Posted on 12/30/2005 2:29:22 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Evolutionists do belive in that stuff
If the debate has evolved, then why are there still retarded arguments that keep getting rehashed after repeated debunking? ( M203M4)
M203M4,
Evolution/creationism/intelligent design are rehased continually for one reason only: COMPULSORY GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS!
If there were NO government schools this topic would NOT be controversial.
There is NO way in which the government school can approach the topic of the origins of life without ESTABLISHING and upholding the religious worldview of some and undermine that of others. Hmmm???...Establish? Doesn't our Constitution have something to say about this.
Evolution is merely one of HUNDREDS of curriculum and policy decisions that have profound political, cultural, and religious consequences for the children.
Solution: Abolish government schools. Privatized universal K-12 education. What's needed is complete separation of SCHOOL and state.
The following is an excellent essay explaning why government schools crush freedom of conscience, and are unconstitutional on both the state and federal levels: ARE PUBLIC SCHOOLS CONSTITUTIONAL?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter9.htm
Lynn M. Stuter
January 20, 2003
NewsWithViews.com
As the war over education reform -- Goals 2000, school-to-work, and "outcome-based education" -- rages on, the time is more than ripe to ask ourselves, "Are public schools constitutional?"
Looking at the United States Constitution, no provision is made for education, but the Constitution does instruct that ... "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (Tenth Amendment) In other words, education is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Why, then, do we have a cabinet level United States Department of Education (US DOE)? Does this not violate the U.S. Constitution? In a word, "yes." The US DOE was established under the Carter Administration as a political payoff to the teacher unions for their support of Jimmy Carter for president.
Inquiry of the US DOE recently, concerning the constitutional authority on which it was established, brought an interesting response. No doubt many will be surprised to learn that the US DOE was established to help and support states in the area of education; and, therefore, doesn't require a constitutional mandate.
No doubt those reading federal legislation and laws, replete with "must" and "shall" as condition of receipt of federal tax dollars, would dispute the contention that the US DOE is there merely to help and support states in the matter of education. No doubt a competent constitutional attorney could make the case that federal laws concerning education have, in fact, served to move control of education from the state level to the federal level in violation of the Tenth Amendment.
So, if the Tenth Amendment reserves education to the state level, are public or government schools constitutional at the state level?
Article IX, Section 2, of the Constitution of the State of Washington, states, "The legislature shall provide for a general and uniform system of public schools..." This appears to conform with the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ... that is, until we look further.
Article IX fulfills the requirements laid down by Section 4 of the Enabling Act (25 U.S. Statutes at Large, c 180 p 676), approved February 22, 1889, providing the would-be states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and Washington the ability to "form constitutions and State governments and to be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States ..."
Section 4 of the Enabling Act reads, in part, "... said [constitutional] conventions shall provide, by ordinances irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said States: ... Fourth. That provision shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of systems of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of said States, and free from sectarian control."
The requirement that Washington State have a "general and uniform system of public schools" was mandated from the federal level when the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly reserves to the states that which is not specifically delegated to the United States? Why was this not challenged by the several states whose statehood was addressed by this Enabling Act? That challenge would have, no doubt, led back to Horace Mann and laws concerning compulsory education.
But the scope of conflict doesn't stop there. Note, under the Enabling Act, that public schools, by federal mandate, must be "free from sectarian control." Likewise, Article IX, Section 4, of the Washington State Constitution, to fulfill the requirements of the Enabling Act, states, "All schools maintained or supported wholly or in part by the public funds shall be forever free from sectarian control or influence."
Looking in the dictionary, we learn that "sectarian" is a derivation of "sect" meaning a group with a particular interest, purpose, or scope. Any religion has a "particular interest, purpose, or scope", does it not, whether it be Christianity, New Age, Hinduism, Buddhism, humanism ... or any one of the hundreds of religious sects on earth?
According to the Enabling Act and the Washington State Constitution, not one cent of public money may go to a school that is sectarian. None. Which brings us to another problem.
Every aspect of education, from the subjects taught, to the purpose of it, to the way it is taught (pedagogy), is based on a world view ... how one perceives the world and the purpose of it ... one's religious beliefs, one's religion, one's sectarian views.
For example, humanists (Darwinists) believe in evolution while Christians believe in creationism. Is evolution being taught in the public schools? Yes, it is and has been for many years. Is the religion of humanism being taught in the public schools? Humanism is the religious basis of education in the public schools of today. Does that violate the Washington State Constitution? Yes, it does.
But the Washington State Constitution requires the state have a "general and uniform system of public schools." How can that be done if every school is sectarian by virtue of its educational purpose? The answer, of course, is that it cannot be done.
How do we resolve this conflict of schools versus religion? Can education exist that doesn't have a basis in religion, that can be said to be secular? In a word, "No." Which, then, has priority, education or religion? It becomes apparent that religion (one's world view), as the basis of the education of the child, must take priority. This has been true since the beginning of time. Those who would say that schools today are without sectarian influence or control attempt to deny the religion of humanism that is the basis of education today.
Too, we need to look to the history of the United States for guidance in this matter. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." While many claim this establishes a "wall of separation" between church and state, such is not the case. Our Founding Fathers had first-hand experience with the religious intolerance of the Church of England. They were adamant that their newly formed government would never have the authority to establish a state religion, recognize a state religion, or have the power to persecute anyone or any religious group because of religious beliefs. The First Amendment is pivotal to the heritage and freedom of every American.
Following in the footsteps of the First Amendment, many, if not all, states have made provision for freedom of religion in their state constitutions, something on the order of "absolute freedom of conscience in matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual ..." (Article I, Section 11, Washington State Constitution) This fulfills the requirement of Section 4, First part of the Enabling Act: "That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of said States shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship."
When the concept of the local school came into being, controlled by local parents, not beholden to state or federal laws or regulations, Christianity was the world view upon which the curriculum was based. As a purely local matter, this did not violate the constitution of either the state or United States.
But when states began to assert control over schools and school districts, collect and apportion tax monies to schools, the question posed by this conflict should have arisen. It didn't. In 1962, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school prayer was unconstitutional in public schools, and public schools embraced the religion of humanism as the basis of their curricula, the question posed by this conflict should have again arisen. It didn't.
Are public schools constitutional? Based on freedom of religion, I do not believe they are. In those states have constitutional mandates concerning freedom of religion and schools, the conflict between the two needs to be addressed.
© 2003 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved
All suggestions are welcome.
Our universe is but one of an infinite number, all of which will support some form of life. Each universe has a start and an end and receives its 'matter' from a neighbouring universe through black holes (singular or plural) in the parent universe.
Because the number of universes is infinite in number and their creation and deaths are all staggered, at least one universe will have existed at any given time in the infinite past and will exist in the infinite future. The direction of time is reversed in some universes allowing those universes to give birth to their parent(s). Indeed since time has no meaning in the void which is the 'womb' the universes are born into, any daughter universe can also be the parent of any other universe.
In every one of these universes there exists at least one organism that reaches an intelligence capable of entering, and seeding with their own DNA, at least one neighbour universe. In this way, only natural causes that can be traced infinitely far back are needed to explain the creation of both matter and biological organisms.
Actually evos are more concerned with the development of life on Earth as we know it rather than speculating about outside interference. It's the IDists that claim the designer(s) could be extraterrestrial (but completely natural) aliens.
they have been proven wrong each time they open their mouth.
Wrong, sorry.
How about if you consider there is only one and only one universe. The universe encompasses everything as in elementary set theory.
Or if you insist on multiple universes of discourse, how about using an infinite series of Venn diagrams? The Venn diagrams need not be spherical with boundaries.
This could actually be a systems architecture engineering problem with a subsystems, interfaces and boundaries. With the greatest leverage being at the interfaces which is where the initial intelligent organism enters the system.
Now help me with my profile monitoring using generalized least squares as applied to the human response! LOL!
The problem with a single universe is the need for a beginning. The question will remain - where did the matter come from and who created the universe.
"Or if you insist on multiple universes of discourse, how about using an infinite series of Venn diagrams? The Venn diagrams need not be spherical with boundaries.
In that case there would be no need for an infinite series, a simple torus of Venn diagrams would work.
"This could actually be a systems architecture engineering problem with a subsystems, interfaces and boundaries. With the greatest leverage being at the interfaces which is where the initial intelligent organism enters the system.
Expand this a little for me.
"Now help me with my profile monitoring using generalized least squares as applied to the human response! LOL!
Only if you want to produce as many errors as possible.
Happy New Year ichy.
Expand this a little for me. The architecture of a complex software system is analogous to the infrastructure of a highly evolved social system or biological organism.
I am working on another masters degree in Systems Engineering at USC. I finished a course on Systems Architecture last semester. Here is one link I found on the subject. Notice it refers to biological organisms.
Can't really explain the entire course in an email, but it might be something to look into. Any other questions please ask, There are other links to google:
Sys Arch biological application
Now I still need help with profile monitoring...or I could use some raw data for statistical process control in the least!! ;)
No, not wrong, and I am not sorry
You better think long and hard about infinitie universes and infinite time because given both ID is a certainty.
You are feeding the troll.
Wrong, ID makes no claim whatsoever about a maker's origin being terrestrial or extra-terresstrial, that is where Creationists and ID promoters differ.
I attended a large ID conference at Yale a few years ago. ID allows for long time periods, allows for many things that Creation would argue against, so, it is NOT creationism repackaged like Limbaugh falsely asserts.
It is a pure scientific approach to the origin of life and the observations of life and chemical processes that make up life and our physical world, all done without the blinders of evolution to effect the outcome of results and teories supposed.
It is totally intellectual honesty, unlike the false religion of evolution.
Race isn't a troll, he's a marine and a damn fine American.
I'm still convinced that Mozart wrote that symphony. I realize that this is based more on a belief system as opposed to scientific study, but that really is my belief. I certainly can't PROVE he wrote it, either.
I bet that someone can show the mathematical odds that squids randomly squirting ink on paper could have produced the exact same score, and they might convince others that symphonies get produced through natural means -- but it'll take a lot more to convince me.
You can prove it because the written record of people who were there KNOW he wrote it.
Else, you have to toss all written records of all history ever written, including WWII because you didn't see it yourself.
And that means any history you did not witness, ever, at any time, including 9/11 because you weren't there, either.
And that is why evolution is NOT science at all.
observations are made the same way evolutionists do it, so, explain to me where they get their long time periods that we have no record of?
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.