religiously neutral.
I disagree with the claim that the only two possibilities are that either everything must be explicitly theological and religiously centered or it has to be explicitly atheistic. You’re arguing that any time we’re not teaching people about God, we’re teaching them to be atheists, and I’m not buying it. If you’re looking to build any kind of consensus based on that it’s not going to happen. If you just like hearing yourself prostheletize then it’s a perfectly good argument.
Does the finding that the Earth circles the Sun challenge some incorrect religious dogma? Sure it does. Does this mean that one cannot teach this evidence without taking a “religious” stance, or adopting a “godless worldview”? Of course not. Religious beliefs are completely tangential to the evidence that the Earth circles the Sun rather than the reverse as many religions once taught.
Of course some seem incapable of noting this distinction. Just because a finding challenges dogmatic religious belief doesn't mean the Scientist has taken a stance either for or against that religious belief. The evidence is what it is.
Even the Pope believes in the weight of the evidence. So teaching the evidence is taking a religious stance for the Pope and against Young Earth Creationists? No. Teaching the evidence is teaching the evidence. That is Science.
When all you have is a hammer problems look like nails.
Please reread my posts. I believe that you have misunderstood me. I am **NOT**NOT* NOT* arguing that evolution can not coexist with faith. NO! NO! NO!
I **personally*** believe in much of what evolution teaches. I personally believe that evolution CAN coexist with faith. This is what I taught my homeschooled children.
I seriously doubt, though, that the Pope would advocate the teaching of science completely scrubbed of any reference of God, or taught from a godless perspective....at least not for Catholic youth.
I **AM** stating that the government can not approach the topic of evolution in a religiously neutral manner. The government school has only two options: A godless worldview or a God-centered worldview. Neither of these options are religiously neutral.
As I see it there are bullies on both sides. Each wishes to use the force of government ( that means police power). Each side wants to use government compulsion to teach children its version of the origins of man and the universe. One side is godless, and the other is God-centered and neither are religiously neutral.
We must do the sensible thing. We must get government out of the education business. Let parents, principals, and teachers decide if the education offered will be godless or God-centered in its worldview.
It's already happening and you are powerless to stop it.
Which specific religions have been "crushed" by the United States government?
For those who are interested in having more polite discussions on crevo topics, we now have the capability to open the same thread on an Ecumenical tag so that the rules of discourse are more closely watched. I opened this same thread with the tag so that the discussion would be more polite and not degenerate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2044051/posts
Yes, I think so.
While the facts of science are neutral the framework in which they are taught are not, and it is impossible to teach in an environment free of framework.
There are only 2 possible options:
1) Science can reflect the glory of God and the facts presented within that framework. This is not religiously neutral in content or consequences.
Or...
2) Science and its facts are presented in a framework that ignores God. This is not religiously neutral in content or consequences.
There are no other options.
Please, let's get government out of the K-12 religiously non-neutral education business. Let parents and teachers decide upon a godless or God-centered framework in the private setting of private schools.
Did you open that under a “Scientism” tag, using your definition of “Scientism” as being a religion?
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.